i don't intend for this to sound rude in any way but i'm curious as to why one child is gorgeous and the other is not. i know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but my father works with someone who has two daughters..the eldest is stunning, and has posed for playboy and a few other magazines, the younger has absolutely none of those qualities. same mother..
2006-08-10 03:32:59 · 9 answers · asked by Kismet 7 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Other - Science
one would think with the same genes, that the siblings would look somewhat similar.
2006-08-10 03:35:36 · update #1
same father lol
2006-08-10 03:51:23 · update #2
Hmmm technically those daughters are more than 90% genetically similar. The traits might be from a combination of recessive genes one daughter shows and the other daughter has these genes but they don't appear
2006-08-10 03:37:41 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Do they at least have a family resemblence? That is,
one may be very appealing and the other less so, but do they
appear to come from the same family? Do they resemble
their parents in any way?
If not, then there may be adoption or something else going on
that you're not aware of.
It really doesn't take much to make a beautiful face ugly ...
perhaps one recessive gene presenting. Look at the two
and instead of thinking of how one is appealing and the other
is not, look for more exact differences ... position of cheek
bones, length of arms and legs, etc.
If they are related, I'll bet you find a couple of obvious
differences that may be due to relatively small genetic
variation.
Contrary to the saying ("Beauty is just skin deep"), beauty
has a lot to do with bone structure as well!
2006-08-10 03:41:33 · answer #2 · answered by Elana 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No not always....it all depends on which gene is dominate at the time of conception. So for the eldest the "beauty gene" meaning the right sort of combination of facial/body features gene....I know this doesn't sound scientific, but it's the only way I can explain.
Also, ARE you 100% sure it's his kid....maybe the mom had an affair with some ugly gene dude! LOL
2006-08-10 03:40:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Siblings do not share the same genes unless they are identical twins. Parents also carry recessive genes that may be passed on to another generation without emerging as a person until several generations later.
2006-08-10 03:40:03 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What does the mailman look like?
Ok, seriously, genes combine in different ways and mutate even. Nature can not tell what will be seens as beautiful or not: it just rolls the dice (though they are weighted in the parents genetic favor). Who knows: some new hideous superstar may hit the scene, suddenly causing everyone with two noses to be the most popular and chased mates in high school.
2006-08-10 03:39:07 · answer #5 · answered by Rjmail 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
actual, yet your established youthful-earth creationist don't have the prerequisite preparation to understand adequate about genetics to even commence to appreciate the region that you pose to them. "Ever heard of Mitochondrial Eve or Y-Chromosome Adam?" I relax my case. For the at a loss for words: Mitochondrial Eve is the female who replaced into the most modern effortless ancestor of all human beings alive right now in the adventure that they were to song their ancestry backwards in straightforward words by ability of the female line. Strictly talking, Mitochondrial Eve does no longer could were a human in any respect. She would were any of the ancestors of the human race, a primate, a fish, or maybe an before, more convenient multi-celled organisms. besides the undeniable fact that, research has stated that she lived in Africa someplace round one hundred forty thousand years in the past and because archaic Homo sapiens look to have first advanced round 250 thousand years in the past Eve could were human. The clue to why Mitochondrial Eve is theoretically traceable is in her call. All residing cells comprise organelles widespread as mitochondria which comprise their own DNA and the mitochondria contained in the fertilised egg derive fullyyt from the mummy. you should keep in recommendations - except you're a youthful Earth creationist, for sure - that her mate replaced into no longer the mitochondrial "Adam" (recent effortless male ancestor, Y-chromosomal Adam) - truly, there are slightly diagnosis going round that Eve is two times the age of Adam. Why creationists are idiots: Eve isn't unavoidably, and likely isn't, the most modern effortless ancestor of all present day human beings. That effortless ancestor would have lived a lot more effective at present than Eve. There could were different women folk, likely many, many different women folk, alive at the same time as Eve. a lot of those women folk would have descendants who're alive right now. the version between Eve and all her woman contemporaries is that the latter all have a minimum of one male in each line of descent from them. Eve would have had ancestors of her own. She isn't the first woman human.
2016-11-23 19:15:11 · answer #6 · answered by mccuistion 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Same mother different father despite the protest of the mother. Cause the mail man is most likely one of their fathers.
2006-08-10 03:37:28 · answer #7 · answered by ejholle1 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
DNA can combine in myriads of ways.
2006-08-10 03:57:08 · answer #8 · answered by ag_iitkgp 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
madam
EVERYONE R NOT SAME
EACH ONE HAS GOT VARIETY QUALITY
ACCEPT AND GO ON UR PATH ACCORDING UR HARD WORK
2006-08-10 03:40:19 · answer #9 · answered by coolkunduabhi 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