J.J. Yong asked:




The introduction of genetic evidence into the courtroom is making justice more certain, for both the guilty and the innocent.

Thanks to advancements in science and technology, law enforcement officials and prosecutors are relying more and more on DNA evidence during criminal investigations and trials of criminal cases in order to prove with certainty that someone committed a crime.

But clerical errors in DNA handling and interpretation have caused the innocents to be convicted of crimes.

In 1999, a sample taken from a burglary scene had matched to six loci on the DNA molecule of one of 700,000 persons in national database. The suspect had alibis and incapable to commit the crime and yet, he was wrongfully took in for imprisonment. The reasoning was that his DNA pattern would occur only once in 37 million individuals.

Despite the statistical calculation of 1 in 37 million on six loci, however it does NOT mean that the six loci cannot match more than one person in 37 million. According to population geneticists, it is indeed possible to have the six loci match in perhaps many dozens of individuals whose DNA is contained in a databank of 700,000.

The police in Great Britain maintain a DNA database that has grown from 470,000 potential suspects in 1998 to over 700,000 during 1999. The Forensic Science Service manages the U.K. database. It is now reported that ten loci will henceforth be used routinely when comparing known samples against unknown DNA fragments.

The FBI is reported to test 13 different loci, which minimizes the chance of matching an innocent suspect by chance.

This misinterpretation of the statistical results in light of the case circumstances was revealed by British authorities only in January of 2000 when a law enforcement conference of DNA specialists worldwide meeting.

That was 6 months freedom of the innocently convicted that has been luckily cleared off from his 'conviction'.

This month, Illinois fired its DNA lab, Fairfax County-based Bode Technology, for failing to detect semen in 11 out of 51 rape cases. State police said the errors had not wrongly freed or convicted anyone, but they said they would have to reanalyze evidence in 1,200 rape cases.

At a July murder trial in Michigan, prosecutors acknowledged that a DNA test on evidence from 1969 matched someone who would have been 4 years old at the time of the slaying and couldn't possibly have been involved. Additional tests led to a second man, who was convicted.

DNA reliability has been lauded nationally as the most reliable evidence known. It is just miscalculation in a lot of factors, which should not happen.

One Great Genealogy Site!

Fabiola Castillo asked:




Mitochondrial DNA is a very useful tool in forensic science. It has been used to identify human remains and perpetrators of a crime. It has also been used to determine ancestry.

In traditional DNA testing, nuclear DNA is used. Nuclear DNA (nDNA) can be removed from any nucleated cell. However, there are cells that do NOT contain nuclear DNA. These cells are called non-nuclear DNA cells. Where else is DNA found? Mitochondria contain DNA. Mitochondria are tiny organelles that live within the cytoplasm of a cell. Their role in a cell is to produce energy used for the cell's metabolic processes.

A minute amount of DNA is found within the mitochondria. Each cell contains many tiny mitochondria organelles. Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) is important for several reasons:

mtDNA

passes from parent to offspring via the maternal lineage is found in places where nDNA can not be found rarely mutates is highly stable

Your mitochondrial DNA comes unchanged from only your mother. She receives hers from her mom, and her mom from her mom, and so on and so forth.

Upon fertilization, the mother contributes to the zygote her egg AND half of her DNA. The father, on the other hand, only contributes half of his DNA via the sperm. The sperm then degenerates after passing its genetic material into the nucleus of the egg cell. Therefore, all the cellular parts of the developing zygote are contributed from the mom, including the mitochondria. As the zygote divides and multiplies, these mitochondria are duplicated and passed on, parent organelle to offspring organelle, parent organelle to offspring organelle. This means that all the cells of a body have mtDNA that are consistent with that of the mom.

Genetic mutation of mtDNA is thought to happen about once every 6,000 years. This means that mtDNA is highly stable unlike nDNA. This also means that you essentially have the same mtDNA as your mom, your maternal grandmother, and all your maternal ancestors from hundreds or even thousands of years ago. For this reason, you can accurately trace back your maternal heritage through several generations.

Because of mtDNA's high stability, forensic scientists can many times remove it from the bones and teeth of very old skeletons and thus utilize it to determine the maternal lineage of skeletal remains. Mitochondrial DNA can also be found in some tissues where nuclear DNA normally does not exist. For instance, dead cellular debris can be found in human hair. However, the only thing that is living in human hair the follicle, where it is rich in nDNA. Nuclear DNA can be extracted from here and used for DNA profiling and matching. Simply put, hair that has been pulled out during a struggle or shed with its follicular bulb attached can be a rich source of nDNA.

