[NA] An odd hypothetical question

RyanB

RyanB

Super Administrator
Management Council Member
PoA Supporter
Joined
Jul 21, 2010
Messages
16,196
Location
Chattanooga, TN
Display Name
Display name:
Ryan
I’ve been thinking...

Let’s say for example a set of identical male twins fell in love with a set of identical female twins, one for each of course. The two couples then get into bed with one another and mingle each other’s DNA and the female twins become pregnant with a boy. Because both couples are identical, would both of their male offspring also look nearly identical to the other?

I’m asking for a friend of course....
 
No, Each child would be a more or less random combination of the genes in each parent pair. As an example, here are a pair of fraternal (sororal?) twins.



-Skip
 
Ryanb said:
I’ve been thinking...

Let’s say for example a set of identical male twins fell in love with a set of identical female twins, one for each of course. The two couples then get into bed with one another and mingle each other’s DNA and the female twins become pregnant with a boy. Because both couples are identical, would both of their male offspring also look nearly identical to the other?

I’m asking for a friend of course....
Click to expand...

Going way back on biology class from thirty years ago, or more recent stuff from my kids.
The answer is, it depends. Both parents contribute half of the gene pool for the child. It is fairly random which half the parents provide. For a specific trait, the parent may have two dominant genes (e.g. brown eyes) or may have a recessive and a dominate gene. In which case the child may get the recessive trait....

Tim
 
Skip Miller said:
No, Each child would be a more or less random combination of the genes in each parent pair. As an example, here are a pair of fraternal (sororal?) twins.



-Skip
Click to expand...
So even if both parents are completely identical, it’s still possible that one child could pop out 10x more melanated than the other? Genetics are weird....
 
Ryanb said:
I’ve been thinking...

Let’s say for example a set of identical male twins fell in love with a set of identical female twins, one for each of course. The two couples then get into bed with one another and mingle each other’s DNA and the female twins become pregnant with a boy. Because both couples are identical, would both of their male offspring also look nearly identical to the other?

I’m asking for a friend of course....
Click to expand...

Look at the question from a different angle. One couple has two different kids. Are they identical? They would have just as much chance of being identical as in your scenario. Even fraternal twins may often look totally different despite sharing so much of the same DNA.

That being said, they may be similar in appearance, just as any other group of siblings or even cousins sometimes do.
 
Think of the genes like a deck of cards. Shuffle the deck of cards deal half of them out and see what you get. Reshuffle them deal half of them out again and do you get the same result? No. So why would the kids look exactly the same?
 
midwestpa24 said:
Look at the question from a different angle. One couple has two different kids. Are they identical? They would have just as much chance of being identical as in your scenario. Even fraternal twins may often look totally different despite sharing so much of the same DNA.

That being said, they may be similar in appearance, just as any other group of siblings or even cousins sometimes do.
Click to expand...
Yeah I figured as much, but thought it might be an interesting question to toy with.

...the things that pop into your mind at 10:30 on a Friday night. :)
 
EdFred said:
Think of the genes like a deck of cards. Shuffle the deck of cards deal half of them out and see what you get. Reshuffle them deal half of them out again and do you get the same result? No. So why would the kids look exactly the same?
Click to expand...
True. One would likely be genetically gifted and the other would look like the back end of a mule. Darn genetics!
 
Keep in mind how identical twins form. They start off from the same zygote - so by that time it formed the genetic lottery has already been played and the genes from each parent picked up. Only after that does the zygote split into two identical embryos.

Obviously this process doesn’t happen if you start off with 2 different sets of parents since then you’ll always start off with two zygotes - not just one that can split.
 
midwestpa24 said:
Look at the question from a different angle. One couple has two different kids. Are they identical? They would have just as much chance of being identical as in your scenario. Even fraternal twins may often look totally different despite sharing so much of the same DNA.

That being said, they may be similar in appearance, just as any other group of siblings or even cousins sometimes do.
Click to expand...
Fraternal twins don't share any more DNA than non-twin siblings. Otherwise, spot on.
 
Ryanb said:
True. One would likely be genetically gifted and the other would look like the back end of a mule. Darn genetics!
Click to expand...
Starting to sound like this really old Schwarzenegger/DeVito movie...
 
Ok, different question:

So you made a clone of yourself. I mean so perfect your mother can't tell you apart from your clone. You look alike you think alike you dress alike. So identical you can almost read each others minds.

So for the question, If you had such a clone, would you make out with yourself.??
 
Nah, if this were the case, my kids would look the same. all brothers and all sisters would be identical if this were true.
 
I believe this question has been answered correctly. Amazingly a person from Michigan actually got is right. Each identical twin will give a random assortment of his or her genes to their offspring.

