Eucharistic Miracles and DNA

  • Thread starter Thread starter Faith1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Faith1960 said:
fathercarrozza.com/2013/06/10/334/

Here’s another article that doesn’t say the DNA is the same, but that comparing the lab reports, the experts concluded the test samples must’ve come from the same person.
Click to expand...
We have to use a bit of common sense here.If it is the case that there is a DNA match in both cases it obviously means BOTH have been DNA tested.

What is the big deal here?
 
thistle said:
We have to use a bit of common sense here.If it is the case that there is a DNA match in both cases it obviously means BOTH have been DNA tested.

What is the big deal here?
Click to expand...
The big deal is…How could both be DNA tested when the tests for the Lanciano miracle were done in the 70’s and 80’s before DNA testing was available.
How was Lanciano tested?
 
Reading a few articles, the samples all tested type AB blood. The lab reports for the 8th century miracle of Lanciano (last tested in 1970’s) was compared with the lab report from 2005 for a miracle in 1996 in Argentina.

Now the woman reporting writes:

“Again, without revealing the origin of the test samples, the experts compared the Buenos Aires lab reports with those from Lanciano. They concluded that the reports must be from the same samples. Both samples revealed an “AB”-positive blood type, which occurs in 5% of the population. The DNA is identical, and there are features to indicate that the man came from the Middle East. (It is also noteworthy that these lab results match up with those from the Shroud of Turin and the Cloth of Oviedo”

Where this reporter founders in her quest for truth begins at

" The DNA is identical… here she seems confused as to what a blood type test is, and what a DNA test is. Then she goes on to make another statement that really requires scientific validation.

So to recap,

Both samples have the same blood type and one is identified as human heart tissue.

If the 8th century sample was tested nowdays, I am sure it would have all modern tests, as with all other samples.

Btw DNA profiling started in the 1980s
 
Faith1960 said:
The big deal is…How could both be DNA tested when the tests for the Lanciano miracle were done in the 70’s and 80’s before DNA testing was available.
How was Lanciano tested?
Click to expand...
Blood testing and matching is different from DNA testing and matching. The former was done prior to DNA testing and the latter was done after DNA testing was available - OBVIOUSLY!!
 
thistle said:
Blood testing and matching is different from DNA testing and matching. The former was done prior to DNA testing and the latter was done after DNA testing was available - OBVIOUSLY!!
Click to expand...
But I thought it meant that DNA testing was done before?
 
Faith1960 said:
I mean, it sounds like it was done before but that doesn’t make sense since DNA testing hadn’t been invented yet.
Click to expand...
Faith1960, below is the testing that was done for the 8th century sample, in 1970 and 1971. There was no DNA test done. The official documents are in a LOTE.

Linoli’s examination:
The examination[2] in 1971 was performed by Odoardo Linoli, a professor in anatomy and pathological histology as well as chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo.[3] He was assisted by Ruggero Bertelli, a retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena. The report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1971.[3][4]

(AS much as it pains me, from wiki)
““Linoli’s released his findings in March 1971. According to his study, the flesh is human cardiac tissue. He said he found proteins in the blood, in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh normal blood. Linoli found no trace of preservatives.[5]””

Now for the Argentina miracle
On scientific research into the Buenos Aries (Argentina) miracle, the only testing stated is , blood type, nature of the organic matter, and that its DNA IS uniquely human. No other DNA testing at all.

So how are samples identified as human or another animal? Lots on valid scientific primers on the internet to read on how a sample is identified as human or not. Ordinary samples ( not miracles), forensic for example.
I do remember an issue with a fast food chicken outlet. The chicken was suspected to be rabbit. It was DNA tested. It was rabbit.

There are so many misreported or sensational articles written on the eucharistic miracles where reporters, bloggers, writers, are simply throwing around the term DNA , without understanding anything about testing or results.

Ignorance is not bliss in many of those articles.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Faith1960, this is the testing that eas done for the 8th century sample, in 1970 and 1971. There was no DNA test done. The official documents are in a LOTE.
Linoli’s examination Edit
The examination[2] in 1971 was performed by Odoardo Linoli, a professor in anatomy and pathological histology as well as chemistry and clinical microscopy, and former head of the Laboratory of Pathological Anatomy at the Hospital of Arezzo.[3] He was assisted by Ruggero Bertelli, a retired professor of human anatomy at the University of Siena. The report was published in Quaderni Sclavo di Diagnostica Clinica e di Laboratori in 1971.[3][4]

(AS much as it pains me, from wiki)
““Linoli’s released his findings in March 1971. According to his study, the flesh is human cardiac tissue. He said he found proteins in the blood, in the same normal proportions (percentage-wise) as are found in the sero-proteic make-up of fresh normal blood. Linoli found no trace of preservatives.[5]””

On scientific research into the Buenos Aries (Argentina) miracle, the only testing stated is , blood type, nature of the organic matter, and that its DNA IS uniquely human.

