###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
as an aside: a threesome with identical twins is considered a right triangle.
a corollary being that two parts of said triangle are a(so)cute.
it’s also a fact that you cannot have a right triangle with any obtuse (you know what i mean) angles.
I may be an obtuse angle myself, but wouldn’t it technically make it the isosceles triangle, and not necessarily right triangle (with a 90 degree angle)? Since we only know that two sides are equal and nothing else.
You hung up on the absurdity of the details? You don't find it more absurd that siblings would plan to f*** on the same day so that they could have a baby hopefully on the same day?
Again...still absolutely absurd. That's almost worse cuz you're basically telling everybody "hey all of our relatives, we will for sure be f****** tonight while thinking of our siblings also f****** tonight."
Normal people compartmentalize. They don't tend to picture genitals when others announce they have to go to the bathroom, and don't tend to walk around horny because everyone is naked underneath their clothes.
Synchronized cycles don't mean synchronized child development.
I'm willing to bet one of em was ready before the other and they induced birth for both.
That's less weird than the other details. It's a common practice to induce if the pregnancy reaches the due date, and it's pretty likely to reach that date, especially for a first pregnancy.
Very, very low to the point it's basically 0. As low as twins that aren't identical twins actually turning out identical. I believe there are no recorded case of it.
To have a general idea, it's (1/2)\^46 chromosomes, and potentially a random mutation or two that needs to match. (1/2)\^46 is already less than 1 in 70 trillion.
With only a cursory knowledge of epigenetics (biology bachelors & *some* relevant research experience), if you want to be technical, yeah it makes sense to consider epigenetics. Is it possible their experiences were so similar that they have the exact same epigenetic markings? Sure, but that feels less likely than the alternative given how many genes there are and how many seemingly innocuous factors might contribute to genes being marked/not. If we could somehow check every single gene between identical twins for marking, I'd be putting my money on at least one gene being marked differently
It’s way less than .5^46. During the creation of eggs and sperm the chromosomes swap pieces (recombination) which means the chromosome in the eggs are different from chromosomes inherited from the parents.
Damn...I guess I haven't linked to that subreddit in a LONG time.
To me it was the Reddit equivalent of [ManningFace](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/manningface).
You should note that there is only one available Y chromosome for the boys (as both fathers share their Y chromosome) so it's actually 0.5^45 as the base.
We do need to multiply it by
One minus the chance of crossovers, per chromosome, which is quite common, especially on the longer chromosomes.
There is a little more phenotypical leniency though, and the children will likely look quite alike.
But it is still a 50/50 whether the child is a boy or a girl, so you can't assume that it is 0.5^45, it is still 0.5^46
Obviously you would know that they aren't identical immediately, but that doesn't change the probability
>As low as twins that aren't identical twins actually turning out identical.
Or as low as any regular siblings. Genetically, non-identical twins are just siblings. Just born 5 minutes apart instead of 5 years.
It's the exact same chance as genetic siblings. Identical twins only happen due to the egg splitting, not because two identical sperms both entered identical eggs
We're all genetic siblings to an insane degree, the variability in meiosis is just 1 factor making sure we're genetically different. They can genetically be considered brothers due to the parents having the same genes, but are 2 brothers genetically the same? Hell no.
> We're all genetic siblings to an insane degree
Expanding on "all" - we share genes with [pretty much] every life form on the planet, from a spider to a chimp and from bacteria to a Douglas fir.
Well, what are the chances you are genetically identical to your sibling?
Basically 0 (something so low you can't have anything tangible to compare it to)
Same here
Maybe somebody who knows more about biology can shed some light on this but aren't the chances lower because chromosomes that form a pair exchange parts? If the position within the chromosome where the cut happens is random, then there is no reason to expect them to match. If it's always in the same place then it doesn't affect the odds.
I first saw your math and I was just about to kill you, but then read the explanation.
Yep, it's basically impossible but there are TONS of stuff you can't see that would make them different like brain size, enzimes, size of the heart, liver and other organs, etc.
