Non-Incestual Sibling/Cousin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Wyatt
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 24
  • Views Views 4K
Wyatt

Wyatt

Elite Member
Messages
257
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Religion
Atheism
If a pair of female twins marry and have children with a pair of male twins...

are the children considered cousins and/or siblings?

What I think:
They may not look exactly alike because there are genes that will differ, just like how siblings may differ- but...
their genes would be as close as a sibling while socially, they're cousins.
So, if they're genetically the same as siblings, why couldn't they be called that?

:exhausted I just thought of this today. Confusing!

What do you take on this?
 
Last edited:
The children considered as cousins ofcourse.
And they may not look like each other cuz siblings sometimes don't look like each other.
 
Yep, they are siblings genetically speaking! Pretty weird, huh?

I don't see why you would call them siblings though, because they have different parents.
 
Malaikah said:
Yep, they are siblings genetically speaking! Pretty weird, huh?

I don't see why you would call them siblings though, because they have different parents.
Click to expand...

But let's say that they would become incestual from there, their rather abnormal relationship would cause problems because their genetics are the exact same as would be a brother and sister. :rollseyes

Interesting. :X
 
Podarok said:
If a pair of female twins marry and have children with a pair of male twins...

are the children considered cousins and/or siblings?

What I think:
They may not look exactly alike because there are genes that will differ, just like how siblings may differ- but...
their genes would be as close as a sibling while socially, they're cousins.
So, if they're genetically the same as siblings, why couldn't they be called that?

:exhausted I just thought of this today. Confusing!

What do you take on this?
Click to expand...

a big "IF".



they won't be genetically identical. gametes undergo crossing-over that changes genes combinations.

Most twin r not "identical-twins" which means their genes r different. Few twins r "identical-twins" having exactly same genes................

BUT BUT BUT.... when sperms/eggs r being formed in these "identical twins", there is a process called "cross-over", that changes genes combinations..... As a result sprems/eggs of "identical-twins" r NOT identical.

So their kids will NOT be genetically identical.
 
sur, he isn't saying the kids are genetically identical. Brothers and sisters are not genticially identical, but there is a certain degree of similarity between their genetics.

So, your gene are more similar to your brother/sister than they are to your cousin.

But in this case, your genes would be as similar to your cousins as they are to your siblings, hence they would be like siblings in a genetic sense.
 
They might be "similar" but they won't be "identical". If he's talking of genetic "similarity" then even cousins born to non-twin parents can be genetically "similar" to lesser or greater extent, but we never call them genetic-siblings.


There is shuffling of genes in each person while gametes(sperms/eggs) r formed which makes it almost impossible for such cousins to be genetically identical, even if their parents were identical-twins.


So say both twin-couples have a son, 2 such sons would have different genetic makeup. So there is NO reason to call them genetic-siblings. If they can be called genetic-siblings just because of "genetic-similarity" then any other type of cousins can be genetic-siblings.
 
Last edited:
:sl:
They'd be counted as cousins. The word Sibling implies that the child has the same parents (in this context) e.g. twin set 1 (Mr A [male twin 1] and Mrs A [female twin 1]) has a sibling named Bob (the child of Mr A and Mrs A)

Mr B (male twin 2) and Mrs B (female twin 2) had a kid, called Derek. Since Mr B is Mr A's brother, then Derek is Mr A's nehphew and Bob is Derek's cousin.

The fact that Mr A and Mr B are twins doesn't change the fact they are brothers and therefore uncles to one another's children. Ergo, cousin is the answer.
 
Last edited:
Sur, I am not saying the two children will be identical. Siblings differ as much as those children will. It's just the fact that one will get the same genes passed on as if they were brother/sister.

They're not technically from the same parents, but when it gets genetical, it doesn't make a difference from which pair they came.
 
Well I don't think the kids of each couple would be identical to each other genetically. There would be genetic variation due to independent assortment of chromosomes, chiasmata occurring etc to take into account.

