If you had two separate sets of twins, say one set is male and the other female, and they coupled up and eventually had kids, would their kids be siblings or cousins on a DNA level?
This is just wildly hypothetical, but I saw a clickbait ad somewhere about a story, and now I’m curious if there’s any validity to it. It said the kids would all have matching DNA and were siblings
In: 16
More or less. In a simple version of genetics, where genes are not modified at all during a living creature’s lifespan, then yes, children of two couples of identical twins would be as genetically related to one another as siblings of a typical couple are. (On average, they would share half of their genes with each sibling, although there’s plenty of variance around this average.)
It’s worth noting that there’s a lot of “um, actually…”s in genetics, though. *Most* genes are passed down unaltered, but not all (since your body can “turn off” or “turn on” genes in ways that can be passed on).
More or less. In a simple version of genetics, where genes are not modified at all during a living creature’s lifespan, then yes, children of two couples of identical twins would be as genetically related to one another as siblings of a typical couple are. (On average, they would share half of their genes with each sibling, although there’s plenty of variance around this average.)
It’s worth noting that there’s a lot of “um, actually…”s in genetics, though. *Most* genes are passed down unaltered, but not all (since your body can “turn off” or “turn on” genes in ways that can be passed on).
A genetic test would come back showing them as 50% shared DNA, which means either full siblings or parents normally.
This only works if both sets of twins are identical twins. Something like 60% of twins are fraternal twins which don’t share any more DNA than regular siblings.
A genetic test would come back showing them as 50% shared DNA, which means either full siblings or parents normally.
This only works if both sets of twins are identical twins. Something like 60% of twins are fraternal twins which don’t share any more DNA than regular siblings.
If you mean identical twins, then yes the kids will genetically be siblings, but legally cousins.
If you mean identical twins, then yes the kids will genetically be siblings, but legally cousins.
If you mean identical twins, then yes the kids will genetically be siblings, but legally cousins.
More or less. In a simple version of genetics, where genes are not modified at all during a living creature’s lifespan, then yes, children of two couples of identical twins would be as genetically related to one another as siblings of a typical couple are. (On average, they would share half of their genes with each sibling, although there’s plenty of variance around this average.)
It’s worth noting that there’s a lot of “um, actually…”s in genetics, though. *Most* genes are passed down unaltered, but not all (since your body can “turn off” or “turn on” genes in ways that can be passed on).
A genetic test would come back showing them as 50% shared DNA, which means either full siblings or parents normally.
This only works if both sets of twins are identical twins. Something like 60% of twins are fraternal twins which don’t share any more DNA than regular siblings.
I happen to have grown up with the twins your clickbait arcticle is about. The Deane twins, Brittany and Brianna, met another pair of identical twins at a twin convention, paired off, and wound up as matching identical couples. They now have kids. Those kids, genetically, are indistinguishable from full siblings, even though physically and legally, they are cousins
Latest Answers