Baby born with DNA other than mother's?
slothrop
A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
children having radically different DNA from their mother's? I asked
him about the mitochondria, but he didn't know what that was, so I
realize he's hearing things third-hand from his people at Willow Creek
Church without too much context, but I was curious if there's anything
out there about this....
thanks,
slothrop
Free Lunch
"slothrop" <slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote in
<1173194019.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
>news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
>mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
>in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
>science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
Embryo implant? As long as you do the implant in the same or extremely
closely related species it's not problem.
>My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
>children having radically different DNA from their mother's?
Not in any natural setting. Father's DNA manages not to match on
occasion, but that was explained long ago.
>I asked
>him about the mitochondria, but he didn't know what that was, so I
>realize he's hearing things third-hand from his people at Willow Creek
>Church without too much context, but I was curious if there's anything
>out there about this....
I'm willing to bet that he garbled it or someone passed a false claim
onto him.
Richard Smol
> A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
>
> My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
> children having radically different DNA from their mother's?
I did hear about a baby whose mother was a chimera, so you might
likely get a faulty DNA-test result from her. This is easily remedied
by doing the test again, now with tissues from other parts.
RS
Ken Denny
If the baby was conceived in vitro them implanted in the woman, there
could have been a mixup and the woman had someone else's embryo
implanted. Otherwise I don't see how it's possible for a baby's DNA to
not match the biological mother's DNA. Unless possibly the mother was
a chimera, but those are very rare.
Ken Denny
Lizzardwoman
"slothrop" <slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1173194019.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
Assuming the samples from the mother and baby were authentic and no lab
mistakes occurred, the mother is likely a chimera.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_%28genetics%29
Beyond the intrinsic interest in this phenomenon, Sam Harris makes the
clever point about souls... do chimeras have two souls? Do identical twins
share a single soul? The mathematics of souls can be used to show the
bankruptcy of the concept.
sharon
Paul Ciszek
In article <1173194019.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
Chimerism; some people have tissues or organs that belong to an absorbed
twin. The absorbed twin is almost always a sibling (fraternal twin), so
the DNA of the odball tissue is 50% the same as the rest of the person.
So, there was a case of a woman who had ovarian tissue that belonged to
an absorbed "sister". This was discovered through a DNA test of her and
her child. Not entirely unmatching; a good test would show that her
child had 25% of her DNA instead of the usual 50%.
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Perplexed in Peoria
"Richard Smol" <richar...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1173194627.1...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
Yes, I think this was the source. I think that I heard part of this
story on NPR.
Terry
Would this be the same as a show on CSI? A guy was a rape suspect but
his DNA ruled him out. His blood was different than his semen.
TomS
<555flaF...@mid.individual.net>, Lizzardwoman stated..."
The section in that Wikipedia article on popular culture may give
some clues as to where that "news article" came from. Does your
friend ever watch CSI?
By the way, this is evidence, not against evolution, but rather
in favor of Scientific Storkism.
--
---Tom S.
"...when men have a real explanation they explain it, eagerly and copiously and
in common speech, as Huxley freely gave it when he thought he had it."
GK Chesterton, Doubts About Darwinism (1920)
Lizzardwoman
"Terry" <Kilo...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:lu2ru291i7ukuarp4...@4ax.com...
I think there is a reference to that show on the wiki page. I have no
independent knowledge of it. What little TV I watch is entirely Court TV
and Judy Judy.
sharon
|
Terry
I like to watch the court shows too, and Judge Judy is my favorite.
She is a sour ole bat, but her shows are interesting.
I like the line she uses with men, sometimes. She says..........She
might find you attractive, but I don't.
I have been waiting for a man to say......Some men find dried up
prunes attractive, I don't.
John Harshman
>
> A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
>
> My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
> children having radically different DNA from their mother's?
I don't know about news stories, but at least half of each child's DNA
may well be radically different from his mother's.
And of course any given marker may show a mutation, though it would be
quite unlikely for all markers to do so.
> I asked
> him about the mitochondria, but he didn't know what that was, so I
> realize he's hearing things third-hand from his people at Willow Creek
> Church without too much context, but I was curious if there's anything
> out there about this....
Sorry, nothing I can recognize. Tell him to stop playing "telephone".
Martin Hutton
On 6-Mar-2007, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <1173194019.1...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>,
> slothrop <slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> >news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> >mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> >in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> >science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
> >
> >My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
> >children having radically different DNA from their mother's? I asked
> >him about the mitochondria, but he didn't know what that was, so I
> >realize he's hearing things third-hand from his people at Willow Creek
> >Church without too much context, but I was curious if there's anything
> >out there about this....
>
> Chimerism; some people have tissues or organs that belong to an absorbed
> twin. The absorbed twin is almost always a sibling (fraternal twin), so
> the DNA of the odball tissue is 50% the same as the rest of the person.