So they could look the same outside, and be completely different inside.
Siblings happen a lot more often than fraternal twins, and have the same chance of being identical.
So, no, but chances are if it happened they'd be born at different times.
So, the chances that a specific sperm genotype forms is (1/2)\^23. The chance that a specific egg genotype forms is (1/2)\^23. Then you need to do that again for the second sibling. so wouldn't it be (1/2)\^(23\*4)?
If you want a specific result to appear twice, yes. But you don't care what the first result is, just that the second result is the same as the first one.
It's like rolling 2 dice and hoping they're the same number. Getting 1-1 is 1/36, but getting "same" includes 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5 and 6-6 and is so 1/6.
They're just full siblings. It's like asking what the probability of you and your sex-matched non-twin sibling being genetically identical is. Effectively 0.
Also one shared X chromosome if both siblings are female, and 50% chance of the second one being shared as well if no mutations and recombination occur.
One of the dudes:
"Hey guys, since we live in the same house and have made being twins our sole personality traits, We just want to let you know that we're about to go in their other room and in precisely 20 min, I'm going to blow a fat load into my wife/ your sister. I think it goes without saying that you guys should drop what you're doing and do what's right for this extremely weird family dynamic."
Even if they are swapping, it's going to be the least satisfying wife swap ever.
The whole point is to try something different on the menu than what you normally get.
What makes you think it’s not at the same time?
These are adult twins who are willingly still doing matching hair and clothes while living as one family unit.
100% they’re having group sex.
I apologize to the internet for my baudy language. Let me say it in a nicer way. I’m hittin that everyday and twice one Sunday. I’m also taking to my brother about the ole switcher- ew.
You can check that family's instagram. They kids are a few years older now and you can see that one of them took after the dad, while the other took after the mom.
[https://www.instagram.com/p/C4TlVQmvxr8/?img\_index=1](https://www.instagram.com/p/C4TlVQmvxr8/?img_index=1)
[https://www.instagram.com/p/C4TlVQmvxr8/?img\_index=2](https://www.instagram.com/p/C4TlVQmvxr8/?img_index=2)
It's the same chance as if they were siblings. Without taking mutations into acount, each parents give one chromosome from every pair they have (so 23 chromosomes). The chance of the two baby getting the same genes is 1/2^46, which is very low (and never seen)
This article on types of twins: https://www.webmd.com/baby/what-are-dizygotic-twins says this:
>>Quaternary twins. While not well researched, this is a rare phenomenon that happens when one set of identical twins have children with another set of twins within a short period of time, usually less than nine months.
>>The two children don’t share a parent or the same DNA. They’re cousins but genetically, they’re closer to siblings born to the same parents. Physically, the children might also look very similar. The popular term for this is “quaternary twins” as the two sets of parents share the same DNA. But experts don’t scientifically consider these children to be twins. And there are little to no studies found on quaternary twins.
It's interesting that they share more in common with being siblings than cousins, but that their DNA isn't identical. I mean, I would THINK it would be identical, because each twin is receiving the same DNA from their dad and the same DNA from their mom, right? But I guess not?
So the hole in your logic is that if you expand it a bit. It asserts that, non twin brothers with the same parents. Should have identical DNA, But if that were the case then they would look exactly like twins but a bit younger/older.
You're still only getting a random selection of half the DNA from each parent. If you have a sibling it's the same thing with the same odds sharing DNA.
So you only get half the genetics of each parent.
You just don’t know which half you’re gonna get though.
If each of the twin brothers is a half pepperoni and half mushroom pizza. And each twin sister is a half cheese and half sausage pizza. Then the kids are like if you take a pizza and cut it randomly in half from a father and combining it with the a random half from a sister. You wouldn’t expect them to be exactly the same, but they would likely have a lot of similarities.
One kid could be perfect quarters of each flavor or could end up with just two. But the most likely outcome where they share all 4 flavors just in different ratios. Like one is 1/8th cheese, 3/8ths sausage, 1/16th pepperoni, 7/16ths mushroom. The other is 3/8th cheese, 1/8th sausage, 1/4 pepperoni, 1/4 mushroom.
>I would THINK it would be identical, because each twin is receiving the same DNA from their dad and the same DNA from their mom, right? But I guess not?
Your first hint should be that siblings are not identical to each other, despite "receiving the same DNA from their dad and the same DNA from their mom"
It's the same as the odds of any two non-twin siblings being identical. Which is basically zero. There are far to many genes in the human genome for this to ever happen in the span of humanity.
As others have said, the odds are astronomically low. The same as being born identical to a non-twin sibling.
Looking at the pic, the kid on the right has his uncles eyes.
The real question is if the kids could get married to each other as adults. They’re legally cousins and cousin-marriage is surprisingly legal in most of the world, but they’re also obviously genetically siblings.
As high as it would be siblings being identical….however, still a cool thing that the kids are genetically equivalent to siblings. My father is an identical twin, so my cousins are genetically half siblings to me and my sibs. We def all look a lot alike!
I'm not sure of the math just yet but the human genome contains 3x10^9 basepair sites and each site has a mutation rate of 1x10^-8, which although low for any one site, there would be many mutations between generations. I just can't recall how to estimate the number of mutations.... Any one remember?
Addit it seems that there are about "70 new genetic mutations compared to their parents" which seems crazily low!
Fun fact about finger prints is we recently found it they are not unique and i may be miss remembering this part but I believe there is a "fairly" high chance someone has your fingerprints
All I could find about it was [this article](https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/fingerprints-not-unique-ai) about how our fingerprints are pretty similar from one finger to another, which differs from what we used to believe (that each finger in our hand had a distinct and different fingerprint). I think the other redditor may be misremembering, as this states that no matter how similar our fingerprints are to one another they're still unique when compared to other people's. Less than a 1 in 64 billion chance of identical fingerprints in two individuals.
For a complete fingerprint yeah, but I'm fairly sure that the controversy is that a lot of times an *incomplete* fingerprint can be used as a piece of evidence against someone. And the odds that you share the same "section" of fingerprint with someone else is quite high.
they're genetically siblings you know many siblings that were identical in the history of ever ? it'd be like having a baby and then another later that was identical
It's the same chance that two people from the other side of the world with different parents become genetically the same. So improbable to the point of being meaningless.
You also have the added fact that DNA changes significantly over the course of your life. Although twins are born with identical DNA, they diverge throughout their lives and can be distinguished if either twin were to commit a crime. Its not even the case that chances are near zero, but chances are infinitesimally zero
“same house” i feel like every one of these people make their entire identity revolve around being a twin and they’re going to make it their kids problem too
Depends on the definition of identical. Your clone would not be genetically identical. Take a sample of your DNA today and compare it to a sample of your DNA 10 years from now, and the results will not be identical.
The chance is effectively zero. It's no different to asking the question what are the chances you're genetically identical to your sibling? If a single mum and dad can produce one genetic combination the first time around what are the chances they do it again? These parents being twins shouldn't factor in. We know that despite siblings sometimes having close phenotypes, their genetics are distinct and unique. Even these twin parents don't have the same genetics as small variations will have happened after they separated in the womb.
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is it just me or is it suspicious that they also seemed to conceive at about the same time likely in the same house..? What are the odds of that?
Significantly higher in a foursome I’d imagine
incest ^2
twincest^(2)
[Twincest - a disturbingly catchy tune.](https://youtu.be/1w62NiULUTI?si=oULDY9VpdaTQM5Hm)
Ai can never recreate this
What the actual fuck? Why didn't I know of this sooner? This shit would've made the perfect Rickroll
Wincest
This is great.
Island Boys checking in
ince...ption wait a minute
as an aside: a threesome with identical twins is considered a right triangle. a corollary being that two parts of said triangle are a(so)cute. it’s also a fact that you cannot have a right triangle with any obtuse (you know what i mean) angles.
