PDA

View Full Version : Non-Incestual Sibling/Cousin?



Wyatt
01-22-2009, 09:01 PM
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?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
maron
01-22-2009, 11:32 PM
The children considered as cousins ofcourse.
And they may not look like each other cuz siblings sometimes don't look like each other.
Reply

Malaikah
01-22-2009, 11:39 PM
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.
Reply

Wyatt
01-23-2009, 12:21 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
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.
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
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
sur
01-23-2009, 02:54 AM
Originally Posted by Podarok
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?
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.
Reply

Malaikah
01-23-2009, 10:10 AM
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.
Reply

sur
01-23-2009, 10:50 AM
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.
Reply

aamirsaab
01-23-2009, 11:26 AM
: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.
Reply

Wyatt
01-23-2009, 09:33 PM
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.
Reply

Banu_Hashim
01-23-2009, 09:40 PM
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.
Reply

Wyatt
01-23-2009, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Banu_Hashim
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.
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.
Reply

Banu_Hashim
01-23-2009, 09:54 PM
Originally Posted by Podarok
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.
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.
Reply

Hamayun
01-24-2009, 12:42 AM
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.
Reply

Malaikah
01-24-2009, 03:16 AM
Originally Posted by sur
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.
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...
Reply

sur
01-24-2009, 04:42 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
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%.
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...!
Reply

Malaikah
01-24-2009, 09:26 AM
Originally Posted by sur
say we can have situations where cousins are 40% similar while siblings are 20% similar.
I wonder, is that even possible??
Reply

ninetrey
01-25-2009, 02:09 AM
Originally Posted by Podarok
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?
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?
Reply

sur
01-25-2009, 02:26 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
I wonder, is that even possible??
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.
Reply

Donia
01-25-2009, 03:02 AM
My answer is cousins. :)
Reply

Malaikah
01-25-2009, 11:52 AM
Originally Posted by sur
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.
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...
Reply

sur
01-26-2009, 02:10 AM
Originally Posted by Malaikah
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...
u might have observed sometimes, 2 cousins resemble more to each other than to their siblings. I have examples in my family!!!
Reply

BlackMamba
01-26-2009, 05:40 AM
This is actually a pretty interesting question. But what's the right answer lol cuz I'm hearing n thinking both. Are there any doctors on this forum? Or biology experts?
Reply

sur
01-27-2009, 01:32 AM
Originally Posted by Shakoor15
This is actually a pretty interesting question. But what's the right answer lol cuz I'm hearing n thinking both. Are there any doctors on this forum? Or biology experts?
i am a doctor :D no kidding.
Reply

Muezzin
01-27-2009, 12:34 PM
Originally Posted by Podarok
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?
They're cousins.

They'd only be 'genetically the same' if the two mothers are identical twins, and the two fathers are identical twins, and they then each produce a set of identical twin children.

In that case, they would still be cousins. You may be thinking of clones, which, just to add to the confusion, identical twins are, genetically speaking.

DISCLAIMER: Biology is not my field, so take what I say with a pinch of salt, or a swab of DNA.
Reply

Wyatt
01-31-2009, 04:39 AM
Originally Posted by ninetrey
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?
If I'm not mistaken, all religions and ways of life are welcome to this forum. That's why there's an option.

Am I still not allowed to be in love with Islam and not be Islamic? Maybe I like talking with Muslims and learning more about Islam, so that I can pass it on to people who have prejudice against it and help Islam's image. But, if you would just like me to ignore all the prejudice and not educate myself on it, then I can if you want.

And no, I just thought of this today because of some discussions I was having with some religious friends of mine who happened to be twins.

Originally Posted by Muezzin
They're cousins.

They'd only be 'genetically the same' if the two mothers are identical twins, and the two fathers are identical twins, and they then each produce a set of identical twin children.

In that case, they would still be cousins. You may be thinking of clones, which, just to add to the confusion, identical twins are, genetically speaking.

DISCLAIMER: Biology is not my field, so take what I say with a pinch of salt, or a swab of DNA.
Again, I am not saying the cousins/siblings will be genetically the same in the sense that they will be identical. I am meaning that they will have genes as close as siblings. Siblings differ, and these cousins/siblings will too.

The mothers/fathers are idential twins.

If I had a sibling, (s)he would have genes as close to me as would my cousin if our parents were identical twins. So, would that cousin of mine be considered a sibling because the source from which they received the genes is exactly the same in both parties? They don't have to be identical in the least. Too many people are thinking that.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-16-2012, 05:24 AM
  2. Replies: 14
    Last Post: 09-26-2010, 02:35 AM
  3. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 03-08-2010, 04:22 PM
  4. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 08-01-2009, 09:48 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!