I actually don't know what you mean by this. Do you actually know what they test for in DNA?
Why is DNA testing not perfect?
There are reasonable error margins due to inaccuracy of lab work. In theory if it can be established that a person does not have a twin then DNA testing is near perfect, but in practice that's not the case at this point in time.
It's still better than fingerprints though, and far better than eyewitness testimony.
Once again there seems to be confusion between possible and likely. This time the debate involves DNA testing.
A: DNA evidence is more accurate that eyewitness accounts.
B: No, eyewitness accounts are better.
A: Why?
B: (completely ignoring the major flaws with eyewitness testimony) Because DNA has been shown to be inaccurate in rare instances.
The original question asks which method is MORE RELIABLE. Instead, it gets sideswiped into a debate on why DNA isn't 100% reliable. Sigh.
Once again there seems to be confusion between possible and likely. This time the debate involves DNA testing.
A: DNA evidence is more accurate that eyewitness accounts.
B: No, eyewitness accounts are better.
A: Why?
B: (completely ignoring the major flaws with eyewitness testimony) Because DNA has been shown to be inaccurate in rare instances.
The original question asks which method is MORE RELIABLE. Instead, it gets turned into a debate on why DNA isn't 100% reliable. Sigh.
Its not even the original question.
Its a tangent injected into a supernatural discussion that went off on a DNA discussion when a new thread should have been created.
