Misused Mathematics of DNA Sampling

Mathematics is the basis of modern technology. But it is also the basis of many false assertions. I have written previously about how statistics are (miss)used in stock market analysis. This article looks at the miss-application of math in DNA Sampling.

When DNA experts testify in court, they typically describe the probability of a false match as 1 in 100 trillion (1/100,000,000,000,000). That seems like a virtual certainty. But where did they get this number?

First a little background on DNA Sampling: Technicians extract DNA, use enzymes to cut it into pieces, process it then compare the different segments, or loci as they call it. To be admissible in court, there must be matches on 9 loci, or segments. DNA analysts typically use 13 loci, and empirical evidence suggests a random match occurs about 1 in 10 times for one loci. These two pieces of information is where the above number comes from;

(1/10)¹³

This is pure mathematics. The probability of two DNA samples matching exactly is 1 in 100 trillion. But there is problem – “empirical evidence suggests a random match occurs about 1 in 10 times for one loci”. This is one of innumerable cases of getting subjective probability mixed up with frequentist probability. The former measures knowledge of an event, the latter measures mathematical probability. The problem with this particular mixup is that we don’t know for a fact that random matches occur at an exact frequency of 1 in 10. There is missing information, specifically, do the random matches always occur at this rate, or are there circumstances we haven’t encountered where this is not the case?

The Empirical Case

A study was done on the Arizona CODIS DNA database that found 1 in every 228 profiles in the database matched another profile in the database at nine or more loci. This in a database containing only 65,493 entries.

Conclusion

So the miss-applied mathematical probability of false DNA matches is claimed to be 1 in trillions (depending on number of loci). Real world practice reveals a probability of 1 in 228 (or less, with a larger dataset). Which is correct? Which number should be used in court? Definitely not the mathematical one, because it is falsely applied.

Addendum

What is the frequentist probability of finding an exact false match in a database containing 10 million entries? You may be surprised to find out the odds are 51%. 

The Reality of One World Government - It's Not A Theory

Many people are vaguely aware of the so-called One World Government “conspiracy”. While the idea has always been considered a fringe element, more and more people are suspecting that the idea contains some truth. They are correct.

Throughout history there have been men and groups of men who attempted, and sometimes succeeded, in establishing control over large portions of the earth’s population; Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the Romans, the Turks and many more. The desire to rule over one’s fellow man goes to the very essence of mankind

The One World Conspiracy has also been subject to what I call “Absurdity Poison”, a form of the informal Appeal to Ridicule fallacy. Put simply, the OWG idea has been poisoned by absurd extensions. Person A believes there is a movement to create a One World Government, Person B posits that the world is actually being run by a race of super intelligent reptiles. Person C dismisses the entire discussion based on the absurdity of Person B’s position. Person A’s argument, however true, is poisoned by Person B’s absurdity. No rational person wants to be associated with insanity, so they avoid the topic all together. This is a very strong propaganda technique. The best way to hide a truth is tell a greater lie.

There is a concerted, conscious effort to establish a worldwide unified government. But it isn’t being directed by super-intelligent reptiles, or immortal Jewish bankers who have been alive for hundreds of years. As improbable as it seems, the origins of the current quest for one government began with the United States itself.

The United States found itself the most powerful nation after the end of World War Two. Europe was in ruins and the assent of the great Japanese economy had been halted.  People in power in the U.S. at the time, including Cordell Hull, Harry Dexter White and of course Franklin Roosevelt (and later Harry Truman), knew that it was only a matter of time before Europe and the Asian countries regained their economic strength and would challenge America’s newfound power. Russia, although weakened, was also a direct threat to America’s supremacy. These men wanted to seize the opportunity to establish a new paradigm to ensure the U.S. remained in a position of supreme power.

The first step in the consolidation of The U.S.’s power came before the war was even over. In June 1944 the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, better known now as “Bretton Woods” was held. This conference created the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) (now the World Bank). In summary, these institutions established the U.S. dollar as the world’s primary currency and allowed the U.S. to enjoy seigniorage and effectively “tax” or more accurately, steal from, the world’s economy. How this works is the subject of another article. The point being made here is this; The U.S took advantage of their brief authoritarian power at the end of WW2 to establish a world system that guaranteed that temporary power would became permanent.

To avoid being seen as just another opportunist country, the U.S. asserted its power through the United Nations, giving the impression that it was a series of world-wide agreements that enshrined The U.S. as the world’s preeminent power.

