Canadian scientists have discovered that
identical twins do not have identical genes, a common assumption by researchers for more than a century, and a development that could have implications into the study of medicine and human behaviour.
Canadian scientists have discovered that
identical twins do not have identical genes, a common assumption by researchers for more than a century, and a development that could have implications into the study of medicine and human behaviour.
I have an identical twin who is a hardcore left-wing NDP.
It might have been more useful if the article had detailed if the non matching DNA sequences were found in areas known to be of some importance or not.
Obviously the evil or sinister twin, Trent. Is he left handed?
And all along I thought the science was settled.
Kate, can it be true that it has been a common assumption among scientists that identical twins have identical DNA? If genetic mutation occurs over the course of the life of an organism, it would be highly improbable that monozygotic twins would remain genetically identical through the course of their subsequent lives, no?
The Sound of Settled Science.
Actually the sound of the debris of Settled Science after this guy nukes the IPCC.
http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2011/3/31/courtillot.html
Tempting as it would be to let your mind blow out over this, it’s just a science story in a newspaper. I have many questions about this, but I wouldn’t stoop to asking them of a fricking journalist.
nick
What is highly improbable is that “monozygotic twins” can be identified with any certainty.
It is highly probable that they in fact are extremely rare…or non-existant…
In my experience most of the time these are more or less arbitrarilly labled by very questionable non-empiracal methods.
IMHO declarations of infants, especially new borns being declared to resemble kin or parents is wishful thinking, unless obvious traits such as racial features are involved…..even then…..
Paternaty tests were more or less Voodoo prior to DNA….now even that is perhaps found to be not that definitive….
Nexct thing you know, you’ll be telling us that Duceppe and Layton aren’t brothers…
I glad to see that backward “modern” science is finally catching up to the truth taught by the Christian religion for centuries.
Remember the old gospel song “Jesus Loves Me”? If the scientists were paying attention in Sunday school as kids they would remember the words: “…red or yellow, black or white, all are special in His sight”. Individuality is hard-coded into our genes because God created us that way.
Three cheers for common sense? This isn’t really revolutionary. While the researcher or journalist may be tempted to go “ZOMG IDENTICAL TWINS AREN’T IDENTICAL!!!” It’s common sense that your genetic material goes through minor changes as time goes on.
This doesn’t change the fact that Identical twins have virtually identical DNA, and thus I still get to claim that I won the genetic lottery when it comes to things like needing donor organs or blood.
David Suzuki has been saying this for decades.
never thought it could have been , any and all identical twins Ive known have grown apart in the years. and its more than scars from hockey sticks or extra burgers.
maybe the explanation is that their is no such thing as identical twins, that it always was two separate eggs.
I can’t say this comes as a complete surprise. The first cloned kitten (I’m torn. On the one hand, objectively, there are too many cats in the world, we hardly need to start cloning them. On the other hand – yay, more cats!) did not look much like her… whatever the term is – cat she was cloned from: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2002/feb/15/genetics.highereducation
Yes, I do understand the difference between genotype and phenotype, but that, at least as normally understood, doesn’t seem to cover this.
From the article: “And because the process (of gene repication) is constant, a pair of twins when they are 60 may have many more differences than when they are three years old, Singh said.”
Indeed. I once saw a thingee where two identical twins in late middle-age, one a clean-livin’ gal, the other a life long heavy smoker and sunbather, were stood side by side. Needless to say there were differences.
cal2 – “…that it always was two separate eggs.”
Not only is it not “two seperate eggs”, but you’d be amazed at how common it is for an egg in utero to split (how do you think conjoined – i.e. siamese – twins happen?). One twin, the meaner, more selfish one I guess, will absorb the other. I believe Kate has posted about this before.
For all you know you have bits of what might have turned into your brother lurking somewhere in your interior.
20-odd second of pop-culture reference to sugar the pill.
repeat after me,
” We are all individuals”
“Nexct thing you know, you’ll be telling us that Duceppe and Layton aren’t brothers…”
Posted by: Jamie MacMaster at April 1, 2011 12:39 PM
Or that Taliban Jack Layton was a slow maturing monozygotic gene of Vladimir Lenin, eh?
ricardo
“”because God created us that way.”””
and you have scientific proof to back up such a statement???
if you do some research, you will find that the number that represents the possible variables in the genetic is SO large that the probability of a repeat (identical twins) comes close to being an absolute
If Prof. Shiva Singh could obtain and compare the DNA of Obama and some of his half brothers, that might be even more startling.
David Suzuki has been saying this for decades.
~dizzy
Even an over ripe banana meets a monkey now and then.
Obviously the evil or sinister twin, Trent. Is he left handed?
Posted by: andycanuck at April 1, 2011 11:37 AM
No, he’s right handed and I’m left handed. Left side of the brain controls the right side of the body and vise versa.
Now this is a very interesting thing. I’d have to see some more evidence of his claim that the body’s genetic material -changes- over time, because if that’s true then Lamarck may have had a point.
Somebody dig up Josef Mengele. This would no doubt interest him.
Another garbage article about a well-understood aspect of science. Good job Kate!