> So, there was a case of a woman who had ovarian tissue that belonged to
> an absorbed "sister". This was discovered through a DNA test of her and
> her child. Not entirely unmatching; a good test would show that her
> child had 25% of her DNA instead of the usual 50%.
Just a quick point:
If the chimera was composed of identical twins one could never
discover the chimerism...*all* the DNA would be identical.
If I had to venture a guess, I would say that chimerism occurs
at the same rate within a share foetal development environment
no matter the source of the "individuals".
--
Martin Hutton
Mark VandeWettering
That show was likely inspired by the Lydia Fairchild case.
Mark
Mark VandeWettering
I saw a recent PBS program which highlighted the case of Lydia Fairchild:
a women who was a chimera: she has cells in her body which have two
distinct genomes. The standard DNA test showed that she wasn't a match
for her children, which led to all sorts of horrifying legal battles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Fairchild
To claim that this is some kind of universal indictment of DNA testing
is ludicrous. Chimeras in humans are exceedingly rare.
> thanks,
> slothrop
JohnN
> By the way, this is evidence, not against evolution, but rather
> in favor of Scientific Storkism.
>
They used to call it Intelligent Storkism, because the stork delivered
the baby to the correct household, not to a random house, the stork
was believed to be intelligent.
JohnN
AC
A chimera would still have the mother's DNA. If that's what the guy
heard, then he totally bungled it up.
Here's a tip for the original poster. If you here someone make a
fantastical claim like this, ask them to provide some source. They
get really irritated, but when you smell some bullshit, don't be
afraid to call them on it.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Perplexed in Peoria
"AC" <mightym...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:slrneurg58.1to....@nobody.here...
> On 6 Mar 2007 07:23:47 -0800,
> Richard Smol <richar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mar 6, 4:13 pm, "slothrop" <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> >> news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> >> mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> >> in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> >> science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
> >>
> >> My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
> >> children having radically different DNA from their mother's?
> >
> > I did hear about a baby whose mother was a chimera, so you might
> > likely get a faulty DNA-test result from her. This is easily remedied
> > by doing the test again, now with tissues from other parts.
>
> A chimera would still have the mother's DNA. If that's what the guy
> heard, then he totally bungled it up.
No, the story is that the mother was a chimera. The DNA test of the
mother got DNA from one of her cell kinds. The baby got DNA from a
different kind of mother's cell. In a case like this, the DNA from
the mother's test might show that she is no closer than a half-aunt
to her baby.
Boswell
This is the first I've heard of Chimerism. It raises some possibly
interesting philosophical and religious questions. If two genetically
fraternal egg-cells or embryos fuse, does the resultant embryo have
two souls stitched together in the same way that the body is a mosaic
of tissues from two different genetic individuals? Does it disprove
the existence of souls? Does it place constraints on when the soul or
souls get associated with the body?
>
>> thanks,
>> slothrop
Greg G.
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 10:28:48 -0500, "Lizzardwoman"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"slothrop" <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
I think it was a swab of his cheek cells that didn't match his semen
in that episode, but now I'm curious about whether the blood would
have two types of DNA.
--
Greg G.
Temper gets us into trouble. Pride keeps us there.
Pavil Natanovich
> On 6 Mar 2007 07:13:39 -0800, in talk.origins
> <1173194019.123784.122...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>:
>
>
>
> >A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> >news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> >mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> >in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> >science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
>
> Embryo implant? As long as you do the implant in the same or extremely
> closely related species it's not problem.
That is simply not so. Lagomorphs (bunny rabbits) have carried cow
embryos. Not to term, of course. The point is, for embryo
transplants to work the species do not necessarily have to be that
closely related.
Now, I don't think one could get mammals to hatch from reptile or
amphibian eggs. And marsupials probably could not carry placental
mammals to term. But a cow could probably serve as a surrogate for a
wide variety of eutherian species.
> >My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
> >children having radically different DNA from their mother's?
>
> Not in any natural setting. Father's DNA manages not to match on
> occasion, but that was explained long ago.
There was an instance I heard about (unconfirmed) of a boy in Italy
whose mitochondrial DNA was inherited through the father rather than
through the mother. I do not know whether the boy was fertile. If
the story was true, and he WAS fertile, this could throw a small
wrench into mtDNA studies.
> >I asked
> >him about the mitochondria, but he didn't know what that was, so I
> >realize he's hearing things third-hand from his people at Willow Creek
> >Church without too much context, but I was curious if there's anything
> >out there about this....
>
> I'm willing to bet that he garbled it or someone passed a false claim
> onto him.
Actually, roughly 100,000 people alive today did not inherit genes
from their birth mothers. The first test tube baby was born in 1978--
though many "test tube" babies do use the birth mother's genes. The
state of research today is such that a woman might conceivably give
birth to her own sister.
