with big enough database you simple have every single person in it. that still doesn’t back up the quote i disputed in any way. can you find source of the quote? i’d be interested to see the original.
They caught the Bay Area Strangler(or whatever his title was) by finding a dna relative match on one of these services and using that to narrow down suspects. DNA can absolutely be used to narrow things down without just having a direct 1:1 match saying it’s THAT person.
There are location, sex, age, and other factors to consider that help narrow it down. You could have 1000 close matches, but only half a dozen or so that could actually have committed the crime, and only a few of them that fit the profile.
with big enough database you simple have every single person in it. that still doesn’t back up the quote i disputed in any way. can you find source of the quote? i’d be interested to see the original.
They caught the Bay Area Strangler(or whatever his title was) by finding a dna relative match on one of these services and using that to narrow down suspects. DNA can absolutely be used to narrow things down without just having a direct 1:1 match saying it’s THAT person.
they “narrowed it down” to about 1000 people. that is the case covered by video i linked in my comment above.
the sentence The fbi estimates they can use dna evidance to single dowm the possible people to 2 or 3 out of the entiriry of the us is still nonsense
It’s not exclusively DNA they’re using.
It never was exclusively DNA.
There are location, sex, age, and other factors to consider that help narrow it down. You could have 1000 close matches, but only half a dozen or so that could actually have committed the crime, and only a few of them that fit the profile.
You guys are arguing semantics. Walk away…