dr_king_papa t1_itfffu1 wrote
Reply to comment by dexable in See lifelike facial reconstructions of a medieval Scottish woman, priest and bishop by unheated1
Hmm, I feel something is off here. I saw this exhibit and maybe I didn't read all the details, but from what I remember, it was made by an artist, not a scientist. From the presentation, it seemed to suggest that the path from DNA to appearance has quite a bit of variance. If it is really so random, why do identical twins not display the same sort of variance in appearance? Yes, of course, any outcome is possible, but if it's astronomically unlikely, what's the point of highlighting it? Maybe I'm missing something?
dexable t1_itgm0ph wrote
Science requires one to cast aside ones prejudices and have an open mind to come to new understanding. Identical twins have more than just DNA in common. Look up some studies on identical twins if you are interested.
dr_king_papa t1_ithf50h wrote
Good science, and indeed rational thought, involves a prior belief (what one might call a prejudice), which is updated to form a posterior in the face of new evidence. The stronger the prior, the stronger the evidence needs to be to overcome that prior. I have not seen any new evidence, but I am open to integrating it if it is presented.
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_extraordinary_evidence
dexable t1_ithgrqt wrote
Strong words from someone who clearly didn't click on the original link and watch a 5 minute video.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments