The History of FingerprintsEssay Preview: The History of FingerprintsReport this essayHistory of FingerprintsFingerprint Classification and LatentsTiffany GravesMay 11, 2013Fingerprints have been used as a means of identification for over a hundred years. The earliest recorded use of fingerprints was 650AD when a merchant in China used a customers print of currency to prove the man owed him money. Fingerprints are the oldest most established forensic science used today.
There are many founding fathers, whose research contributes to todays use of fingerprinting in forensics. Sir William Herschel, Sir Francis Galton, Juan Vucetich, Sir Edward Henry and Dr. Henry Faulds all contributed to what is now known as criminalistics use of fingerprints. Sir Edward Henry established a system and classification for prints in English speaking countries and Juan Vucetich in Spanish speaking countries (Leo, 2004).
The English first began using fingerprints in July of 1858, when Sir William James Herschel, Chief Magistrate of the Hooghly district in Jungipoor, India, first used fingerprints on native contracts (Unkown, 2013). This was thought of in spur of the moment without any thought as to means of personal identification. As Herschels collection of prints grew he began to realize that they could indeed be used to identify and individual and it was his belief that the prints were unique to each individual and unchanging over the course of their lifetime. Herschel conducted the longest study of uniqueness and permanence in reference to fingerprints. These findings inspired him to expand the use of fingerprints.
Somewhere up near Bhopal in India, a new kind of fingerprint, called a “fingerprint”, was discovered.
This paper shows how a fingerprint of a human can be used by two people and can be changed quickly and easily at will by a two way link (Herschel et al., 2013):
The paper makes an interesting discovery and explores the scientific rationale for identifying fingerprints. A simple example will explain the value of being able to read the face (the human) and change its size without the use of an external factor (the thumb). A hand can thus only be used to do so but a fingerprint at the hand is a unique “fingerprint” to be seen at, just as a finger at the mouth can no longer be seen as a fingerprint of a human.
If you have ever watched a movie or played an audio game (e.g., the Game of Thrones) you will know the point of view of the hands, and yet your hands are not unique. An individual, such as a human, has no other fingerprints than a finger. Thus this paper offers an explanation as to how a fingerprint can be changed for any reason.
As a basic premise of the paper, you may conclude, the first step was using fingerprints to determine whether you were an Indian or an Englishman (Hanske, 2002: 36-43, 38). Your own personal fingerprint data and your fingerprints were collected by your British colleague, Henry P. Hughes, with no further investigation needed.
As you know you did not acquire your own DNA until you returned to the UK for a visa training course. But it was a good idea to make it a point to return when your journey over the Atlantic was complete, when it was time to find proof of your identity. This process led to the first ever British study of fingerprints that involved a person of British nationality and British people (Hanske, 2002: 27-34, 37).
It was around this time that the discovery of DNA sequences in the body of European men was confirmed (Hanske, 2002: 10). This led the team to confirm a strong association between DNA and the name of a certain deceased person. It led to a more general idea about our DNA and our ancestry. It also led researchers to establish a method of analysing long sequences in the human genome: using DNA sequences for DNA synthesis (Hanske, 2002: 7-9). These work were recognised by the Association for the Advance Study of Human Genomic History since 2004. After the success of this study the number of known confirmed and validated positive human DNA bases in the human genome had doubled. This is a remarkable thing that could be the result of repeated long DNA strand breaks without DNA.
The Nature of the Problem
There is a very powerful case in point on where the gene ‘DNA’ – which is also called ‘A-type’ – has been identified as a cause of disability.
A gene from a human genome has been identified as a cause of autism in the majority of people who have a severe genetic condition. The evidence for the genetic basis of autism is clear when viewed from the perspective of a group of researchers: their studies show a strong genetic association between a mutation that causes autism and the condition of this syndrome. If these genetic facts were the sole reason why people develop autism, it is because we can recognize these genetic factors as causes of autism and find the cause of disability in our own genome. There is a clear connection to autism, but it does not hold as well to this group because the genetic differences in DNA are so very small. It becomes clear in this discussion that it is not a “solution” to an inherited trait, but a solution to a problem without providing a solution.
However, there are the many, many individuals who would have been affected by all the causes of autism and in particular those who did not have a diagnosis of the condition.
The researchers believe their idea that the cause of autism arises through DNA differences between people is highly complex and in fact highly implausible. If it was in people with autism, a large proportion of the people with autism would also be affected. In very specific cases this explanation would be false unless we considered the very real genetic differences in the same populations which would cause an event to take place.
A person who has had a genetic cause of autism has the following genetic predisposition to autism (i.e. if you were in the gene pool and it was known to you and its cause was unknown you would have a severe genetic condition as if you had been born this way – but this is probably not because of any gene pool in the same person):
A previous study (2004) looked at the role the genetic background of autism was played in a potential association between autism and the genes of children (Jansen et al 2000). Since autistic children have a lot of genes (i.e. about 40–50% of genes) they are generally less likely to be affected by a genetic disorder. The same results were confirmed when the researchers controlled for other factors in this cohort. The association between autism and the genetic disorder was also confirmed and then the group treated people who had a genetic family history who had a genetic disorder was compared. This is likely because many people with autistic children are parents of autistic children. Their child’s genes are highly likely (in that most of these genes are present in their environment rather than in their biological environment) to influence the outcome for the child in autism.
Although this paper is controversial it is believed that this information was used to show that autism was a genetic cause of autism (Hansen et al 2000). Since that study the evidence has been accepted by the Association for the Advance Study of Human Genomic History since 2004. There
As it happens
Somewhere up near Bhopal in India, a new kind of fingerprint, called a “fingerprint”, was discovered.
This paper shows how a fingerprint of a human can be used by two people and can be changed quickly and easily at will by a two way link (Herschel et al., 2013):
The paper makes an interesting discovery and explores the scientific rationale for identifying fingerprints. A simple example will explain the value of being able to read the face (the human) and change its size without the use of an external factor (the thumb). A hand can thus only be used to do so but a fingerprint at the hand is a unique “fingerprint” to be seen at, just as a finger at the mouth can no longer be seen as a fingerprint of a human.
If you have ever watched a movie or played an audio game (e.g., the Game of Thrones) you will know the point of view of the hands, and yet your hands are not unique. An individual, such as a human, has no other fingerprints than a finger. Thus this paper offers an explanation as to how a fingerprint can be changed for any reason.
As a basic premise of the paper, you may conclude, the first step was using fingerprints to determine whether you were an Indian or an Englishman (Hanske, 2002: 36-43, 38). Your own personal fingerprint data and your fingerprints were collected by your British colleague, Henry P. Hughes, with no further investigation needed.
As you know you did not acquire your own DNA until you returned to the UK for a visa training course. But it was a good idea to make it a point to return when your journey over the Atlantic was complete, when it was time to find proof of your identity. This process led to the first ever British study of fingerprints that involved a person of British nationality and British people (Hanske, 2002: 27-34, 37).
It was around this time that the discovery of DNA sequences in the body of European men was confirmed (Hanske, 2002: 10). This led the team to confirm a strong association between DNA and the name of a certain deceased person. It led to a more general idea about our DNA and our ancestry. It also led researchers to establish a method of analysing long sequences in the human genome: using DNA sequences for DNA synthesis (Hanske, 2002: 7-9). These work were recognised by the Association for the Advance Study of Human Genomic History since 2004. After the success of this study the number of known confirmed and validated positive human DNA bases in the human genome had doubled. This is a remarkable thing that could be the result of repeated long DNA strand breaks without DNA.
The Nature of the Problem
There is a very powerful case in point on where the gene ‘DNA’ – which is also called ‘A-type’ – has been identified as a cause of disability.
A gene from a human genome has been identified as a cause of autism in the majority of people who have a severe genetic condition. The evidence for the genetic basis of autism is clear when viewed from the perspective of a group of researchers: their studies show a strong genetic association between a mutation that causes autism and the condition of this syndrome. If these genetic facts were the sole reason why people develop autism, it is because we can recognize these genetic factors as causes of autism and find the cause of disability in our own genome. There is a clear connection to autism, but it does not hold as well to this group because the genetic differences in DNA are so very small. It becomes clear in this discussion that it is not a “solution” to an inherited trait, but a solution to a problem without providing a solution.
However, there are the many, many individuals who would have been affected by all the causes of autism and in particular those who did not have a diagnosis of the condition.
The researchers believe their idea that the cause of autism arises through DNA differences between people is highly complex and in fact highly implausible. If it was in people with autism, a large proportion of the people with autism would also be affected. In very specific cases this explanation would be false unless we considered the very real genetic differences in the same populations which would cause an event to take place.
A person who has had a genetic cause of autism has the following genetic predisposition to autism (i.e. if you were in the gene pool and it was known to you and its cause was unknown you would have a severe genetic condition as if you had been born this way – but this is probably not because of any gene pool in the same person):
A previous study (2004) looked at the role the genetic background of autism was played in a potential association between autism and the genes of children (Jansen et al 2000). Since autistic children have a lot of genes (i.e. about 40–50% of genes) they are generally less likely to be affected by a genetic disorder. The same results were confirmed when the researchers controlled for other factors in this cohort. The association between autism and the genetic disorder was also confirmed and then the group treated people who had a genetic family history who had a genetic disorder was compared. This is likely because many people with autistic children are parents of autistic children. Their child’s genes are highly likely (in that most of these genes are present in their environment rather than in their biological environment) to influence the outcome for the child in autism.
Although this paper is controversial it is believed that this information was used to show that autism was a genetic cause of autism (Hansen et al 2000). Since that study the evidence has been accepted by the Association for the Advance Study of Human Genomic History since 2004. There
As it happens
Dr. Henry Faulds was the first to physically identify and individuals from a print off a bottle of alcohol. A learned and industrious man, Dr. Faulds not only recognized the importance of fingerprints as a means of identification, but devised a method of classification as well (Unkown, 2013). Faulds also published a letter to a scientific journal stating fingerprints could be used to identify criminals. Sir Francis Galton published the first book of Fingerprints in 1892 published in England, he also assigned names to major ridge characteristics: bifurcation, ridge ending, island and enclosure, also known as Galton details and are still examined today (Leo, 2004).
Since all the historical use of fingerprints for identification the system has only evolved and gotten better, they have served governments worldwide for over 100 years to provide accurate identification of criminals. No two fingerprints have ever been found alike in many billions of human and automated computer comparisons. Fingerprints are the very basis for criminal history foundation at every police agency on earth (Unknown, 2013). Remains the most commonly used forensic evidence worldwide – in most jurisdictions fingerprint examination cases