I'm certainly stubborn, but I'm not the only stubborn one here. Unless you're a biologist I probably know at least as much about genetics as you, so we're worki

I'm certainly stubborn, but I'm not the only stubborn one here. Unless you're a biologist I probably know at least as much about genetics as you, so we're working from the same level of knowledge. Look up epigenetics. The real world is not as perfect as textbooks and experiments like to pretend. Additionally, I happen to think a lot about adaptive systems (obsessive levels of thought sometimes) so the idea that systems develop differently when exposed to different stimuli or environments is a given to me. Check this out: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/one-twin-exercises-the-other-doesnt/?_r=0 http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/one-twin-exercises-... They took identical twins who had already grown to adulthood together and analyzed differences between the sibling who exercised a lot and the one who didn't. Guess what: they found differences that a genetic analysis would not predict! It's trivial in my mind that two identical twins who grew up in very different environments would look noticeably different due to developmental differences. I don't even know what you're arguing over, I never said faces are not genetically determined, only that other things also affect it. That would be the reason for that "almost" part of your assertion. I'm saying that difference is not negligible, some people look very similar by chance. A quick search led me to this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/12/26/144282436/the-photographic-fascination-with-twins http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/12/26/144282436/th... Close, but not identical.