Consider what happens if CSI's find human hair that has been cut and there is no follicular bulb attached? This hair can still provide clues.

As hair grows, the cells of the follicular bulb multiply, undergo transformation, and become an integral part of the growing hair. Part of this change includes the loss of the nucleus from each cell. Therefore, this hair is absent of nDNA, and the dead cells that are an integral part of the growing hair may contain mtDNA. If this is the case, mtDNA can be isolated and used for identifying the person to whom the hair belongs.

The next time you watch your favorite CSI program and see what they do with trace evidence such as human hair, you will know why they focus on the hair follicle for nuclear DNA and the hair for mtDNA.

The Official Guide to Ancestry.com

Jerry Richard Boone asked:


Homology and Bio-Chemical Similarities

Do biological and bio-chemical similarities necessarily mean common ancestors? What else could it mean?

Homology and bio-chemical similarities are really the same argument. Both allege that similar features in different organisms are due to inheritance from a common ancestor. Evolutionists use a number of studies to identify matching traits.

Homology examines similarities of bone structures from different animals. DNA hybridization evaluates the closeness of species relationship by how many DNA strands from different species can be matched.

Electrophoritic analysis show the degree of similarity of proteins from different species. And protein sequencing measures the closeness of relationship by the amount of DNA coding change which is needed to produce the slightly different proteins of different species. One protein sequencing study, for instance, shows there is only one percent difference between chimpanzees and humans.

Forelimbs are the most widely cited example of homology. You may have seen the drawings in school. A human arm is compared bone by bone with forelimbs of whales, dogs, bats, and sometimes a bird wing. After noting how closely they correspond, evolutionists conclude these limbs are based on the same pattern because they evolved from a common ancestor.

More recently, measurable protein and DNA similarities have added more of a scientific punch to the claim. But the argument remains as before. The more similar the form, the closer it is related, and the more recent is the common ancestor.

Based on proteins and DNA studies, evolutionists think that orangutans separated from the man-chimpanzee-gorilla group ten or eleven million years ago. DNA hybridization test indicate gorillas branched away from the man-chimp line eight to ten million years ago. But chimpanzees and humans didn't separate until six or seven million years ago. At any rate, that is what microbiologists believe.

The question is, does similarity necessarily mean relationship? A boat, a plane, and a car are all similar. Each is a means of transportation; each has a type of engine to provide power; each requires fuel; each has a guidance system; each requires a human to make it function; each has an enclosure to protect the passengers; and each has seats for the convenience of the passengers. See the similarities?

But are the boat, plane, and car related? No. They are similar because they were all designed for a similar purpose - transportation. And they all came from the mind of man.

When the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk, they didn't start from scratch. Engines already existed, seats already existed, and baling wire already existed. Orville and Wilbur did not need to reinvent the wheel. They used all the technology on hand to help build their plane. By the same token, why would we expect the Creator to start from scratch every time he designs a new plant, animal, or human? His proven bio-chemical technology was already at hand.

Many features, proteins and DNA sequences in man are similar to or identical to other primates. We agree. But that doesn't prove man and chimpanzee had a common ancestor. It's just as reasonable to decide that the same Creator made them both.

Many General Motors' cars have a similar look and very similar, often identical, parts under the hood. Certainly, no one claims they descended from a common ancestor. You and I know those cars are so much alike because they originated in the minds of the same designers. It may well be that chimpanzees and man have a lot in common because they too originated in the mind of the same designer.

Embryology

In 1868 Ernst Haeckel, an enthusiastic supporter of evolution, formulated his "fundamental biogenetic law." It states that an embryo goes through stages during which it resembles its ancestry. At one point, the human embryo has a feature resembling fish gills, so we must have had fish in our ancestry, concluded Haeckel.

According to Haeckel, everything in the animal kingdom descended from a gastrula, which is an early stage in most animals embryonic development. He faked evidence to support his claim. Haeckel was caught and admitted that some of his embryonic drawings were forgeries.

