| Author | Message | ||
     Webmaster |
Dear Shaker777, When DNA was a new scientific method, the people inventing it wanted to try to make other people believe that it was reliable. To do that, they started calling it DNA fingerprinting, even though it had nothing at all to do with either fingers or prints from fingers (fingerprints). The people inventing DNA could have called it DNA-super-identification instead of DNA Fingerprinting, but that would not have sounded as reliable or strong as fingerprints. So they borrowed the name of the most reliable means of identifying people to get their new method accepted and trusted more quickly. It worked! Most people have no idea that DNA fingerprinting has nothing to do with fingerprints... or that although there are hundreds of millions of fingerprints on file in computers, only a small fraction of that many persons' DNA has been analyzed and compared. Everybody hopes and believes that DNA is as reliable as fingerprints. Maybe after a hundred years or so it will have proven itself as reliable as fingerprints have in the past 100+ years. | ||
| star777 |
I am writing an essay about DNA fingerprinting. I have a question regarding to my essay. What is the difference of DNA fingerprinting and manual fingerpriting? My teacher told me that halfway throuh my essay, I mixed up both issues. I tried to look for what is manual fingerprinting, but could not find it. My teacher just gave me information that manual fingerprinting deals with another type of fingerprinting. Is there any other type of fingerprinting other than DNA fingerprinting? Tell you the truth, I dont get what she means and could not find any information about that. I read your website, and I became clear enough about DNA fingerprinting but still don't get anything about manual fingerprinting or any other type of fingerprinting. Could you please help me in this topic? Thank you |