Pavil Natanovich
<mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
> On 6-Mar-2007, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>
>
I'm with you 100% there, Martin, however identical twins are much less
common than fraternal twins. So the majority of chimera would have
clearly fraternal tissue.
As for there being no way to determine whether tissue belonged to an
identical chimera, I am not completely convinced. Aren't all siamese
twins chimeras? Granted, a person with three kidneys or two livers
might just have coded for an additional organ, but such things would
arouse at least mild suspicion.
Mark VandeWettering
I wonder how any questions which cannot even in principle be answered
are interesting.
Mark
>
>>
>>> thanks,
>>> slothrop
>
rmj
"Perplexed in Peoria" <jimme...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:JvjHh.884$yW....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net...
So can a male be a chimera? This could screw up paternity tests.
>
Perplexed in Peoria
"rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote in message news:uHmHh.9976$tD2....@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
Sure. See the joint offspring of Terry and Lizardwoman elsewhere in this
topic tree.
Perplexed in Peoria
"Mark VandeWettering" <wett...@attbi.com> wrote in message news:slrneurti6.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
Oh, the questions can certainly be answered. What you mean is that the
answers cannot even in principle be falsified. Certain people find such
questions to be VERY interesting. Those questions are a good match to the
reasoning and arguing methods of those people.
Greg G.
Q. Conjoined Twins FAQ: How Does it Happen?
From Pamela Prindle Fierro, Your Guide to Parenting of
Multiples.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
A. Monozygotic-- also known as identical -- twins form when
a single fertilized egg splits into two embryos. This split
can happen anytime after fertilization; as more time passes,
the twins are more likely to share commonalities. If the
split occurs more than twelve days post conception, the
embryos do not fully divide and the twins may share body
parts. Like all monozygotic twins, conjoined twins are
always same sex (either both boys or both girls). It is
estimated that seventy percent of conjoined twins are
female.
http://multiples.about.com/od/conjoinedtwinsfaq/f/conjoinedtwin_b.htm
> Granted, a person with three kidneys or two livers
> might just have coded for an additional organ, but such things would
> arouse at least mild suspicion.
--
Greg G.
Voting for a politician is like deciding that Moe was the smartest.
Paul Ciszek
In article <eskd8t$bs5$1...@news.datemas.de>,
Martin Hutton <mdhutton1...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
>Just a quick point:
>If the chimera was composed of identical twins one could never
>discover the chimerism...*all* the DNA would be identical.
And the result would not be a chimera. "Absorbed twin" or "failed
twin" sure, but not a chimera.
Desertphile
<slothr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
The above happens hundreds of times every day in the USA: it's
called "surrogate motherhood."
> My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
> children having radically different DNA from their mother's? I asked
> him about the mitochondria, but he didn't know what that was, so I
> realize he's hearing things third-hand from his people at Willow Creek
> Church without too much context, but I was curious if there's anything
> out there about this....
>
> thanks,
> slothrop
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water.
Desertphile
Yes, and if I recall correctly the child was arrested for lying
after the test proved her mother was not her mother. The mother
was retested with different cells and discovered she was a chimera
(and "narrested").
Mark Isaak
> [snip]
> Chimeras in humans are exceedingly rare.
How do you know? To detect them, you need to do DNA testing of multiple
parts of the body. How many people are tested in such a way to rule out
chimerism? Rare I will grant, but to the best of my knowledge, we have
no idea how rare.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Pavil Natanovich
> In article <eskd8t$bs...@news.datemas.de>,
>
> Martin Hutton <mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
>
> >Just a quick point:
> >If the chimera was composed of identical twins one could never
> >discover the chimerism...*all* the DNA would be identical.
>
> And the result would not be a chimera. "Absorbed twin" or "failed
> twin" sure, but not a chimera.
In zoology, a chimera is an animal which has (at least) two different
populations of cells, which are genetically distinct and which
originated in different zygotes (fertilized eggs). Chimeras are named
after the mythological creature Chimera.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(animal)
So I am curious as to what definition for "chimera" you are using, and
Greg G., who saw fit to explain to me what a "conjoined twin" is (as
opposed to "siamese twin.")
Pavil Natanovich
> On 2007-03-06, Boswell <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:02:43 -0600, Mark VandeWettering
I have long wondered about both conjoined twins as well as identical
twins. Suppose you marry one member of a conjoined twin who happens
to share a womb with her sister. When you consummate the marriage, do
you risk committing the sin of fornication? What if the unmarried
sister is the only one who has nerves connecting to the womb?
Suppose one of the conjoined twins is a drunken whore. Will the other
be punished in the afterlife only if she enjoys the effects of
inebriation?
What kind of soul occupies a hydaditiform mole? Suppose a soul
occupies an ectopic pregnancy (the zygote attaches up a fallopian
tube). Today such pregnancies are unrecoverable. Does God recycle
that soul, or does it lose the birth lottery? Suppose you meet the
soul of a hydaditiform mole in heaven. Would you recoil in horror?
Would it speak proper english, or would it instead be cursed with one
of the lesser dialects?
In the future we will develop the technology to transplant ectopic
pregnancies into, say, bovine uteruses (after parturition the cow's
milk will come in--transgendered cows could produce pharmaceutical
milk, or we could just butcher and eat the cow--or the embryo may
gestate in vitro, where it can be more easily monitored). Needless to
say, transplant technology will be somewhat expensive. Once this
technology is readily available, will God curse as a murderer anyone
who eschews it?
I mean, suppose you COULD save your ectopic pregnancy, if you only
could cough up the $250,000 doctors will want you to pay in advance.
If you are poor, are you evil for it? If you are sufficiently well
off to afford to save the ectopic embryo, are you evil if you choose
abortion instead, knowing there are some additional risks to embryo
transplantation, and you don't want some cow, glass incubator, or a
surrogate mother with a southern drawl to give birth to your precious
scion?
Technology opens up whole new moral dilemmas.
derdag
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 19:43:37 GMT, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "AC" <mightymartia...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:slrneurg58.1to....@nobody.here...
> > > On 6 Mar 2007 07:23:47 -0800,
> > > > On Mar 6, 4:13 pm, "slothrop" <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> > > >> news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> > > >> mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> > > >> in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> > > >> science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
>
> > > >> My question is, does anyone know of any recent news stories of
> > > >> children having radically different DNA from their mother's?
>
> > > > I did hear about a baby whose mother was a chimera, so you might
> > > > likely get a faulty DNA-test result from her. This is easily remedied
> > > > by doing the test again, now with tissues from other parts.
>
> > > A chimera would still have the mother's DNA. If that's what the guy
> > > heard, then he totally bungled it up.
> > No, the story is that the mother was a chimera. The DNA test of the
> > mother got DNA from one of her cell kinds. The baby got DNA from a
> > different kind of mother's cell. In a case like this, the DNA from
> > the mother's test might show that she is no closer than a half-aunt
> > to her baby.
>
> Yes, and if I recall correctly the child was arrested for lying
> after the test proved her mother was not her mother. The mother
> was retested with different cells and discovered she was a chimera
> (and "narrested").
>
> Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I will verify this story. The mother had blood running through her
veins which had one DNA fingerprint and yet had ovaries which came
from "resorbed fraternal twin, possibly," and the ovaries were
producing eggs which had a different DNA fingerprint than the mother
did according to her blood. The child will have to undergo
reprograming intervention to exorcize any remnants of the toeccult
which has fouled her mind.
Pavil Natanovich
> On 6 Mar 2007 07:13:39 -0800, "slothrop"
>
>
> > A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> > news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> > mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> > in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> > science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
>
> The above happens hundreds of times every day in the USA: it's
> called "surrogate motherhood."
Ah, you exaggerate only slightly. I would have to say it happens
dozens of times every day in the USA on average. Most cases of in
vitro fertilization (and/or artificial insemination) involve
implanting zygotes or early stage embryos inside the genetic mother.
Only a handful of these are doled out to surrogates--perhaps dozens
per day in the USA.
Globally, it might be in the low 3 digits per day, on average, I
speculate, based on what numbers I have seen reported.
derdag
> Scríobh "Richard Smol" <richard.s...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Mar 6, 4:13 pm, "slothrop" <slothrop1...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> A guy I work with, an ID advocate, came in yesterday telling us of a
> >> news story he read about a child born that had non-matching DNA to his
> >> mother. "You see, DNA testing is unreliable," he tells us, as he has
> >> in the past said "Carbon dating is unreliable" and other failings of
> >> science which will prove his anti-materialist leanings.
>
> >> children having radically different DNA from their mother's?
>
> >I did hear about a baby whose mother was a chimera, so you might
> >likely get a faulty DNA-test result from her. This is easily remedied
> >by doing the test again, now with tissues from other parts.
>
> the country seeking asylum, along with children she claimed were her
> own. However, DNA tests showed the children were not hers. The woman
> was pregnant at the time, and when she came to term, the newborn
> showed the same result.
>
> I don't know the scientific details.
>
> --
> 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
> © Féachadóir
But, a lot of us do know. OK? read the derdagian post just above
this one. You can trust me. I'm not dabbling in the toecult. I'm a
heterosexual.
Boswell
The answers can at least be logically tested, and this logic might
have real-world implications when it comes to discussions about
abortion and other matters. The claim is often made, by those who
oppose all forms of abortion, that the soul enters the body at
conception. Thus any abortion is seen as murder. Even "day-after"
pills are looked at as an abomination for this reason.
But what about the case of a chimera? You either have two souls in one
body or the souls get fused along with the zygotes, or one soul gets
ditched, or the process of development doesn't involve souls. These
lines of thought may seem fatuous, but rabid anti-abortionists take
the subject of souls very seriously. They even try to get legislation
passed that is based upon assumptions about souls and their influence
on development. And this all takes place without consideration of
*any* empirical data. Chimeras allow us, for the first time, to draw
conclusions about souls that are based upon actual data. --- Well,
sort of. ;o)
Emma Pease
> On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:02:43 -0600, Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> Chimeras in humans are exceedingly rare.
>
> How do you know? To detect them, you need to do DNA testing of multiple
> parts of the body. How many people are tested in such a way to rule out
> chimerism? Rare I will grant, but to the best of my knowledge, we have
> no idea how rare.
It does happen with cats and can be visible. Male tortoiseshells are
extremely rare but when they do happen can be chimeras (the other and
more common possibility (relatively speaking) is they are XXY in their
chromosomes). Note however that cats are far more likely to have
multiple births and so fusing is likely to be more common. So given
that male tortoiseshell cats are very rare relative to female
tortoiseshell cats and of these male tortoiseshell cats very few are
chimeras that implies that human chimeras are extremely rare (though given
the number of humans in the world not unknown). Admittedly other
factors could affect fusing.
Emma
ps. If you want more fun, it is possible for fraternal twins to have
different fathers. If those merge to form a chimera, one can imagine
the interesting legal repercussions (someone really might have two
biological fathers). Also is it possible for fraternal twins of
opposite sex to fuse?
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
Paul Ciszek
In article <1173231342.9...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
Pavil Natanovich <pash...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>In zoology, a chimera is an animal which has (at least) two different
>populations of cells, which are genetically distinct and which
>originated in different zygotes (fertilized eggs). Chimeras are named
>after the mythological creature Chimera.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(animal)
>
>So I am curious as to what definition for "chimera" you are using, and
>Greg G., who saw fit to explain to me what a "conjoined twin" is (as
>opposed to "siamese twin.")
I am using the definition of Chimera that you cite above. Usually one
of the populations of cells is in the majority. The minority population
can be scattered cells, or sometimes forms one or more organs or tissues.
Most Chimeras form from absorbed fraternal twins; half-fraternal twins
with different fathers are extremely rare, but in theory you could have a
chimera form from those as well.
Someone else talked about "Chimeras" formed from absorbing an identical
twin, but I maintain that such would not be a Chimera by the definition
you give above.
Just for completeness: There are also half-identical twins, formed when
an ovum divides before fertilization, and the two resulting ova are
fertilized by different sperm. A good fraction of fraternal twins are
actually half-identical; the distinction is not terribly important. They
share 75% of their genetic information instead of the usual 50%. You
could get a chimera from these as well.
Paul Ciszek
In article <slrneusam...@munin.Stanford.EDU>,
Emma Pease <emma+...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>
>ps. If you want more fun, it is possible for fraternal twins to have
>different fathers. If those merge to form a chimera, one can imagine
>the interesting legal repercussions (someone really might have two
>biological fathers). Also is it possible for fraternal twins of
>opposite sex to fuse?
Some hermaphrodites are the result of such a fusion.
Paul Ciszek
In article <pan.2007.03.07....@earthlink.net>,
Mark Isaak <eci...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:02:43 -0600, Mark VandeWettering wrote:
>
>> [snip]
>> Chimeras in humans are exceedingly rare.
>
>How do you know? To detect them, you need to do DNA testing of multiple
>parts of the body. How many people are tested in such a way to rule out
>chimerism? Rare I will grant, but to the best of my knowledge, we have
>no idea how rare.
My understanding is that it is not that uncommon for a person to contain
a small number of their mother's cells, and vice versa. Not enough to
foul up a transplant match or a paternity test.
John Wilkins
Chimeras have a superfluity of souls, so the excess soul-stuff leaks out
during development, and is excreted from the mother via the placenta.
This is why people collect placental tissue these days, in case the
child later needs an infusion of soul after being infected by some
soul-depleting virus like Televangelism, Amway or Conservatism. It's
often a vain hope, rather than a cure, but it is worth trying.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."
Steven J.
> On Tue, 6 Mar 2007 18:35:53 -0500, "Perplexed in Peoria"
>
>
>
>
> >"Mark VandeWettering" <wetter...@attbi.com> wrote in messagenews:slrneurti6.2...@fishtank.brainwagon.org...
> >> On 2007-03-06, Boswell <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
> >> > On Tue, 06 Mar 2007 13:02:43 -0600, Mark VandeWettering
base their position on the question of when the soul enters the body.