Notwithstanding, the gill slit misconception caught on and is still cited as evidence that humans evolved from fish. Although the pouches do superficially resemble fish gills, they have nothing to do with breathing. They are the early states of the lower jaw, ear, and neck including the thyroid and parathyroid glands. It's a feature of embryonic function, not evolution.

What this embryonic claim really proved was just how eager nineteenth century evolutionists were to use any argument, however specious, to further their cause.

Vestigial Organs

Gill slits are just one example of what evolutionists call vestigial organs. The idea is that sometime in the distant past these organs had a purpose, but they are no longer useful. Vestigial organs imply evolution. If man were created, there would be no reason for them. Evolutionists found 180 vestigial organs, most of which were muscles. Only six are still around. The rest are now known to be useful or even essential.

From 180 down to six is a pretty good drop in vestigial organs. Given a few more years, it is reasonable to think we might find functions for the rest of them too. Naturalists no longer stress vestigial organs. They have proved to be an embarrassment.

Lost Functions

Certainly, organs can lose their functions. Wingless insects show up on isolated islands., large flightless birds turn up in Africa, and blind fish and amphibians are found in deep caves. But it is difficult to see any evolutionary gain in the loss of a function. True, the loss of a function does make them different. They are oddities. Their chance of survival cannot be enhanced by the loss. If anything, the blind or flightless creatures are one step closer to extinction.

Bone structures, proteins, and DNA sequences all reveal similarities and differences between species. But none prove evolution anymore than they prove creation. Bear in mind, the same Creator could produce different types of creatures using many of the same biological parts and much of the same bio-chemical technology. Why would he do otherwise?

Embryology was based in a combination of superficial resemblances and faked evidence. What did it prove? Not much, other than at least one nineteenth-century evolutionist was dishonest, and many others were gullible. Human embryos do not have gills; they have pouches which look somewhat like fish gills. Embryology does not prove evolution.

Vestigial organs have steadily diminished over the years. Evolutionists no longer rely on them to support their theory, although they still occasionally turn up in textbooks. Of the original 180 vestigial organs listed, 174 were later found to have functions.

What's the bottom line? Bottom line is: neither evolution nor creationism can be proved by biological similarities, embryology, vestigial organs, or lost functions.



Ancestry.com DNA testing

Olivia Hunt asked:


In the nucleus of nearly all human cells there are 46 small structures that are called chromosomes. These chromosomes are made up generally of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA). DNA contains the genetic instructions which make people the way they are. These genetic instructions are written in a four letter chemical alphabet: A (adenine), T (thymine), C (cytosine) and G (guanine). Researchers can just find a use for about 3% of the DNA in our cells.

Paternal and maternal lineages. The two well-known types of genetic genealogy tests are the Y-DNA - paternal line - and mtDNA - maternal line - genealogical DNA tests. These tests compare the DNA of a person to that of another to define how many generations ago the two individuals shared their most recent common ancestor. These tests permit two people to define with all the certainty that they are related within a certain time frame or the vice versa.

Biogeographical and ethnic origins. Additional DNA tests exist for defining biogeographical and ethnic origin.

Human migration. Genealogical DNA testing methods are used for a longer time to trace human migratory models and define, for instance, when and how the first human beings came to the North America. One significant attempt that is presently happening is the genographic project. It aims at mapping historical human migration models by analyzing DNA patterns from more than 100,000 people all over five continents.

Genetic genealogy gives genealogists a model to check the historical record with data from genetic information. A positive test match with another individual may discover living relatives, validate existing research, give locations for further genealogical research, confirm or deny suspected connections between families, help define ancestral homeland, prove or disprove theories regarding ancestry.

The important reasons of that people do not want to be DNA tested is the price of these tests and problems with private issues. Nevertheless, the price becomes more than just affordable. In addition, confidentiality of one's genetic markers can be restricted to families or groups. Such data results, where there are the data of people’s analyses, are often anonymous and are identified by a quantity which may be known to the person itself.

More than that, Y-DNA and mtDNA testing just trace one lineage, (in other words, one's father's father's father's etc. lineage or one's mother's mother's mother's etc. lineage). Several generations back, a person has 1024 ancestors and a Y-DNA or mtDNA test. It studies 10 of those 1024 ancestors. To my mind almost all human societies fit the cultural pattern that coincides with the genetic data. The article reflects the holistic, integrating approach of anthropology nature and respects a long tradition in anthropology and population studies.



Ancestry.com DNA testing