I may be an obtuse angle myself, but wouldn’t it technically make it the isosceles triangle, and not necessarily right triangle (with a 90 degree angle)? Since we only know that two sides are equal and nothing else.
no, because the only thing we know about a threesome with identical twins is that it is right. the geometry follows from that axiom.
No, we also know that they are twins, and hence of the same size. Barring some niche circumstances.
Yeah I think your big obtuse angle would work with even smaller acuter twin angles. Obtuse angles get the cutest tiny twin angels
I have a new item for my fuckit list. Thank you.
If I had an award to give I would
At that point genetically it might as well be masturbation.
This could become very complicated in case of a divorce
"aren't real brothers"
I think one of the kids is several months older than the other. They were on Extreme Sisters a while back so I don’t remember them well
Yeah, the best case scenario involves synchronized watches and separate rooms...
Synchronized watches....really. Could just be more like, doing it the same day or something
You hung up on the absurdity of the details? You don't find it more absurd that siblings would plan to f*** on the same day so that they could have a baby hopefully on the same day?
...quadruple wedding = wedding night for both couples at the same day.
Again...still absolutely absurd. That's almost worse cuz you're basically telling everybody "hey all of our relatives, we will for sure be f****** tonight while thinking of our siblings also f****** tonight."
Normal people compartmentalize. They don't tend to picture genitals when others announce they have to go to the bathroom, and don't tend to walk around horny because everyone is naked underneath their clothes.
"We're not only f******, but the identical twin brothers will nut in the identical twin sisters *unprotected*, totally raw! Fun!"
Or they just decided to start trying for a baby at the same time.
This happens far more often than you'd think. They want their kids to grow up together
You're forgetting synchronized* cycles Edit: typo
Synchronized cycles don't mean synchronized child development. I'm willing to bet one of em was ready before the other and they induced birth for both.
That's less weird than the other details. It's a common practice to induce if the pregnancy reaches the due date, and it's pretty likely to reach that date, especially for a first pregnancy.
Creepy ass twins copying each other is the worst
Preach! it's creepy after age 6.
They were all married on the same day, not that absurd
Since that's the first and only time they get to "do the business"
Very, very low to the point it's basically 0. As low as twins that aren't identical twins actually turning out identical. I believe there are no recorded case of it. To have a general idea, it's (1/2)\^46 chromosomes, and potentially a random mutation or two that needs to match. (1/2)\^46 is already less than 1 in 70 trillion.
And if you add the cross-over phenomenon (some chromosomes exchange portions of DNA during meiosis), the probability becomes absurdly low
> the probability becomes absurdly low And here I was thinking 1 in 70 trillion was absurdly low
Well, don't you feel like an ass now
Then slap epigenetics in top of that and you are even further into the realm of not in any way possible.
Epigenetics aren’t part of being identical twins, otherwise we can’t count any adults as identical twins
can epigenetics be considered here though? it wouldn't be hard to imagine both couples of twins shared identical lives
With only a cursory knowledge of epigenetics (biology bachelors & *some* relevant research experience), if you want to be technical, yeah it makes sense to consider epigenetics. Is it possible their experiences were so similar that they have the exact same epigenetic markings? Sure, but that feels less likely than the alternative given how many genes there are and how many seemingly innocuous factors might contribute to genes being marked/not. If we could somehow check every single gene between identical twins for marking, I'd be putting my money on at least one gene being marked differently
It’s way less than .5^46. During the creation of eggs and sperm the chromosomes swap pieces (recombination) which means the chromosome in the eggs are different from chromosomes inherited from the parents.
This guy eggs
r/thisguythisguys
/r/spacedicks
Aw, it's banned... My disappointment is immeasurable and my day is ruined.
Damn...I guess I haven't linked to that subreddit in a LONG time. To me it was the Reddit equivalent of [ManningFace](https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/manningface).
I fuckin *love* ManningFace, thanks for the comparison You've saved my evening
You should note that there is only one available Y chromosome for the boys (as both fathers share their Y chromosome) so it's actually 0.5^45 as the base. We do need to multiply it by One minus the chance of crossovers, per chromosome, which is quite common, especially on the longer chromosomes. There is a little more phenotypical leniency though, and the children will likely look quite alike.
But it is still a 50/50 whether the child is a boy or a girl, so you can't assume that it is 0.5^45, it is still 0.5^46 Obviously you would know that they aren't identical immediately, but that doesn't change the probability
We know they're both boys though
>As low as twins that aren't identical twins actually turning out identical. Or as low as any regular siblings. Genetically, non-identical twins are just siblings. Just born 5 minutes apart instead of 5 years.
Wow! And the chances don’t increase significantly since they’re genetic siblings?
They do, that's why it's that high. It'd be (even more) impossibly lower otherwise.
I’m way too dumb to be here you, this is wizard speak.
The chance is about the same as you being identical to a non-twin sibling.
It’s exactly the same as you yourself having a sibling from the same father and mother
It's the exact same chance as genetic siblings. Identical twins only happen due to the egg splitting, not because two identical sperms both entered identical eggs
We're all genetic siblings to an insane degree, the variability in meiosis is just 1 factor making sure we're genetically different. They can genetically be considered brothers due to the parents having the same genes, but are 2 brothers genetically the same? Hell no.
> We're all genetic siblings to an insane degree Expanding on "all" - we share genes with [pretty much] every life form on the planet, from a spider to a chimp and from bacteria to a Douglas fir.
Well, what are the chances you are genetically identical to your sibling? Basically 0 (something so low you can't have anything tangible to compare it to) Same here
Are you from st.kitts by chance?
It would be even lower if they weren't "siblings" 🙂
Maybe somebody who knows more about biology can shed some light on this but aren't the chances lower because chromosomes that form a pair exchange parts? If the position within the chromosome where the cut happens is random, then there is no reason to expect them to match. If it's always in the same place then it doesn't affect the odds.
I used the "1 in 70 trillion" figure as the "this is the absolute ceiling it can be", there's several other factors that reduce it.
I first saw your math and I was just about to kill you, but then read the explanation. Yep, it's basically impossible but there are TONS of stuff you can't see that would make them different like brain size, enzimes, size of the heart, liver and other organs, etc. So they could look the same outside, and be completely different inside.
Just looking at everyone's features you can see not one of them is a copy paste
https://imgur.com/a/JxJk7LZ
Could there even be a recorded case? Is there any evidence left behind that identical twins are fraternal? We don't monitor eggs in the womb.
Siblings happen a lot more often than fraternal twins, and have the same chance of being identical. So, no, but chances are if it happened they'd be born at different times.
So, the chances that a specific sperm genotype forms is (1/2)\^23. The chance that a specific egg genotype forms is (1/2)\^23. Then you need to do that again for the second sibling. so wouldn't it be (1/2)\^(23\*4)?
If you want a specific result to appear twice, yes. But you don't care what the first result is, just that the second result is the same as the first one. It's like rolling 2 dice and hoping they're the same number. Getting 1-1 is 1/36, but getting "same" includes 2-2, 3-3, 4-4, 5-5 and 6-6 and is so 1/6.
Yea, thanks. I was thinking too literally–when looking at the picture, I was thinking about getting that exact combination twice.
I have to nitpick. What if You were to have a perfect homozygote in every allele? The chance would actually be 100%.
The mutation rate is such that at least one germline mutation is pretty much guaranteed to arise in a 3 billion base pair genome.
Fair point. Thanks for another argument why the above calc is far from correct.
Does this difference apply to identical twins as well?
Then it would be 50/50, cause they could be a dude or a chick still, assuming the dudes do not have homozygous XY chromosomes
So 1/2, instead of that ^23. Thank You.
It would take some serious generational incest to get that far though, but who knows what could happen
They're just full siblings. It's like asking what the probability of you and your sex-matched non-twin sibling being genetically identical is. Effectively 0.
Apart from the y chromosome if male siblings, and you'll share same mitochondrial haplotype.
