The difference between the two methods *today* is:
1. *can* be verified or disproved by other DNA experts.
2. can neither be verified nor can it be disproven by other expert
1. may not be compared with some unknown *hypothetical* method of the
--- In Zen_Forum@yahoogroups.com, <billsm...@...> wrote:
> What is the difference between these two scenarios?
> 1. TODAY: A man is accused of rape and murder. He is brought to trial
by jury. Semen is found in the body of the woman. DNA is extracted from
the accused and from the semen. A DNA expert comes into court and
testifies that the samples are a match. The jury believes the DNA expert
and convicts the accused.
> 2. 300 YEARS AGO: A man is accused of rape and murder. He is brought
to trial by jury. A priest comes into court and testifies that he cut
open a cat and saw in the entrails that the man was guilty. The jury
believes the priest and convicts the accused.
> And before you answer, do you really believe the members of each of
these juries knows enough themselves about DNA or cat entrails to make a
decision on anything else than just the testimony of the expert witness?
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: