DNA Facial Reconstruction

[batman]

May 4, 2017 17:49:58 GMT liedetector said:

May 4, 2017 17:29:17 GMT batman said:

Ok but you're not specifying which organisms these are. Most of the experiments you are referring to have been pefformed on microorganisms, plants, etc. Human phenotypical plasticity is not a fact. Furthermore if EAR had a serious genetic disorder that could have caused an abnormal phenotype (such as a cleft palate) it would be reflected in his genotype and detected quite easily. What you are referring to as "adaptive genes" are really genetic mutations which would be identified by analysis of his genes. So this whole argument that EAR is going to look significantly different based on some environmental exposure is fairly irrelevant. If EAR has some phenotypic abnormality, it's going to be reflected in his genes.

Epigenetics as a concept has been widely misunderstood and distorted by people who are involved in the same emotional and political tirade against genetic explanations for human traits. It's also been fused with alternaive healing bullshit and other forms of Woo. It has no implications in whether or not EAR has derived or ancestral alleles controlling for nasal shape or mandibular width.

Here is an example of a problem. What if the outcome looks nothing like any of the composites? Then does that mean the composites are all wrong? Witnesses never once saw him? Or that the model isn't accurate? How do you know the difference?

The compoaites of random prowlers may very well not be EAR. The difference is in the DNA. They don't have the DNA of these suspicious prowlers. They do have EAR's DNA and they do have reliable models for testing his genotype against. There's no reason not to do it.

Genetic conservation among organisms is why a study done on homeotic genes in organisms other than humans is also valid for human models. In fact developmental biology controllers are all extremely similar among living things. The other thing is that the Western world tends not to do human genetic experiments without a ton of trials etc. Twin studies are quite good.

Human plasticity is a fact from the transitional human fossil record, including modern H. Sapien. sapien. It is also well documented today. I would be surprised to see any science paper saying human plasticity isn't a fact.

A cleft palette need not be a genetic disorder. The environment can also cause it.

Developmental adjustment or developmental acclimatization demonstrates that genes are adaptive and respond to environmental cues.

If you work somewhere which weathers the body, then you will look physically weathered compared to someone who didn't go through that.

A prime example of variation is fat and thin twins. Or one twin works out the other doesn't. Nutrition is a massive factor. A malnourished twin of a well nourished twin demonstrate wide variations. For life. Literally what your mom ate while pregnant determines how you will look when you are even 50.

The political claim against the environmental impact on genes is from the 70/early 80s and is firmly debunked since the 90s. This is 2017. All of this has a name. The phenotype. There isn't just one phenotype per gene. Even genes respond to environmental cues and each other. By changing environmental conditions, the expressed clone changes. They are no longer the same for different traits. Human twin experiments done by examining twins who have been brought up in different environments is another example of how genetic determination can't account for the changes, but normal phenotype expression can (genes + environment). These aren't mutations. Just developmental biology that varies as the environment influences it.

Epigenetics is a fact. Claiming politics doesn't make the science vanish and never will. It's isn't woo. It isn't pseudoscience. Woo and pseudoscience is genetic determinism. Genes have evolved to have a variety of expressed phenotypes within one individual. 

It is Nature + Nurture. Not just nature (genes). Not just nurture.

If you really want to sell that you can go from DNA to composite to suspect within a large degree of certainty then we want to see that. As of now we have no idea how many attempts were made to define a suspects facial features and blew it and then 1 or 2 were close. That closeness could be random chance alone.

Edit: When I say genetic determinism, I mean claims that the environment doesn't impact the expressed gene. That there are no variations basically.

[liedetector]

Genetic conservation among organisms is why a study done on homeotic genes in organisms other than humans is also valid for human models. In fact developmental biology controllers are all extremely similar among living things. The other thing is that the Western world tends not to do human genetic experiments without a ton of trials etc. Twin studies are quite good.

