Close
today i learned (til)

Monkey to Macbook – The expedited progression of the human race

November 18, 2022

Within the past 200,000 years, modern humans began to appear. Though it took thousands of years to get to the Industrial Revolution, since then, technology has grown exponentially. In fact, the majority of new breakthroughs in technology have occurred within the past 250 years. Compared to the span of human existence, this time period is fractional, and it goes to show the rapid changes made in the technology sector. 

 

In 1942, the first modern digital computer was built, and it weighed over 700 pounds. This machine was called the Atanasoff–Berry computer, or ABC. This machine was built to compute calculations with up to 29 variables, and it performed one operation every 15 seconds. Fast forward only 80 years to 2022, when Apple released their new Macbook Air. This laptop barely weighs 3 pounds and can perform millions of computations per second. It has a 1080p camera and has configurable storage up to 2T. Not even at 1% of the weight of the ABC, the Macbook Air can do so much more, and only within 80 years of development too. What the ABC could do then, the Apple Watch can do now. The progress has been extremely rapid in the last few years, and that leads me to stop and wonder: Will we hit a roadblock soon? Will there be no more changes left to make? What’s next in the future of technology?

 

Every couple of years, humans make incredible progress in the technological world. In the last 2,000 years, technology has advanced exponentially. When we imagine the future, we think of robots, advanced technologies, and even a cyberpunk-esque environment. The 1985 classic film, Back to the Future, got a lot right about modern technology, but it was also quite ambitious with some predictions. For example, the flying car, hoverboard, and the sleep-inducing alpha rhythm generator are all inventions that don’t exist today. On the other hand, the power lacing shoes, drones, and biometric devices are examples of technology that do exist now. Now while some of these technologies might never exist, one can’t help but wonder, which ones will? In the 20th century, the idea of the future was very metallic, robotic, and monochromatic. Now when we imagine the future, we imagine AI, big cities, and advanced tech in every aspect of our lives. So what does the future hold for us? 

 

I think what we currently envision for the future is only partially accurate. Just like in Back to the Future, only some of the technologies actually came to be. While we have an idea of what the future holds, part of it is shrouded in uncertainty, and it won’t be something we’ll be able to predict. Our future technological advancements primarily depend on what we need, and that need could change with multiple factors, like climate change, overpopulation, and etc. Artificial intelligence wasn’t a larger concept until the last couple of years, so it was never in the predictions for future technologies until recently. Now that it has become such a widespread topic, we think of it as the ‘next big thing.’ So while we can have some idea about what the future holds for us, we can’t fully predict what it has in store. Maybe civilization will never have a need for flying cars, or maybe we might need to develop technology to live underwater. Who knows?

 

Sources:

https://theconversation.com/what-was-the-first-computer-122164#:~:text=The%20first%20mechanical%20computer%2C%20The,computer%20we%20all%20use%20today.&text=The%20ABC%20weighed%20over%20700,had%20small%20capacitors%20on%20it. 

https://www.vulture.com/2014/12/which-back-to-the-future-ii-tech-is-closest.html 

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Battle of the Hands: Mittens vs. Gloves
today i learned (til)
The Apple M1 Chip: A Breakthrough in Personal Computing
Articles, today i learned (til)
Turning a Creature into a Cute Character Design
today i learned (til)
Too Hot to Handle

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.