Some argue that each individual human life is sacred, regardless of
whether a soul is present or whether the soul can be distinguished
from the body and its faculties, and therefore cannot be treated like
other sorts of lives. Of course, chimeras, by seriously confusing the
issue of what counts as an individual human life, is problematic for
this position also.
>
> But what about the case of a chimera? You either have two souls in one
> body or the souls get fused along with the zygotes, or one soul gets
> ditched, or the process of development doesn't involve souls. These
> lines of thought may seem fatuous, but rabid anti-abortionists take
> the subject of souls very seriously. They even try to get legislation
> passed that is based upon assumptions about souls and their influence
> on development. And this all takes place without consideration of
> *any* empirical data. Chimeras allow us, for the first time, to draw
> conclusions about souls that are based upon actual data. --- Well,
> sort of. ;o)
>
position seems to be preferred; the fusion of two embryos into one
chimeric embryo is regarded as a case of one embryo dying. Oddly,
_CSI_, a show which few would regard as especially expressive of
conservative Christian beliefs, had an episode in which Grissom
expressed, quite casually, just this view: in effect, one embryo dies
(even though living cells from that embryo are found all through the
adult chimera. I think the idea that individuality is rather more
fluid than our intuitions would have it is uncomfortable for a lot of
people, not just religious conservatives.
-- Steven J.
Boswell
wrote:
Yes; its another complication - like clones and the question of when
"life starts." If human skin or liver cells can eventually be used to
produce viable clones, then they will be faced with the absurdity of
defining humanity in terms of which sets of genes are switched on or
off in somatic cells. Even worse, it may be possible to produce viable
embryos from cancer cells. I recall several years ago a chimerical rat
being produced from a fusion of a zygote and a melanoma cell. The
fusion produced an apparently healthy piebald rat.
>> But what about the case of a chimera? You either have two souls in one
>> body or the souls get fused along with the zygotes, or one soul gets
>> ditched, or the process of development doesn't involve souls. These
>> lines of thought may seem fatuous, but rabid anti-abortionists take
>> the subject of souls very seriously. They even try to get legislation
>> passed that is based upon assumptions about souls and their influence
>> on development. And this all takes place without consideration of
>> *any* empirical data. Chimeras allow us, for the first time, to draw
>> conclusions about souls that are based upon actual data. --- Well,
>> sort of. ;o)
>>
>I had wondered about this myself. The "one soul gets ditched"
>position seems to be preferred; the fusion of two embryos into one
>chimeric embryo is regarded as a case of one embryo dying. Oddly,
>_CSI_, a show which few would regard as especially expressive of
>conservative Christian beliefs, had an episode in which Grissom
>expressed, quite casually, just this view: in effect, one embryo dies
>(even though living cells from that embryo are found all through the
>adult chimera. I think the idea that individuality is rather more
>fluid than our intuitions would have it is uncomfortable for a lot of
>people, not just religious conservatives.
You can't blame them. Think how weird it must seem to Lydia Fairchild
when she's told that her children are genetically unrelated to her (or
not closely enough related to be her genetic descendants). But those
children *are* genetically related to her ovaries; they just aren't
related to her blood producing tissues. So, are her blood producing
tissues more "her" than her ovaries? If she's conventionally
religious, perhaps she should consider her soul to have derived from
the zygote that gave rise to her brain - unless that organ itself is
patched together from both. Chimeras must suffer some *serious*
existential dilemmas when they get news of their "condition."
>
>-- Steven J.
Ken Denny
>
> You can't blame them. Think how weird it must seem to Lydia Fairchild
> when she's told that her children are genetically unrelated to her (or
> not closely enough related to be her genetic descendants).
They're not unrelated. They're still fairly closely related. Instead
of offspring, they are nieces and nephews as they were produced from
her sister's eggs.
Martin Hutton
That's why I said "at the same rate"...so if 1 in 1000 fraternal
twins end up as a chimera, then 1 in 1000 identical twins will.
> As for there being no way to determine whether tissue belonged to an
> identical chimera, I am not completely convinced. Aren't all siamese
> twins chimeras? Granted, a person with three kidneys or two livers
> might just have coded for an additional organ, but such things would
> arouse at least mild suspicion.
I don't know if all siamese twins are identical.
The level of chimerism that this thread is talking about is
of an otherwise normal human being that has two (or more!)
sources for its cells. To get that, the individuals have to
merge very early in the devolopment of the foetus.
--
Martin Hutton
Martin Hutton
On 6-Mar-2007, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <eskd8t$bs5$1...@news.datemas.de>,
> Martin Hutton <mdhutton1...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
> >
> >Just a quick point:
> >If the chimera was composed of identical twins one could never
> >discover the chimerism...*all* the DNA would be identical.
