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

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?