Nope. We do not have the same anatomy as plants and trees and are not susceptible to the same environemntal stressors. That's why the trees at the forests at Chernobyl died rapidly and never recovered after being exposed to nigher levels of radiation, but wild animals did not. Simpler organisms are more sensjtive to environmental change than complex, armored organisms.

Human plasticity is a fact from the transitional human fossil record, including modern H. Sapien. sapien. It is also well documented today. I would be surprised to see any science paper saying human plasticity isn't a fact.

You are referring to human evolution which takes places gradually over thousands of years. Here we are talking about environmental stressors changing the phenotype of living human organisms within ontogeny.

A cleft palette need not be a genetic disorder. The environment can also cause it.

The environment could only cause it by damaging human genes. There's not some mystical thing called "the environment" which changes people's appearance without some kind of medium -- there is a medium and it is called DNA. Someting like radiation would have to damage DNA for them to have a cleft palate that wasn't inherited directly from their parents. Regardless, it's in the genes.

Developmental adjustment or developmental acclimatization demonstrates that genes are adaptive and respond to environmental cues.

But do you know how? It is called mutation. Stress causes mutation. This is nothing new.

If you work somewhere which weathers the body, then you will look physically weathered compared to someone who didn't go through that.

You're using weasel words. You are talking about skin which is a soft tissue. Yes, skin is darkened, damaged and aged by sunlight exposure, extreme cold, chemical burns, etc. This has nothing to do with the shape of one's facial bones, and it does not raically change someone's appearance. Again, there is no environment that is going to radically alter your facial bones.

A prime example of variation is fat and thin twins. Or one twin works out the other doesn't. Nutrition is a massive factor. A malnourished twin of a well nourished twin demonstrate wide variations. For life. Literally what your mom ate while pregnant determines how you will look when you are even 50.

No it will not and it is clear to me now that you have been misled by the epigenetics woo fad that has taken the internet by storm. Again, fat is soft tissue, and we know EAR was not fat, so we can be pretty sure his facial reconstruction will not be obscured by fat.

The political claim against the environmental impact on genes is from the 70/early 80s and is firmly debunked since the 90s.

No it hasn't, no matter how many times you say it, it won't make it so. There has never been a political claim againat environmental influencd of genes. The "clean slate" crowd has always been a nagging and obstructing drag on biology.

Epigenetics is a fact.

No, it is a poorly understood phenomenon in academia, and a widely misunderstood fad in the general public, usually ranted and raved about by people who are looking to use it as an explanation for something they don't like about themselves or some other person.

[liedetector]

I am not going to continue any discussion with you about this subject. It is clear to me that you are not gainfully employed and I do not have time to go back and forth with someone who can just sit around all day and rant about pseudoscientific ideals and fantasies. There is no reason whatever to suspect that EAR's DNA phenotype will be inaccurate based on some hypothetical environmental conditions (which are barely cinically significant), and anyone who continues to argue otherwise in the face of probability is only doing so because they fear that the reconstruction won't match their man (or kid). The DNA phenotype will be the final nail in the coffin to all the efforts of people who have scoured through high school yearbooks looking for people who resemble Billy Mumy, thinking they're going to hit jackpot one decade if they just keep trying and trying, and rule out every little dude in Sacramento that had nothing to do with these crimes.

[batman]

May 4, 2017 19:26:48 GMT liedetector said:

I am not going to continue any discussion with you about this subject. It is clear to me that you are not gainfully employed and I do not have time to go back and forth with someone who can just sit around all day and rant about pseudoscientific ideals and fantasies. There is no reason whatever to suspect that EAR's DNA phenotype will be inaccurate based on some hypothetical environmental conditions (which are barely cinically significant), and anyone who continues to argue otherwise in the face of probability is only doing so because they fear that the reconstruction won't match their man (or kid). The DNA phenotype will be the final nail in the coffin to all the efforts of people who have scoured through high school yearbooks looking for people who resemble Billy Mumy, thinking they're going to hit jackpot one decade if they just keep trying and trying, and rule out every little dude in Sacramento that had nothing to do with these crimes.

Sorry but you haven't studied university level biology or if you have, then you are out in left field with your own novel ideas. Everything you are claiming I can categorically demonstrate as being false by referencing experiments which I am very familiar with. This is taught in undergraduate biology. So a biological graduate shouldn't be teaching the things you are.

I have never said we have the same anatomy as plants (your straw man). I said the homeotic genes are evolutionary conserved among many organisms. If you study developmental biology, even at an undergraduate level, then cell differention and morphological variation share similar controllers throughout all living things. The more closely relate organisms are, the more closely these controllers are shared. It is people like you that think because genetics is done on snails or mice, that it has no correlation to humans. This couldn't be more wrong. We share many of the same genes they do and they work exactly the same way.

Straight away you go for Chenobyl. A man-made nuclear disaster that frankly adaptive traits have little to no experience with except beyond an atmosphere that can't keep out UV light that alters DNA. We are not talking about mutagens here or mutations. We are talking about the expressed phenotype which you think is a 1:1 expression. This gene = this expression and only this one. This is patently false. No gene expresses itself alone. All genes work in concert and they only work as long as the internal bodies environment can manage it. Since that internal environment is subject to change by environmental pressures, genes have evolved not to be 1:1, but to have that placticity, that variation. By the way a mutation doesn't have to be random. It can be site directed. A bias mutation. Meaning evolution has evolved to incorporate mutation bias. However this isn't a topic about mutation. Its about the expression of genes. The phenotype. Phenotype doesn't = mutation.

Ontogenetic allometry has a genetic bases. To say expression of those genes must produce specific outcomes without variation can be demonstrated as false, experimentally. What you are presenting is called the 'Gene for X' discussion. There is no gene for X. There is simply genes increasing the chance of probable outcomes, which need not be so. Gene for obesity? Gene for homosexuality? Gene for criminal behaviour? Sure a gene can play a role, but not to the exclusion of how other genes are acting upon it, and how the environment impacts them.

There is name for this in biology. Reaction norms.

You keep saying developmental adjustments are mutations. They aren't. For example, mutations aren't involved in women wearing bras to support their breasts so they don't get the full impact of gravitational forces. This impacts their growth throughout life. High heels can impact the development of feet. Even posture can change a persons height over time.

As for cleft palettes being entirely genetic. Nope. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3086810/ Clearly describing environmental influences on the developmental biology. For example... it says... "Besides nutrients and toxins other environmental exposures have been, and should continue to be, assessed for possible roles in clefting. These exposures include hyperthermia, stress, maternal obesity, occupational exposures, ionizing radiation and infection" Okay so one ionizing radiation claim, but that has to be there. Look at all the other factors.

I don't get why you see a problem with soft-tissue objections, given a composite is a face composed of mostly external soft-tissue.

What you are also presenting is the idea that bones terminally differentiate. Apart from accidents which can drastically change bones we even observe how genes interact to deal with injury. They don't terminally differentiate. They differentiate on environmental cues that impact the gene. They continue to do this throughout life. Bone cells are replaced all the time. Maybe you might have a case for nerves and neurons.

The composite by DNA claim is the holy grail. It deserves huge amounts of skepticism when anybody makes this claim. As Randi said, demonstrate it. Show us the science behind the mechanisms. Do it.

As of yet we don't know what the ratio of failed to pass experiments are. Again how do you know it will produce a good one as opposed to a fail? How do you differentiate between the two?

As for the claim we are skepticial because it won't match 'our man'. What POIs do you mean? There have been a handful or two of POIs and I don't see anyone afraid of it not being their man, because if they truly believe its EAR, then they would be all for it right?

I don't have a POI. I'm skeptical because big claims require even bigger evidence, and this isn't forthcoming. This is a big claim.

BTW - your sleuthing skills as to my current employment status aren't very good. Just saying.

[Deleted]

Parabon rules


truecrimewire.com/2016/05/09/parabon-snapshots-of-unknown-killers-truth-and-promise/

[bob]

Is it correct that DNA can reveal his age plus-or-minus 2 years?

[manzanita]

May 5, 2017 9:34:30 GMT bob said:

Is it correct that DNA can reveal his age plus-or-minus 2 years?

Maybe.  What the telomeres (the protective extensions on the ends of the chromosomes) show is the approximate "biological age" of a person rather than his "calendar age".

 For instance, Dr. David Sinclair (PhD. researcher at Harvard Medical School) has said on his approximately 7 minute Youtube talk,  that his calendar age is 58 and his biological age is 31.  (He has been taking resveretrol and nicotinamide riboside.)  Others have reported similar results.  That written, as a young guy, GSK's telomeres' lenght and condition were probably pretty close in comparison between his biological age and his calendar age.  

(BTW:  I have been taking these two compounds for ten months, and I am 67.  I sent away for a test regarding my biological age from Teloyears.com.  My gray hair is turning black again gradually, I no longer get stiff after not moving, etc.  If GSK is taking nicatinamide riboside and resveretrol, he may be around for a long time and back in business....)

[batman]

May 5, 2017 9:34:30 GMT bob said:

Is it correct that DNA can reveal his age plus-or-minus 2 years?

From what I understand, aging a perpetrator from DNA is a lot more complex and inaccurate than aging a perpetrator who has left a blood sample. That with a blood sample, you have more than just DNA, because like a blood test have other factors in the serum indicating age. So whenever I hear of age estimation techniques, it is almost always certainly a blood test rather than a DNA test.

[Deleted]

May 5, 2017 9:34:30 GMT bob said:

Is it correct that DNA can reveal his age plus-or-minus 2 years?

At this point, I don't believe so. Give it ten more years or less and watch what it can do. Hell, creating a face was such a dream thing in '07 but look how far it came!

[kforcer]

liedetector and batman, you guys are both clearly very intelligent and you both are after the same thing--hastening the capture of EAR. I know I am being an interloper in your conversation, but it seems to me that you guys would be well-served to discuss and debate in a civil, friendly and charitable manner. And really, the general cause of catching the EAR seems better served when the myriad brilliant minds committed to resolving the case remain on the same team. By debating one another, you're helping to sharpen each other's thinking anyway, so no need to begrudge one another for disagreeing, right?

Anyway, sorry for interjecting again. I just came across this thread and enjoyed reading both of your posts and couldn't help but comment.

[downtocatch]

May 3, 2017 23:18:48 GMT est1980 said:

LE is too cheap to do this. They only offer a $50,000 reward for info on this clown. It's been 40 years and they offer $50,000!

It's not really about the reward. It's about catching this guy so he is stopped.

[est1980]

May 13, 2017 23:19:15 GMT downtocatch said:

May 3, 2017 23:18:48 GMT est1980 said:

LE is too cheap to do this. They only offer a $50,000 reward for info on this clown. It's been 40 years and they offer $50,000!

It's not really about the reward. It's about catching this guy so he is stopped.

How is this guy not on the FBI's top 10 most wanted list??

[kamose]

I think increasing the award would certainly increase the interest in solving it... it baffles me that some things that seem to be very basic are not being done in this investigation. Of course, we have no idea what is being done behind the scenes. Nevertheless, it does seem frustrating,

[manzanita]

May 16, 2017 23:26:17 GMT est1980 said:

May 13, 2017 23:19:15 GMT downtocatch said:

How is this guy not on the FBI's top 10 most wanted list??

I think they limited the 10 Most wanted to people that they have identified (usually with photos as well).

[est1980]

May 18, 2017 1:31:20 GMT manzanita said:

May 16, 2017 23:26:17 GMT est1980 said:

How is this guy not on the FBI's top 10 most wanted list??

I think they limited the 10 Most wanted to people that they have identified (usually with photos as well).

Brain fart lol