>
> And the result would not be a chimera. "Absorbed twin" or "failed
> twin" sure, but not a chimera.
What's the difference between a "chimera" and an "absorbed twin"?
In the absorbed fraternal twin case it can be made apparent that
different parts of the body have different DNA.
An absorbed identical twin would leave *NO* trace. So the zygote
would have split and then later rejoined.
--
Martin Hutton
Perplexed in Peoria
"Steven J." <stev...@altavista.com> wrote in message news:1173250848.8...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
Of course the sacredness of human life is another one of those
"VERY interesting" questions to which I referred earlier. Though one
of a bit more importance than most.
AC
No, I'm afraid you're just boring.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightym...@gmail.com
Greg G.
...
> So I am curious as to what definition for "chimera" you are using, and
> Greg G., who saw fit to explain to me what a "conjoined twin" is (as
> opposed to "siamese twin.")
"Conjoined twins" is the proper term. "Siamese twins" would have to be
from Siam but not necessarily physically connected. "Down's syndrome"
is the proper term for what was once called "Mongolism". A person with
an extra chromosome may or may not be from Mongolia. Same difference.
The term originated because of a pair of conjoined twins who became
famous in the freak shows in the 1800's and they were actually from
Siam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chang_and_Eng_Bunker
--
Greg G.
If athletes get athlete's foot, astronauts get missile toe.
Greg G.
...
>
> ps. If you want more fun, it is possible for fraternal twins to have
> different fathers. If those merge to form a chimera, one can imagine
> the interesting legal repercussions (someone really might have two
> biological fathers). Also is it possible for fraternal twins of
> opposite sex to fuse?
I was pondering that, too. If the protogonads had a Y chromosome, it
would produce hormones that would cause the rest of the body to
develop as a male, or I miss my guess.
>
> --
> \----
> |\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
> |_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
--
Greg G.
How to make perfect toast: Cook it till it smokes, then 20 seconds
less.
Terry
>On Mar 6, 10:00 pm, Emma Pease <e...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>...
>>
>> ps. If you want more fun, it is possible for fraternal twins to have
>> different fathers. If those merge to form a chimera, one can imagine
>> the interesting legal repercussions (someone really might have two
>> biological fathers). Also is it possible for fraternal twins of
>> opposite sex to fuse?
>
>I was pondering that, too. If the protogonads had a Y chromosome, it
>would produce hormones that would cause the rest of the body to
>develop as a male, or I miss my guess.
Has anyone attributed or ruled out being a chimera causing the desire
to have a sex change?
Greg G.
I was thinking about that while typing the previous post. I know
somebody at work who is in the process of changing from male to
female. Today is my day off and she is off Friday and Saturday, but I
will ask about the possibility.
My suspicion is that we all start out as female and some of us are
converted to males by steroids, primarily testosterone. Fetal
development is orchestrated so that a gene must be turned on during a
specific period to build a structure. If a trigger is suppressed at a
critical time, the structure doesn't get built and all subsequent gene
actions don't happen. A trigger could be suppressed by a hormonal
imbalance caused by another gene or a stress situation imposed upon
the mother. If a growth spurt is supposed to occur in a part of the
brain that controls masculine thoughts gets suppressed by a lack of a
steroid or is overwhelmed by a counterpart, that brain structure isn't
built to specifications. Of course, the male steroids may simply
suppress the connection building of the corpus callosum which allow
the brain hemispheres interact to a degree that separates the women
from the boys.
--
Greg G.
Ahem. Ahem. This my theory, which is mine. My theory is the following:
What you are about to read is my theory. The corpus callosum is wide
at one end, thin in the middle and wide at the other end. This is my
theory which is mine.
Pavil Natanovich
<mdhutton1949REM...@hotmailREMOVE.com> wrote:
I am fairly certain not all conjoined twins are identical.
Pavil Natanovich
> In article <1173231342.915184.246...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Pavil Natanovich <pasha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >In zoology, a chimera is an animal which has (at least) two different
> >populations of cells, which are genetically distinct and which
> >originated in different zygotes (fertilized eggs). Chimeras are named
> >after the mythological creature Chimera.
> >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimera_(animal)
>
> >So I am curious as to what definition for "chimera" you are using, and
> >Greg G., who saw fit to explain to me what a "conjoined twin" is (as
> >opposed to "siamese twin.")
>
> I am using the definition of Chimera that you cite above. Usually one
> of the populations of cells is in the majority. The minority population
> can be scattered cells, or sometimes forms one or more organs or tissues.
> Most Chimeras form from absorbed fraternal twins; half-fraternal twins
> with different fathers are extremely rare, but in theory you could have a
> chimera form from those as well.
>
> Someone else talked about "Chimeras" formed from absorbing an identical
> twin, but I maintain that such would not be a Chimera by the definition
> you give above.