So how are samples identified as human or another animal? Lots on valid scientific primers on the internet to read on how a sample is identified as human or not. Ordinary samples ( not miracles), forensic for example.
I do remember an issue with a fast food chicken outlet. The chicken was suspected to be rabbit. It was DNA tested. It was rabbit.

There are so many misreported or sensational articles written on the eucharistic miracles where reporters, bloggers, writers, are simply throwing around the term DNA , without understanding anything about testing or results.

Ignorance is not bliss in many of those articles.
Click to expand...
So, do you mean that all those articles are wrong, and Lanciano an Buenos Aires don’t have the same DNA that was compared?
 
Faith1960 said:
So, do you mean that all those articles are wrong, and Lanciano an Buenos Aires don’t have the same DNA that was compared?
Click to expand...
Yes that is what I mean.
  1. The majority of those articles are misinterpreting the science.
You are right to be questioning the results cited in those articles.
  1. The only valid results for both samples is
  • blood type is AB positive and that human tissue is present.
  1. The Buenos Aries sample had a good investigation into the type of human tissue. But again, the only DNA determination was that the sample was human.
  2. Absolutely no DNA testing was done on the 8th century Luciano sample.
This means there could be NO comparison in the lab reports for DNA of both samples. Because no testing of DNA was done for the Luciano sample.
  1. Thistle, the only DNA testing or matching result was it was human. For the Buenos Aries sample.
The Vatican link is the best for eucharistic miracles. The Vatican has approved both miracles.

I am a retired scientist, and happy to read any articles you are questioning, to see if its reporting and interpretation of the science is valid.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Yes that is what I mean.
  1. The majority of those articles are misinterpreting the science.
You are right to be questioning the results cited in those articles.
  1. The only valid results for both samples is
  • blood type is AB positive and that human tissue is present.
  1. The Buenos Aries sample had a good investigation into the type of human tissue. But again, the only DNA determination was that the sample was human.
  2. Absolutely no DNA testing was done on the 8th century Luciano sample.
This means there could be NO comparison in the lab reports for DNA of both samples. Because no testing of DNA was done for the Luciano sample.
  1. Thistle, the only DNA testing or matching result was it was human. For the Buenos Aries sample.
The Vatican link is the best for eucharistic miracles. The Vatican has approved both miracles.

I am a retired scientist, and happy to read any articles you are questioning, to see if its reporting and interpretation of the science is valid.
Click to expand...
I saw an article I’ve since lost (and can’t find now) that says these miracles are alleged miracles and that there is nothing online by the World Health Organization verifying that they tested any of them.

I also saw a link to Snopes talking about the Buenos Aires miracle but didn’t click on it for fear it will discredit the Church about that or other Eucharistic miracles.
 
Faith1960, a test has not been done at this time, that has even attempted to research the DNA of these samples, or compare them.

This testing could be done in the future, and the results found to match. But at this time, that has NEVER been done. 😇

What we know is the blood type is the same. And it is a rare blood type. And the samples are of human tissue.

The Tessting for the Buenos Aries miracle was covered in an Australian documentary.

The valid documents for testing for both miracles is found in a few good links, and in scientific journals.

The leap of faith as to non religious declaring these hosts Body and Blood of Christ is beyond the scope of the results of a scientific report. That is a job for The Pope 😇

You are right to question , examine, judge the validity of what you read on the internet.
 
Roseeurekacross said:
Faith1960, a test has not been done at this time, that has even attempted to research the DNA of these samples, or compare them.

This testing could be done in the future, and the results found to match. But at this time, that has NEVER been done. 😇

What we know is the blood type is the same. And it is a rare blood type. And the samples are of human tissue.

The Tessting for the Buenos Aries miracle was covered in an Australian documentary.

The valid documents for testing for both miracles is found in a few good links, and in scientific journals.

The leap of faith as to non religious declaring these hosts Body and Blood of Christ is beyond the scope of the results of a scientific report. That is a job for The Pope 😇

You are right to question , examine, judge the validity of what you read on the internet.
Click to expand...
Thanks! 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top