Timothy McDougald
Posts: 1036 Joined: Dec. 2006
|
Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Aug. 15 2008,21:35) | Quote (Tulle @ Aug. 15 2008,19:57) | Since I am just a stupid software guy who does image processing. I know how easy it is to fake pixel based thingys. I wanna know would it be hard these days to throw together some fake DNA with a mix of human and ape good enough to make it look like it might be hominid DNA.
PS... yes I am ashamed by all those "expert" ID types that have a background in software.
Oh, and one thing I do know... never let the PhD guy write software unless his PhD is in computer science. I had to untangle some math guys stuff. He was a great at math, but he should have been kept away from the complier. I had to get a shot at you smart guys. |
i dont think that is possible. like someone said before they could give you a fake sequence but no way are they going to construct any significant sized chunk of DNA that also fits in the right phylogenetic node (which as noted above could be in several different clades, no one knows what the hell 'bigfoot' would be).
which by the way is interesting, gigantopithecus. i wish it were true. i hear bigfoot is in northern california. |
Yes, I have to agree. In order to pull something like that off you would need short enough sequences that they couldn't identify the species, but then you would have to say that the DNA has degraded in order to explain the short sequences. Then you would have to explain why the DNA is degraded in a fresh specimen. All in all it would be easier to fake a report than it would be to fake the actual DNA.
Rumor has it bigfoot is in southern Missouri as well...
-------------- Church burning ebola boy
FTK: I Didn't answer your questions because it beats the hell out of me.
PaV: I suppose for me to be pried away from what I do to focus long and hard on that particular problem would take, quite honestly, hundreds of thousands of dollars to begin to pique my interest.
|