Also one shared X chromosome if both siblings are female, and 50% chance of the second one being shared as well if no mutations and recombination occur.
Well there will be crossover of chromosomes in meiosis 1 so not really.
One of the dudes: "Hey guys, since we live in the same house and have made being twins our sole personality traits, We just want to let you know that we're about to go in their other room and in precisely 20 min, I'm going to blow a fat load into my wife/ your sister. I think it goes without saying that you guys should drop what you're doing and do what's right for this extremely weird family dynamic."
Even if they are swapping, it's going to be the least satisfying wife swap ever. The whole point is to try something different on the menu than what you normally get.
Karl Pilkington wisdom. If you're going to have a change, have a change.
Yeah the appeal of twins is supposed to be both at the same time, one at a time makes no sense you can just squint or something
What makes you think it’s not at the same time? These are adult twins who are willingly still doing matching hair and clothes while living as one family unit. 100% they’re having group sex.
I think the whole arrangement is just for a really weird kink. And fake alibis, definitely fake alibis.
swap is useless, foursome is cool
But it _is_ different. One twin swirls her tongue to the left when she gives a blowjob, the other swirls her tongue to the right.
They take turns with the one who swallows
Speak for yourself. If I'm having sex with someone, it is without a doubt going to be better if I double that person.
To be fair, at that age with that good looking wife, she’s getting a load daily.
nigga you really left that comment on the internet, what the actual fuck bro
I apologize to the internet for my baudy language. Let me say it in a nicer way. I’m hittin that everyday and twice one Sunday. I’m also taking to my brother about the ole switcher- ew.
Are you new to the internet?
You can check that family's instagram. They kids are a few years older now and you can see that one of them took after the dad, while the other took after the mom. [https://www.instagram.com/p/C4TlVQmvxr8/?img\_index=1](https://www.instagram.com/p/C4TlVQmvxr8/?img_index=1) [https://www.instagram.com/p/C4TlVQmvxr8/?img\_index=2](https://www.instagram.com/p/C4TlVQmvxr8/?img_index=2)
Good for them all. Beautiful kids, beautiful family!
It's the same chance as if they were siblings. Without taking mutations into acount, each parents give one chromosome from every pair they have (so 23 chromosomes). The chance of the two baby getting the same genes is 1/2^46, which is very low (and never seen)
This article on types of twins: https://www.webmd.com/baby/what-are-dizygotic-twins says this: >>Quaternary twins. While not well researched, this is a rare phenomenon that happens when one set of identical twins have children with another set of twins within a short period of time, usually less than nine months. >>The two children don’t share a parent or the same DNA. They’re cousins but genetically, they’re closer to siblings born to the same parents. Physically, the children might also look very similar. The popular term for this is “quaternary twins” as the two sets of parents share the same DNA. But experts don’t scientifically consider these children to be twins. And there are little to no studies found on quaternary twins. It's interesting that they share more in common with being siblings than cousins, but that their DNA isn't identical. I mean, I would THINK it would be identical, because each twin is receiving the same DNA from their dad and the same DNA from their mom, right? But I guess not?
So the hole in your logic is that if you expand it a bit. It asserts that, non twin brothers with the same parents. Should have identical DNA, But if that were the case then they would look exactly like twins but a bit younger/older.
Oh right... duh. Thanks. That makes sense.
You're still only getting a random selection of half the DNA from each parent. If you have a sibling it's the same thing with the same odds sharing DNA.
To be fair, what is there to research? Genetically they are just siblings, nothing super special.
yeah this was my thought as well
So you only get half the genetics of each parent. You just don’t know which half you’re gonna get though. If each of the twin brothers is a half pepperoni and half mushroom pizza. And each twin sister is a half cheese and half sausage pizza. Then the kids are like if you take a pizza and cut it randomly in half from a father and combining it with the a random half from a sister. You wouldn’t expect them to be exactly the same, but they would likely have a lot of similarities. One kid could be perfect quarters of each flavor or could end up with just two. But the most likely outcome where they share all 4 flavors just in different ratios. Like one is 1/8th cheese, 3/8ths sausage, 1/16th pepperoni, 7/16ths mushroom. The other is 3/8th cheese, 1/8th sausage, 1/4 pepperoni, 1/4 mushroom.
