"1:3,000,000"
That's it? That's the odds of DNA being wrong? Those are appalling odds to base a case on.
Just as a reminder - the odds of winning the national loterry are 1:14,000,000 (ish) and yet someone does that nearly every two weeks.
So if DNA has only a 1:3,000,000 chance of being wrong, they are more than four times as likely to be wrong than the odds of someone winning the Lottery. So there could be a mistake every 3 or 4 days with those odds.
Not exactly the best system, is it?
42 comments
1 in 14 million as odds for a NATIONAL lottery? I want those odds!
Wow, that's remarkably bad math. How can DNA be 'wrong,' and more specifically, why would it have millions of attempts at being wrong every week?
DNA is a terrible system, thats why Down's syndrome and other genetic diseases are so prevalent, in fact we would see the true failure rate even more clearly if we counted all the mutations that caused the zygote not to come to term.
A "mistake" with DNA happens all the time. People are born color blind, hereditary genetic diseases are around and let's not forget about flies being born with a set of legs where the antennea were supposed to be.
Poor DNA replication is part of what fuels mutations; mutations that can spell death, a favorable trait for adapting and evolving, or a change that isn't harmful and can remain and possibly play a part in the future.
Is this guy talking about DNA evidence in crimes? SO basically, he thinks a 99.99997% accuracy rate isn't good enough and they should go back to the 50% accuracy rate of beating confessions out of people or planting evidence. Lovely.
Actually the odds of two DNA sequences being identical through chance alone dramatically increase for each nucleotide extension of the sequence.
Oh, but in the UK the chances of winning the national lottery with any one particular line is
@"anevilmeme"
Fundies and math, kinda reminds you of Wile E. Coyote and anvils.
THE SONG: (back because we need it!)
This quote is a bit out of context. The poster was questioning the accuracy of DNA testing, and asking that there be other forensic evidence to back it up, rather than just establishing a national DNA database and using it as the sole basis on which to convict criminals.
I heard an interesting quote about statistics at my volunteer position this summer. Someone over the radio noticed that there were more people sitting in the chairs than the mats, unlike the usual preference for the mats. One of my supervisors replied "Well, statistics are like whores. Once you get them down, they'll do anything you want"
Just as a reminder - the odds of winning the national loterry are 1:14,000,000 (ish) and yet someone does that nearly every two weeks. millions of people playing the lottery. The odds of any given person (who buys one ticket) winning are pretty shitty.
You fail basic probability, because it somehow escapes you that the number of trials can affect the number of successes or failures.
@SandmanThat has got to be the worst understanding of statistics I have ever seen. It wouldn't even be worth trying to explain to this person why they are wrong, they don't even know what statistics are.
I think I've seen worse, frighteningly enough. One moron at a board I posted at quite some time ago made an argument to the effect of "if evolution were true, there is a 950% chance that a monkey gave birth to a human in the past 20 years" after doing some calculations. (I don't remember if the particular quote got posted here - may have been while the site was on hiatus.) It was truly impressive, contained some astounding errors in both understanding of evolution and application of statistics.
I think some people here have missed what he was saying - that DNA evidence is not a good system for providing evidence in legal proceedings.is saying is that the DNA detection and/or profiling systems themselves can be wrong, ie Human error exists.
1:3,000,000"
Actually, those are pretty good odds. A one in three million chance of being wrong is not bad at all.
Just as a reminder - the odds of winning the national loterry are 1:14,000,000 (ish) and yet someone does that nearly every two weeks.
WTF?!
You fail. Big time.
Let me spell it out for you, since you clearly have no idea how statistics work.
If the odds of winning the lottery are 1 in 14 million, then there will be one winner for every 14 million people who play. If someone wins the lottery every fortnight, that means there are one million people playing each day.
If you have a million serious crimes per day, then the accuracy of your DNA testing is probably the least of your worries.
So if DNA has only a 1:3,000,000 chance of being wrong, they are more than four times as likely to be wrong than the odds of someone winning the Lottery.
Given those numbers, yes.
However:
1. Even if your number was right, the odds are still extremely slim.
2. The odds of being wrong are 1 in 3 b m So there could be a mistake every 3 or 4 days with those odds.
Not unless you have a million murders, assaults, or rapes per day.
Not exactly the best system, is it?
It's an amazingly good system, unless you have reason to suspect that the DNA evidence has been tampered with.
No, it's a fairly inaccurate, unnecessarily redundant system.
If I were God, I would have designed mankind as robots and said, "Fuck evolution, I want cyborgs!"
It's 1:3,000,000,000, not 1:3,000,000.
Also, that is why people who do genetic tests use things like fingernail clippings, blood samples, and saliva swabs, so any errors can be ironed out.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
