Asking for a friend.

all 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 43 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

By definition, two people of different sexes can't be clones.

But even if we ignore that, and have an example of say, two XX clones, with artificial sperm creation from stem cells of one of the clones, their child wouldn't be a clone of the parents, because DNA is double stranded, with two different versions of each chromosome. The child would get a random combination of those chromosomes, different to their parents

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 child)

    I think this is mostly correct.

    I think what you mean is that each chromosome has two paired arms that contain alternate versions of functionally the same content. It's like if you had two cookbooks by different authors that had the same chapters and dishes, but different content. The two versions aren't in the two strands of DNA, they're in the two arms of each chromosome.

    The problem is that during reproduction, each parent randomly contributes one of the two chromosome halves. When each sperm and each egg is made, there's a 50-50 chance that it gets arm 1 or arm 2 from each chromosome.

    If you were to engage in this exercise (which is tagged "selfcest" if you're looking for erotic stories about this stuff), you'd encounter the same problem with incestual reproduction: unless the sperm and egg were prepared in a lab or using magic to ensure that each arm of each chromosome went into a different sex cell, you'd inevitably have cases where the sperm and egg both received their chromosome from the same arm.

    You have genes from your mom and your dad. But in some regions of this offspring's genome they'd receive two copies of genes from your mom and no copy of your dad's, or vice-versa. And we rely on having two different copies as backups. This is why interbreeding produces birth defects and lower fitness: either parent can have a handful of bad genes, but if the other one has a good copy it's often no biggie. But if you get two copies of the bad ones and no good copy (which is more likely if you marry your cousin or boink your clone) then you have problems.

    To summarize, you wouldn't faithfully duplicate yourself, you'd duplicate most of yourself.

    So -- assuming the offspring was viable -- you'd kind of get a lower quality clone: the offspring would probably look almost like a twin of the original, but they might have worse eyesight. They might be stockier or lankier. They might have thin, anemic blood. They might have oilier skin and hair, or dryer, itchier skin and hair.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

    Yet. Let's have fun with the topic.

    If not exactly identical, would they be like twins?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    If not exactly identical, would they be like twins?

    The parents? Basically, as the only difference between them is a single chromosome out of the 26 we carry. There are slight genetic differences between identical twins, due to the accrual of mutations during cell division, but it's smaller than a full different chromosome. That's splitting hairs though, because both identical twins and our theoretical clones would be functionally identical.

    If not exactly identical, would they be like twins?

    If you mean the parents and their child, then they'd be somewhere between identical twin and regular sibling in terms of genetic similarity. Regular siblings on average, share about 50% DNA. Identical twins share 100% DNA. Our theoretical child in this scenario would share around 75% of their parents DNA

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 3 months ago

    Seems like a question for Professor Duncan or Cosima.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 3 months ago

    no. each clone would produce sex cells with half the genetic information that then gets merged. so it would be in bred beyond in bred. you have one copy of a bad gene that does not express bad because you have a good copy and now there is a 25% chance the child gets two bad copies. this is a simplified explanation of course.

  • source