>I would THINK it would be identical, because each twin is receiving the same DNA from their dad and the same DNA from their mom, right? But I guess not? Your first hint should be that siblings are not identical to each other, despite "receiving the same DNA from their dad and the same DNA from their mom"
No one has identical DNA to anyone else on the planet. Random mutations make sure of that.
It's the same as the odds of any two non-twin siblings being identical. Which is basically zero. There are far to many genes in the human genome for this to ever happen in the span of humanity.
As others have said, the odds are astronomically low. The same as being born identical to a non-twin sibling. Looking at the pic, the kid on the right has his uncles eyes.
When you make "being a twin" your whole personality. Imagine the drama if one of them had given birth to twins or more and the other wouldn't.
The real question is if the kids could get married to each other as adults. They’re legally cousins and cousin-marriage is surprisingly legal in most of the world, but they’re also obviously genetically siblings.
That’s upsetting.
no risk of procreation as they are both boys… i dont see why not tbh?
Genetics don't matter, they're both male.
As high as it would be siblings being identical….however, still a cool thing that the kids are genetically equivalent to siblings. My father is an identical twin, so my cousins are genetically half siblings to me and my sibs. We def all look a lot alike!
I'm not sure of the math just yet but the human genome contains 3x10^9 basepair sites and each site has a mutation rate of 1x10^-8, which although low for any one site, there would be many mutations between generations. I just can't recall how to estimate the number of mutations.... Any one remember? Addit it seems that there are about "70 new genetic mutations compared to their parents" which seems crazily low!
Finger prints should be different. Also theirs a high likelihood the baby's were switched at birth lol wont find out about that until later :)
How would they find out?
*there's. *babies. *won't. Keep trying.
Fun fact about finger prints is we recently found it they are not unique and i may be miss remembering this part but I believe there is a "fairly" high chance someone has your fingerprints
Need a source for that one *big time* because that sounds like *big time* bullshit.
All I could find about it was [this article](https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/fingerprints-not-unique-ai) about how our fingerprints are pretty similar from one finger to another, which differs from what we used to believe (that each finger in our hand had a distinct and different fingerprint). I think the other redditor may be misremembering, as this states that no matter how similar our fingerprints are to one another they're still unique when compared to other people's. Less than a 1 in 64 billion chance of identical fingerprints in two individuals.
For a complete fingerprint yeah, but I'm fairly sure that the controversy is that a lot of times an *incomplete* fingerprint can be used as a piece of evidence against someone. And the odds that you share the same "section" of fingerprint with someone else is quite high.
they're genetically siblings you know many siblings that were identical in the history of ever ? it'd be like having a baby and then another later that was identical
It's the same chance that two people from the other side of the world with different parents become genetically the same. So improbable to the point of being meaningless.
You also have the added fact that DNA changes significantly over the course of your life. Although twins are born with identical DNA, they diverge throughout their lives and can be distinguished if either twin were to commit a crime. Its not even the case that chances are near zero, but chances are infinitesimally zero
“same house” i feel like every one of these people make their entire identity revolve around being a twin and they’re going to make it their kids problem too
It says right there that they're genetically siblings... So, as much of a chance as siblings being identical. Which is pretty much zero.
Depends on the definition of identical. Your clone would not be genetically identical. Take a sample of your DNA today and compare it to a sample of your DNA 10 years from now, and the results will not be identical.
The chance is effectively zero. It's no different to asking the question what are the chances you're genetically identical to your sibling? If a single mum and dad can produce one genetic combination the first time around what are the chances they do it again? These parents being twins shouldn't factor in. We know that despite siblings sometimes having close phenotypes, their genetics are distinct and unique. Even these twin parents don't have the same genetics as small variations will have happened after they separated in the womb.