>
> Just for completeness: There are also half-identical twins, formed when
> an ovum divides before fertilization, and the two resulting ova are
> fertilized by different sperm. A good fraction of fraternal twins are
> actually half-identical; the distinction is not terribly important. They
> share 75% of their genetic information instead of the usual 50%. You
> could get a chimera from these as well.
Hey, thanks very much for the clarification (and expansion). I was
not aware of half-identical twins. There are many strange things
under the sun.
Actually, I think the definition given covers identical twin chimeras,
as "different" should really only imply "distinct" in this instance.
But still, identical twin chimeras should, I would guess, be more rare
than either type of fraternal chimera, just as fraternal twins are
more common.
Pavil Natanovich
> On Mar 6, 8:35 pm, "Pavil Natanovich" <pasha...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ...
>
> > So I am curious as to what definition for "chimera" you are using, and
> > Greg G., who saw fit to explain to me what a "conjoined twin" is (as
> > opposed to "siamese twin.")
>
> "Conjoined twins" is the proper term. "Siamese twins" would have to be
> from Siam but not necessarily physically connected. "Down's syndrome"
> is the proper term for what was once called "Mongolism". A person with
> an extra chromosome may or may not be from Mongolia. Same difference.
>
> The term originated because of a pair of conjoined twins who became
> famous in the freak shows in the 1800's and they were actually from
> Siam.
Well, I agree with you that "conjoined" is preferrable to "siamese."
But there is a lot of this word play going around. Ever hear of the
"asian" flu? French letters, or english envelopes? Both are
euphemisms for prophylacteries. I always ask folks if they would like
a facial tissue instead of a Kleenex, or if they would prefer to make
a photoreproduction rather than a Xerox copy.
Greg G.
My sister works for Xerox. They don't mind you calling a copy a Xerox
if you use a Xerox machine as much as if you use a Ricoh.
--
Greg G.
Tower case? Nah, it fell off the desk and landed that way.
Emma Pease
They are her eggs it is just her ovaries (or part of them) have a
different set of DNA than the original tissue of hers they checked for
DNA.
So what have we got so far
identical twins - same DNA - fertilized egg split after fertilization
half identical twins - ovum split before fertilization, both
fertilized (is there evidence of this happening?)
fraternal twins - different eggs (there is also the subset where the
sperm comes from different fathers)
tetragametic chimera - where two independent fertilized eggs merged
(excludes case of a fertilized egg splitting and then rejoining).
DNA differs in different parts of the body. An XX XY merge can
result in a Hermaphrodite
blood chimera - twins shared the same placenta so some blood forming
cells may be exchanged. The result is blood with two sets of DNA
(note that one of the twins may have died early in gestation so a
non-multiple child may still be a blood chimera)
Artificial chimera - transplants from a non-identical twin will
make the recipient have two different sets of DNA in his/her body
conjoined twins
Emma
And then there are other permutations
"A True Hermaphrodite Chimera Resulting from Embryo Amalgamation after
in Vitro Fertilization"
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/338/3/166
Disputed Maternity Leading to Identification of Tetragametic Chimerism
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/346/20/1545?ck=nck
Boswell
<em...@kanpai.stanford.edu> wrote:
>In article <1173273539.2...@t69g2000cwt.googlegroups.com>,
>Ken Denny wrote:
>> On Mar 7, 2:52 am, Boswell <j...@infinity.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> You can't blame them. Think how weird it must seem to Lydia Fairchild
>>> when she's told that her children are genetically unrelated to her (or
>>> not closely enough related to be her genetic descendants).
>>
>> They're not unrelated. They're still fairly closely related. Instead
>> of offspring, they are nieces and nephews as they were produced from
>> her sister's eggs.
>
>They are her eggs it is just her ovaries (or part of them) have a
>different set of DNA than the original tissue of hers they checked for
>DNA.
>
>So what have we got so far
>
>identical twins - same DNA - fertilized egg split after fertilization
>half identical twins - ovum split before fertilization, both
> fertilized (is there evidence of this happening?)
>fraternal twins - different eggs (there is also the subset where the
> sperm comes from different fathers)
>tetragametic chimera - where two independent fertilized eggs merged
> (excludes case of a fertilized egg splitting and then rejoining).
> DNA differs in different parts of the body. An XX XY merge can
> result in a Hermaphrodite
Although they could never occur naturally, I've seen nothing so far
that would rule out embryos produced from more complex amalgamations.
If two or more fertilized egg-cells, each with a different father and
mother, were joined together using suitable laboratory techniques,
would they amalgamate? What about four or more amalgamated in this
manner? If development proceeded normally, the immune system would
supposedly adjust to all the different cell surface proteins. A single
person could be a combination of four completely unrelated
individuals.