trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
The probability of double crossing over is included in centimorgan genetic distance calculations
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 1 against

A peer-reviewed study indexed in PubMed refutes the claim by discussing conversion as a mechanism of high coincidence values.

Evidence against · 1
PubMed: Conversion as a possible mechanism of high coincidence values in the centromere region of Drosophila.
cited by 0
Conversion as a possible mechanism of high coincidence values in the centromere region of Drosophila. Crossing over has been studied with mutants which flank the centromere of chromosome 3 in Drosophila melanogaster. Coefficients of coincidence greater than one were obtained. Putative double crossovers were recovered for genetic intervals whose genetic length is less than one centimorgan. It is suggested that gene conversion rather than conventional double crossing over accounts for the negative interference observed. Published in Molecular & general genetics : MGG (1975)
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:refuted:single_source:for=0+0p:against=1+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. PubMed: Conversion as a possible mechanism of high coincidence values in the centromere region of Drosophila.peer-reviewedno side taken
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt