Decius wrote:
] American military officials confirmed today that Saddam
] Hussein had been captured alive in Tikrit on Saturday night.
]
] They confirmed that it was him based on DNA evidence.
]
] Not that I suspect they have the wrong guy, but this IS
] bullshit. You can't confirm identity using DNA tests. DNA
] tests can prove that someone is not the same as the person who
] contributed the sample material, but not the other way around.
]
]
] In Baghdad, huge crowds celebrated in the streets with
] gunfire.

I'm confused. Why not just blot the shit out and see that the lines match?

Jello wrote:
] I'm confused. Why not just blot the shit out and see that the
] lines match?

I'm confused by your question. Only one human genome has ever been sequenced, and they aren't even sure they got that right. DNA testing involves just a few genes. Two people can have the exact same DNA test results. Its as rare as it can be, but its not unique.

Decius wrote:
] Jello wrote:
] ] I'm confused. Why not just blot the shit out and see that
] the
] ] lines match?
]
] I'm confused by your question. Only one human genome has ever
] been sequenced, and they aren't even sure they got that right.
] DNA testing involves just a few genes. Two people can have the
] exact same DNA test results. Its as rare as it can be, but its
] not unique.

It's DNA testing routinely used to confirm identity for paternity cases?

Elonka wrote:
] It's DNA testing routinely used to confirm identity for
] paternity cases?

Yes. The short story is that thats a different kind of test then "forensic" DNA tests. Its a lot easier because you are working with three people who are related. Furthermore, you can usually narrow potential parents down to people you've had sex with. In such a small group the possibility of having a incorrect match actually is negligible.

I did some more reading on the forensic stuff. Its really really hard to get good information about the subject because it seems like most people involved in the debate have an interest in a particular answer. I found web pages run by scientists that said in one place that forensic DNA tests could match one person against any other person who had ever lived, and then in other places that "the difference between 1 in 10 million and 1 in 100 million is really insignificant." The accuracy of the tests seems to require a large database of control samples from the community in question. I would venture that siblings are even more likely to incorrectly match then people from the same community, but I didn't find any statistics about that.

It does seem like the information I had before, which came from one of nanochicks profs, was overstated. Its much much easier to prove innocence then guilt with a DNA test. Whether a 1 in 10 million chance is a "reasonable doubt" depends on the circumstances of the case. If there is other evidence then it can be strengthened by such a result. But in the absolute absence of any other evidence then it probably isn't conclusive if you consider that you are talking about the population of Los Angeles. (Particularly considering that 1 in 100 tests seem to fail due to lab contaminants, and they can't detect that, and evidence tampering is always a possibility too).

The specifics of this case are not really important. They know who they have. The DNA test was simply intended to prevent questions in the minds of Iraqis about Hussein having doubles, etc... Whether or not it is ultimately conclusive isn't really important as long as it keeps people from asking questions.

Decius wrote:

] The specifics of this case are not really important. They know
] who they have. The DNA test was simply intended to prevent
] questions in the minds of Iraqis about Hussein having doubles,
] etc... Whether or not it is ultimately conclusive isn't really
] important as long as it keeps people from asking questions.

yeah. we wouldn't want anyone asking questions, now would we?

Like why it's taken so long to find this guy (considering that just recently did the armed forces started raiding guerilla strongholds in Tikrit). Or why we haven't been able to find the other guy...

I suppose he'll be found just in time for the approval polls to get a little bump.

flynn23 wrote:

] I suppose he'll be found just in time for the approval polls
] to get a little bump.

Wicked thinking. :)