genetically of course.
2006-07-10 10:59:06 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
crazyhumans: clearly you missed the boat on this one.
2006-07-10 11:06:56 · update #1
That is a good theory. So it would be fun to run the paternity tests, now wouldn't it.
(some thought that they were identical, until tests were run. So how do you really know?)
2006-07-10 11:03:25 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Are you asking if their kids would be twins (not siblings)?
We had this question on our genetics MT. Cant remember the answer. My implicit memory says No. They would not be twins.
There is great diversity that is brought upon the human race via genetic recombination that takes place during meiosis. I guess the idea is that just because two people look alike does not mean that they would contribute the exact same sperm (with the exact same arrangement of chromosome/gene) to the egg. Likewise, just because two women are twins doesnt mean that their eggs will be identical.
2006-07-10 18:47:43 · answer #2 · answered by mrvsevolodovich 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, they would not be siblings. Even though these two children may be as genetically related as most siblings are, this genetic similarity does not make them siblings. To be siblings, the two children would have to share one or both parents with each other; NO EXCEPTIONS (1)! These children's parents may be identical twins, but they are still two separate sets of parents. Similar genetics does not make two people siblings, it just makes them very close genetic relatives.
2006-07-10 11:29:04 · answer #3 · answered by Tea 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Siblings are born of the same set of parents.
That is like asking if Person A's sister marries Person B and Person B's Sister marries Person A, would the children be siblings?
2006-07-10 11:05:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes genetically they would be siblings...identical twins share identically everything except finger prints......
2006-07-15 10:28:21 · answer #5 · answered by Heather 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Interesting. Yes, I believe their offspring would genetically be siblings.
2006-07-10 11:02:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes they would be siblings genetically. So If one needed a bone marrow transplant, they would be considered first. But legally they would be first maternal cousins and first paternal cousins.
2006-07-10 14:05:39 · answer #7 · answered by Tamm 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with happylovemoma - they aren't siblings coz they have a different set of parents. Simple.
2006-07-11 01:15:17 · answer #8 · answered by Eigengirl 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Genetically yes, socially no. They would be related 50%, like true full sibs
2006-07-10 16:39:11 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The babies would be cousins, not siblings.
2006-07-11 08:43:28 · answer #10 · answered by twentyeight7 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