To: quidnunc
Strange! I never heard of such a thing, but I guess it's possible. Fused twins. So the twin that did not develop lives on in her sister's children?
3 posted on
11/13/2003 6:31:25 PM PST by
Palladin
(Proud to be a FReeper!)
To: Palladin
From a DNA perspective you are correct.
To: Palladin
Fused twins. So the twin that did not develop lives on in her sister's children? In a sense, neither twin "did not develop" -- they *both* developed, just as different "stripes" of tissue in the resulting adult.
To: Palladin
"the twin that did not develop lives on in her sister's children?" Pretty amazing isn't it? An unborn person whose DNA is still preserved. Makes you wonder. DNA technology is fairly new. Who knows how often it may have actually occurred. Most people would have never had reason to know, and until recently it would have been impossible to tell anyway.
101 posted on
11/22/2003 4:26:52 PM PST by
sweetliberty
("Better to keep silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson