Ok, since we're both educated persons (I have college degrees in both philosophy and software engineering) let stop with the oversimplifications.
On they site they state this:
Researchers from Edinburgh University studied more than 800 sets of identical and non-identical twins to learn whether genetics or upbringing has a greater effect on how successful people are in life. Writing in the Journal of Personality, the researchers found that identical twins were twice as likely as non-identical twins to share the same personality traits, suggesting that their DNA was having the greatest impact.
This my friend is behavioral genetics, in a very simple and biased form.
Our face is a reflection of our DNA
That's true, but the implication that those are the genes related to, let's say, violent behavior is as far as I know, a fallacy.
In fact, It’s already possible to make some inferences about the appearance of crime suspects from their DNA alone.
Yes, if you have someones DNA you can describe he/she/. But I dare you to find an article in a respected journal that states that the reverse procedure can be made with at least a 50% accuracy.
The list of fallacies in their statements keeps going.
Ok, since we're both educated persons (I have college degrees in both philosophy and software engineering) let stop with the oversimplifications.
On they site they state this:
This my friend is behavioral genetics, in a very simple and biased form.
That's true, but the implication that those are the genes related to, let's say, violent behavior is as far as I know, a fallacy.
Yes, if you have someones DNA you can describe he/she/. But I dare you to find an article in a respected journal that states that the reverse procedure can be made with at least a 50% accuracy.
The list of fallacies in their statements keeps going.
On the other hand. Thanks for being the "devils advocate" here. Always glad to have a healthy debate!!