To arrive at their facial reconstructions from DNA, the researchers looked at the genes that seem to correlate with facial structures, the facial structures of the people with those genes, and then asked people outside of their research group to characterize facial structures along different axes. All of these factors were then used to develop statistical models to approximate a facial structure from DNA.
well, since we can’t get a genuine birth certificate, maybe..............????
BUT, will this new technology work when cartoons commit crimes?
The article would be a utterly misleading to anyone who doesn’t understand the vast limitations inherent with this method.
There is no data that reliably predicts facial features from DNA evidence, despite what an “artist” was publicizing recently.
What CAN be predicted - gender and race predominantly, with some probability ranges coming into play for eye color, hair color, and just a couple of correlates for some populations that predict a skeletal characteristic or two - can’t give us a “face”, and instead can only give us a general police blotter description of “Female, East-Asian, likely brown eyes and dark hair”.
Even identifying height is difficult, as we haven’t identified much in the way of genes that specifically influence it, we just know it’s highly heritable.
What’s more, distinct human populations have been genetically isolated from one another for varying periods of time, often sufficient time to accumulate both different rates of relevant genes as well as develop their own novel genes that may influence a number correlations - we’d need accurate information from all relevant populations in order to even begin to accurately identify genetic correlates to facial features.
Ping — maybe they’ll be able to put faces to ancestral fossils.