So I don't think they would be siblings genetically or otherwise. Cousins yes, but not Siblings.
 
Banu_Hashim said:
Well I don't think the kids of each couple would be identical to each other genetically. There would be genetic variation due to independent assortment of chromosomes, chiasmata occurring etc to take into account.

So I don't think they would be siblings genetically or otherwise. Cousins yes, but not Siblings.
Click to expand...

I just said that they would not be genetically identitical. They are getting the same genes from identitical sources. Therefore, they have as much genetical difference as siblings, therefore they should be able to be called siblings, but they will still socially be accepted as 'cousins' while they are technically both.
 
Podarok said:
I just said that they would not be genetically identitical. They are getting the same genes from identitical sources. Therefore, they have as much genetical difference as siblings, therefore they should be able to be called siblings, but they will still socially be accepted as 'cousins' while they are technically both.
Click to expand...

Ohh Right... I see what you're getting at. Because both the fathers are identical and both the mothers are identical (genetically)... would the offspring of both be considered siblings.

Umm... that's a good question! :p Well, the mothers are fathers are all their own individuals but um... when i think about it... I confuse myself! Lol, so basically I don't really know. My immediate thought would be no, but I can't justify my reason.
 
They may be identical genetically but they are still two separate individuals... you can't class them as the same person. They are 2 persons.
 
sur said:
So say both twin-couples have a son, 2 such sons would have different genetic makeup. So there is NO reason to call them genetic-siblings. If they can be called genetic-siblings just because of "genetic-similarity" then any other type of cousins can be genetic-siblings.
Click to expand...

Sur, what you are saying implies that siblings have identical genes. They do not. Siblings also have different genetic make ups, so the argument that the cousins will have different genetic makeups is irrelevant.

Let's take an example. Let's say, with siblings whose parents aren't twins , average genetic similarity is 50%. (I'm just making up a number). And cousins were the parents aren't twins, let's say the average genetic similarity is about 10%.

In the case were both parents are twins, the average genetic similarity between siblings would be 50% AND the average genetic similarity between the cousins would also be about 50%.

Crossing over has nothing to do with this.

There was a really good explanation of this on wikipedia but I can't seem to find it...
 
Malaikah said:
Let's take an example. Let's say, with siblings whose parents aren't twins , average genetic similarity is 50%. (I'm just making up a number). And cousins were the parents aren't twins, let's say the average genetic similarity is about 10%.

In the case were both parents are twins, the average genetic similarity between siblings would be 50% AND the average genetic similarity between the cousins would also be about 50%.
Click to expand...
that's exactly what i understood.
But my point is that, say we can have situations where cousins are 40% similar while siblings are 20% similar. So there's NO cut-off below which it's "cousins" & above which it's "siblings".

I mean whole point of OP is pointless...!
 
Podarok said:
If a pair of female twins marry and have children with a pair of male twins...

are the children considered cousins and/or siblings?

What I think:
They may not look exactly alike because there are genes that will differ, just like how siblings may differ- but...
their genes would be as close as a sibling while socially, they're cousins.
So, if they're genetically the same as siblings, why couldn't they be called that?

:exhausted I just thought of this today. Confusing!

What do you take on this?
Click to expand...

so thats the stuff atheists think about the whole long day?
what do you acually want here in this forum aint there a agnostic forum?
 
Malaikah said:
I wonder, is that even possible??
Click to expand...

oh, that's very much possible.... ask some expert on genetics.

I don't know about depth of ur knowledge of genetics, but if u study even basics of genetics u will realize that's possible.
 
sur said:
I don't know about depth of ur knowledge of genetics, but if u study even basics of genetics u will realize that's possible.
Click to expand...

I do have a basic understanding of genetics (even though its my least favourite branch of biology).

And I find it hard to believe that it's possible. For example, if the cousins are related through their fathers, they will still inherit half their genes from their mothers, which will be very different. And even their fathers will be different genetically. Maybe it's possible, I don't know, but I suspect it would be extremely rare...
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top