Answer:
My opinion
Step-by-step explanation:
In general, DNA evidence is considered to be more convincing than physical features for a few reasons. Firstly, DNA is unique to each individual and can provide conclusive identification, while physical features can sometimes be ambiguous or subject to interpretation. Secondly, DNA evidence can be tested and analyzed using scientific methods that are generally more reliable than relying on visual observation alone. Thirdly, DNA evidence can provide information about an individual's ancestry, medical history, and other genetic traits that may be useful in investigations or trials.
However, it's important to note that physical features can still be very valuable in certain contexts, particularly when it comes to identifying suspects or victims. For example, eyewitnesses may be able to provide detailed descriptions of physical features such as hair color, height, and distinctive markings like tattoos or scars that can be used to narrow down potential suspects. Physical evidence such as fingerprints, footprints, or handwriting analysis can also be very useful in investigations.
Overall, both DNA and physical features can be important sources of evidence, and the weight given to each will depend on the specific circumstances of the case.