The only way the offspring would be identical (other than by zygote splitting or amazing chance) is if the twins were homozygous for all of their genes, that is that all their chromosomes were identical to each other. This is close to impossible in humans, the ones who came closest were I think the Hapsburgs, though the Egyptian Pharos gave them a run for their money, despite the efforts of the denizens of Michigan.

That said, many strains of lab animals (and some non lab animals) are so inbred that indeed they are homozygous at every locus, that is their chromosomes are identical to each other. Breed such animals and indeed the offspring are all identical both to their parents and to each other.
 
And here I thought this question was going to be about who had to pay child support.

I have heard of a case involving twin brothers both sleeping with the same woman, and each was ordered to pay half of the child support. Then, I Googled looking for it and found a different case where they chose one of the brothers based on some pretty weak (IMO) "evidence" that the mother thought it was a particular one, even though they had had encounters only a few hours apart.

https://mtlawoffice.com/news/establishing-paternity-when-both-putative-fathers-are-identical-twins
 
flyingcheesehead said:
And here I thought this question was going to be about who had to pay child support.

I have heard of a case involving twin brothers both sleeping with the same woman, and each was ordered to pay half of the child support. Then, I Googled looking for it and found a different case where they chose one of the brothers based on some pretty weak (IMO) "evidence" that the mother thought it was a particular one, even though they had had encounters only a few hours apart.

https://mtlawoffice.com/news/establishing-paternity-when-both-putative-fathers-are-identical-twins
Click to expand...
In this day and age paternity can be positively established. Identical twins are actually not genetically identical by the time they are old enough to be the subjects of a paternity suit. There is sufficient genetic polymorphism to tell them apart, though it would be expensive to dig out.
 
steingar said:
In this day and age paternity can be positively established. Identical twins are actually not genetically identical by the time they are old enough to be the subjects of a paternity suit. There is sufficient genetic polymorphism to tell them apart, though it would be expensive to dig out.
Click to expand...

So I am not genetically the same person I was when I was born?
 
EdFred said:
So I am not genetically the same person I was when I was born?
Click to expand...
No you are not. There have been somatic mutations from environmental insult and errors in DNA replication. Transposons have jumped around, despite the best efforts of your cells to keep them in place. It is very likely that there have been wholesale DNA rearrangements in some cells not supposed to have them, and it is certain that there have been wholesale DNA rearrangements in cells that are supposed to have them.

Humans are not statues. We don't stay the same thought out our lives, and our DNA is no different.
 
steingar said:
No you are not. There have been somatic mutations from environmental insult and errors in DNA replication. Transposons have jumped around, despite the best efforts of your cells to keep them in place. It is very likely that there have been wholesale DNA rearrangements in some cells not supposed to have them, and it is certain that there have been wholesale DNA rearrangements in cells that are supposed to have them.

Humans are not statues. We don't stay the same thought out our lives, and our DNA is no different.
Click to expand...

I guess that explains a few things! I think I have mutated into having starfish genes.
 
steingar said:
In this day and age paternity can be positively established. Identical twins are actually not genetically identical by the time they are old enough to be the subjects of a paternity suit. There is sufficient genetic polymorphism to tell them apart, though it would be expensive to dig out.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what they said. Might have been a different article that I also saw. I guess your basic paternity test only uses something like 15 genetic markers. While we do have the technology to determine which of the twins it was, they said it'd take more like 6 million markers to tell who the father was with certainty, and obviously that's significantly more expensive, to the point that it sounds like just paying the child support for 18 years might be cheaper!
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah, that's what they said. Might have been a different article that I also saw. I guess your basic paternity test only uses something like 15 genetic markers. While we do have the technology to determine which of the twins it was, they said it'd take more like 6 million markers to tell who the father was with certainty, and obviously that's significantly more expensive, to the point that it sounds like just paying the child support for 18 years might be cheaper!
Click to expand...
You could probably sequence each twin's genome and the child's genome for under 5 grand. There are very sophisticated algorithms that can parse through to find what's what. Today it is quite doable, not that any connected to a court would know that.
 
Eh, just offer to cut the kid in half and see which one says no first.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah, that's what they said. Might have been a different article that I also saw. I guess your basic paternity test only uses something like 15 genetic markers. While we do have the technology to determine which of the twins it was, they said it'd take more like 6 million markers to tell who the father was with certainty, and obviously that's significantly more expensive, to the point that it sounds like just paying the child support for 18 years might be cheaper!
Click to expand...

steingar said:
You could probably sequence each twin's genome and the child's genome for under 5 grand. There are very sophisticated algorithms that can parse through to find what's what. Today it is quite doable, not that any connected to a court would know that.
Click to expand...

I feel an episode of Maury coming on. LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top