Slashdot Mirror
DNA Confirms Parking Lot Remains Belong To King Richard III
An anonymous reader writes "It turns out that the remains found in a parking lot in Leicester, England belong to none other than King Richard III, one of the most reviled monarchs of English history. Scientists announced on Monday that they were able to confirm the identity of the skeleton through DNA testing."
Oh dear, Richard the third.
I haven't gotten a straight answer from MSM accounts as to why they even suspected this might be KR3.
Certainly, every time someone is dug up they don't say, "Oh look we found a body, better test it to see if this one is King Richard III maybe its him this time?"
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
"Validation! Validation! My kingdom for validated parking!"
but surely he deserved better than to be buried in a parking lot!
*ducks*
"Most reviled"... but also among the most defended (though the former lead to the latter).
Not that I'm particular thrilled with the idea of kings in general, but most everything bad about him was written by people with a vested interest in running him down.
Better Blackadder quote:
Prince Edmund: "Well, frankly, everyone thought you were dead."
Richard III: "Well, frankly, I am."
King of Parking Lot Castle III: When I first came here, this was all parking lot. Everyone said I was daft to build a castle on a parking lot, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the parking lot. So I built a second one. That sank into the parking lot. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the parking lot. But the fourth one stayed up. And that's what you're going to get, Lad, the strongest castle in all of England.
If I could walk that way...
Didn't you know? They paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
as to why he was buried in a parking lot.
Hey, King Richard III, the DNA says the remains of this here parking lot are yours.
Parking cars, what else does one do in a car park?
Leicester Cathedral. Which I'm assuming they are not likely to lose track of.
this researcher is going to get quite rich off guessing the location of the remains. he'll say "the hunch paid off!"
---
Is this the MPAA? Is this the RIAA? Is this the DMCA? I thought it was the USA!
Huff glue.
It doesn't, it just says that the corpse was closely related to someone who is known to be a descendant of Richard III.
It's all the other evidence that starts cutting down the odds that it might be somebody else... Obvious injury consistent with accepted cause of death. Evidence that indicates medical conditions consistent with known medical conditions of Richard III. Location consistent with the accepted possible burial locations. And most of all, no other known possible bodies that match DNA and what we know about this guy from history.
Of course, one can always argue the possibility that this is not Richard III, just like they argue other silly stuff...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
No, but we park on "driveways" and drive on "parkways" - t'is a silly place.
For conscience is the wound, and there's naught to staunch it
Scientific thinking for how the mtDNA proves who the skeleton is can be found on the University of Leicester dedicated website.
It doesn't, it just says that the corpse was closely related to someone who is known to be a descendant of Richard III.
It's all the other evidence that starts cutting down the odds that it might be somebody else... Obvious injury consistent with accepted cause of death. Evidence that indicates medical conditions consistent with known medical conditions of Richard III. Location consistent with the accepted possible burial locations. And most of all, no other known possible bodies that match DNA and what we know about this guy from history.
Of course, one can always argue the possibility that this is not Richard III, just like they argue other silly stuff...
I don't doubt that it isn't Richard III, I am taking exception with the media saying the DNA proves it is Richard the III. As you point out, the DNA, since it is maternal DNA, is one more piece of evidence, that when taken as a whole show the probability of this being somebody else is unlikely, but it is not proof. As I stated in a different post, science is about facts, then the reporting of science should be factual, too.
You have a good point, but in this case, the DNA evidence was the last bit of evidence that folks have been waiting for. Where the DNA evidence is not proof alone, it is the last piece of the proof. Often we say "Well that proves it!" about a single fact when really there is a whole series of facts which must be true before the final fact removes doubt. So I don't see the statement that the DNA test proves it is Richard III to be false or worthy of critique.
Now if you wish to take on the DNA proves *everything* mystique, then you need to really dig further into the methods and facts about how DNA (in its various forms) are inherited and why various forms of genetic testing might or might not be usable in situations like this. I'm afraid you are taking on a huge task in this CSI one hour (less commercials) to solve a crime world of scientific knowledge and Hollywood misinformation for dramatic license. I wish you luck, because I'm pretty tired of that kind of thing myself.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101