12th of May, 2014 (Monday)
17th of February, 2015 (Tuesday)
Pfft! Why not check the fingerprints? Don't need high tech for that, and it would eliminate the clone hypothesis.
I bet we'll be able to fake fingerprints before DNA in the future.
9th of June, 2015 (Tuesday)
@lagamorph Sure, if you're a 2-month or younger foetus.
22nd of June, 2015 (Monday)
What I mean to say is that from that point it's pretty much set in stone for a human being. The only way to alter it is through scarification and that's fairly obvious.
DNA, on the other hand, is almost as difficult to permanently alter. What you'd want to do is probably gene therapy of some sort, which is getting a lot more money (due to the actual purposes it serves) as opposed to faking fingerprints (which is difficult and lacks a legitimate reason to do).
22nd of July, 2015 (Wednesday)
Fingerprinting is a pretty weak "science" as it is. It doesn't conclusively prove much of anything. That line about "Fingerprints are like snowflakes; no two are the same" is horseshit. That's cut from the marketing pitch they used to get police departments to adopt the "science" when it was new.
26th of October, 2015 (Monday)
No, it's simply easy for human error to take place. They ARE unique - but factors can make many fingerprints similar.
16th of November, 2015 (Monday)
[continuing thread re: fingerprints]
... to the extent that.. was it the FBI or the CIA? ... mistakenly Disappeared someone for months on end, interrogating/torturing, before realizing they had the wrong person (merely someone with very similar fingerprints to the actual person they wanted).
Add a new comment:
Be nice to other people (especially if you don't agree with them).
Comments with links may not show until moderated.
Please ignore this field, it is for spam