But they left a gaping hole.

While the U.S was concentrated on firmly taking control of the world’s money supply, in the spirit of “international cooperation” they allowed other countries equal power in the lesser institutions of the U.N.

It was in the “lesser U.N.” that the world’s elite saw their opportunity. In a long series of rulings, agreements and treaties, the sovereignty of all nations has been eroded. In the areas of trade, food, and even firearms, many of the actions of the U.N. are unstoppable by the U.S.

In order to exercise sovereignty over matters such as gun control and food labeling, the U.S. would be required to give up their control of the world’s money supply.

People wonder why the U.S. doesn’t leave the U.N. or ignore their anti-constitutional rulings. The simple reason is the U.S. is beholden to the U.N. because of its economic monopoly. Those in power, including every president since FDR know this. It is one of the reasons they all seem to be cut from the same cloth. They are all constrained by the same paradigm. One could say the U.S. has sold its soul.

In order to keep sovereignty the U.S. would have to give up its dependence on the advantages of seigniorage. The country would have to get its financial affairs in order and keep them that way. But this is unlikely to happen, and soon it will be a moot point. The other countries of the world have already established formidable power through the U.N. and are now working diligently to replace the Dollar. When that happens, the U.S. will be another third world country subject to the whims of the all-powerful elite, enjoying their rule from the halls of the U.N.

Make no mistake. One World government is a reality. There are elitists that believe they should rule over the lesser, common man. We have allowed our government to create the path for them to accomplish that goal.

Asymmetric Cryptography As A Tool Of Liberty

Asymmetric Cryptography in the form of Public-Private Key Pairs can be a strong tool for personal Liberty by breaking the monopoly governments have on personal identity.

For example, I am Bob. Unless I am severely mental ill, I intuitively know I am Bob. Simple enough. But how do you know I am the Bob I say I am? Because my government tells you I am. Most people have a birth certificate, issued at the time of their birth or at some point later. The validity of this document by itself can range from completely bogus to quasi-official. The way to make it offical or trustworthy is to have it certified by a government agency in the form of a certified birth certificate, or use it obtain an official identity card or papers. Therefore, the government entity holds tremendous power by controlling, or withholding, identities.

At various times throughout history governments were simply extensions of the people, for example, in post Revolutionary America. But much more commonly, governments have been usurped by factions to serve their own agendas. e.g. Nazi Germany. Since governments in general are historically unreliable, it is dangerous for them to have the power to say who you are!

Going back to the Bob example, my close friends and family, even extended family, know I am Bob. They don't need me to present a government document to tell them that. What if this familiarity can be extended without the involvement and permission of a government? It can, through Public/Private Key certification. We won't get into the specifics of encryption, there are many sources of information on the topic, see footnotes. The purpose of this article is to explore the possibilities of using the process beyond encrypting documents.

The part of asymmetric encryption that concerns us in regards to identity is Certificate Signing. A document is encrypted with Alice's public key and sent to Bob, who decrypts it using his private key. All fine, but how does Bob know the document came from the Alice he thinks it did? This is where Certificate Signing comes into play. Alice has people close to her; family, friends, associates, sign her certificate. They are saying, in essence, "I certify this key belongs to this particular Alice". With enough certifications, we can be sure that Alice is who she says she is. Given the ability to de-sign her certificate, the assurance is even stronger.

To put it very simply, we can be sure Alice is Alice because a hundred or or ten thousand, or a million people say she is. This takes even less faith than believing Alice is Alice because a government bureaucrat, who may or may not be neutral, says so. Everyone dealing with Alice can make their own assessment of Alice's credentials. If she's going to walk my dog, I may be okay with 10 signings. If she's going to have access to my financial records maybe I would like to see five thousand. If she just shows me a drivers license, this gives me almost zero confidence. Is it a real drivers license approved by a conscientious license bureau worker under no influence from her superiors? Or was it printed in a Mexican document factory yesterday?

If such a system were adopted on a large scale, there would be no need to depend on a possibly malevolent government to establish one's identity. It is unlikely that a group of thousands of dis-interested people would have an interest in denying a person's identity, but history is littered with cases where it has been in the interest of a government to deny someone's access to identity, or coerce a person into submission in exchange for an identity.

This isn't a completely matured proposal, it is a starting point for discussion. What do you think?