04/6/09 PHD comic: 'If TV Science was more like REAL Science'

Greg Bernhardt

center table border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0 bgcolor=#ffffff tr tdbfont face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif size=+1Piled Higher amp; Deeper/fontfont face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif i by Jorge Cham/i/font/b/td td /td td div align=rightbfont face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifwww.phdcomics.com/font/b/div /td /tr tr align=center td colspan=3font face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serifimg src=http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd040609s.gif border=0 align=top/img/font/td /tr tr td colspan=3 div align=centerfont size=-2 face=Arial, Helvetica, sans-seriftitle: quot;If TV Science was more like REAL Sciencequot; - originally published 4/6/2009 /fontpfont face=arialFor the latest news in PHD Comics, a href=http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.phpCLICK HERE!/a/font/p /div /td /tr /table /center

More...

Borek

Redbelly98

LOL, especially the 4-pixel photo reconstruction.

Vrand

Let's see...

Panel 2: Not theoretically impossible, actually, assuming they were using data from a video. Mind you, it would require an extremely fast framerate and a couple of centuries of film to get much detail from four pixels.

Panel 3: They actually do use controls in many cases, and several tests include multiple data points.

Moonbear

Panel 1 is still not very accurate. Without a reference sample, there isn't much analysis to be done with DNA.