if parthenogenesis is possible in humans, would the mother and offspring have exact DNA resemblance?
341693
The mother and child will have *nearly* identical DNA.  There will be a few mutations because mutations are ubiquitous, but 99.99+% of their DNA will be the same.
322976
Just a clarification-There arent any "true" hermaphrodites in humans-That would indicate that they could both become pregnant *and* impregnate another.  Humans sometimes can have partial external genitalia of both male and female, but do not have both functional testes and functional ovaries.\nAny medical school library would have a great deal of information on this.
515151
No, the sperm contains only half of the genetic information that is needed to make a baby, so when the sperm (50%) and the ovum (50%) merge, you get all the genetic information needed to make a baby. Cloning means when the baby's information is not taken from the sperm+ovum, but from another cell in the body (which has 100% of genetic info, like all cells in the body, except the sperm and the ovum). \nBut a human baby has not yet been cloned, only sheep and other animals - it is dangerous to clone because a process called recombination does not occur - that's like mixing. When the sperm and ovum gets together, the DNA gets "mixed" and often the "best" DNA gets selected to give you strong and healthy babies. From a single body cell, the DNA cannot get "mixed" and have to be used the way it is, so the sheep born from this process, for instance, ended up getting all kinds of weird diseases. \n\nPS: the more info part of your question does not make any sense
1039013
First off, men (and women) have been arounf a lot longer than 6000 years. The 6000 years figure is one the fundamentalists use, ignoring all scientific evidence to the contrary. There was no cloning involved. The whole Adam and Eve story is a poem, like most of the bible, certainly not meant to be taken literally. \n\nThere has never been a cloned human baby. The S. Koreans claimed to have done it but they were "stretching" the truth somewhat.
457511
won't happen, parthenogenetic offspring are genetically identical to their parent, i.e. female
244159
Twinning isn't that rare in humans, its now something like 30% per 1,000 births. Recent research has suggested that a genetic predisposition may exist but the exact cause for the splitting of a zygote or embryo is still unknown.
1063767
memory has nothing to do with cloning. clones are legal humans, just with identical DNA as some one else. no your children wouldnt be the clones children, the clone is one persons DNA put into the womb of a woman, and then it gets birthed like any other baby. nothing is the same except the dna, and especially not the age, relatives, or memory.  of corse its murder to kill a clone, the clone would be a person just like you or I. clones don't even necessarily grow up to look the same as their parent clone.
32991
An unfertilized egg and a sperm each contain one half of a parents DNA.  The whole DNA is like a set of helical twisted ladders and the ladders are split down the rungs.  For conception to occur, the sperm and egg contributors must have the same number and length of ladder sections (similar genes) to be combined into new and unique human ladders, unlike either parent.  For example, a frog has far more genes than a human even though they are much smaller creatures.  That is the main reason it is impossible for a Princess to kiss a frog and make a Prince.  DNA must keep that within the realm of fairy tales <G>.
524113
everyone has the same amount of genetic information.  a child's dna is a combination of both parents. a mother's dna is irrelevant in a paternity test because the test's goal is to see whether the child has any genetic information from the father.\n\ncrudely put, it works something like this. imagine chromosomes are marbles. the mother has 46 red marbles and the father has 46 blue marbles. each parent will donate 23 marbles to the child so the child will have 46 as well. a paternity test compares the blue marbles of the child against the proposed father. if they match, then the father has been determined. but there's no need to examine the child's red marbles because the mother donated those.\n\nthe analogy can be drawn out to include various genetic issues that arise in gametogenesis (the process of making sperm and egg cells). but hopefully this answered your question.
514686
If this were possible which it is not then what you would have is spontaneous cloning.  The offspring would not only be female it would be an exact duplicate of the mother.  There is no genetic material available in human females to reproduce anything other than a clone without fertilization.
1157510
The word “chimera” comes from a creature in Greek mythology that had body parts from a goat, a lion and a serpent. We use the word today to describe the same basic idea.\n\nA person who is a chimera is made up of cells from different people. So some of their cells have the DNA of one person and the other cells have the DNA of another person. How do you do that?\n\nImagine that inside of a womb, instead of there being only one egg, there are actually two. If both of these eggs get fertilized by two different sperm cells, you get fraternal twins. Fraternal twins are no more related than any brother or sister.\n\nNow, imagine that instead of developing separately, these fertilized eggs actually fuse. Then only one baby would develop. This baby would have cells from not one, but two different zygotes.\n\nRemember, every zygote carries its own unique set of DNA. So the baby would have two different sets of DNA-this baby would be a chimera.\n\nMost chimeras grow up and look like everyone else. You probably wouldn’t be able to tell that the person was a chimera. Sometimes you can see patchy areas on the skin or two different colored eyes. Even these are pretty subtle changes though.\n\nThis seems weird at first. Shouldn’t a fusion of two people look pretty different? Two heads or four arms or something?\n\nThe reason this sort of thing doesn’t happen is because the fusion of the two eggs happens very early on in development. At this point, the cells haven’t started to build body parts.\n\nAfter the fusion, a given cell can’t tell that its neighboring cell actually has a different set of chromosomes. They work together anyway as if they were all created from the same zygote.\n\nChimeras are not the only people who carry different sets of DNA samples in their bodies. Mosaics also have variation in their DNA from one cell to the next.\n\n\nDNA mutations lead to mosaicism\nA mosaic, unlike a chimera, starts out with the same set of DNA in every single cell. You could look at any cell in the body and the DNA inside of it would be exactly the same as the DNA inside a different cell.\n\nAt some point during a mosaic’s life, though, his or her DNA changes in some but not all of the cells. Now, the DNA in one cell is slightly different from the DNA in the neighboring cell.\n\nThis scenario is actually very common. In fact, we are all actually mosaics.\n\nOur bodies are made up of trillions of cells. Most of these cells contain the exact same copy of our DNA. Over the course of our development and lives, however, the DNA in some of these cells can change.\n\nThere are many things in the environment that can actually change your DNA. The sunlight hitting your skin or chemicals in the food you eat are two examples.\n\nMost of the time these mutations are harmless. Only occasionally do these mutations cause problems. For instance, if a mutation affects how fast a cell can grow, the cell can become cancerous.\n\nThe changes that occur due to environmental factors are usually very small and very rare. Most of the time, only one or a few cells in your body will carry any single mutation.\n\nIt is possible, though, for a mosaic to have as many as half of the cells in his body that are different from the other half, just like in a chimera. How?\n\nIf the DNA changed very early on in your development, then more cells in your body are likely to carry the mutation. Remember, we start out from a single cell. That cell divides and then each of the two new cells divide.\n\nThis happens over and over until you end up with 100 trillion cells or so. Imagine that the first cell has divided to make 2 cells.\n\nDuring this division, a mistake was made and one cell ends up with a DNA change. Now these two cells go on to make the rest of the person. In this case, half of the person’s cells will have different DNA than what it started with.\n\nEven with these mutations, our own cells are much more similar to each other than they are to the cells fr
1051425
I think that the DNA would be the same as any other human.
44054
No.  If, however, you had a set of twins:\n\n(1) Sisters 1 and 2 who are idential twins\n(2) Brothers 1 and 2 who are identical twins\n(3) Sister 1 marries Brother 1\n(4) Sister 2 marries Brother 2\n\nThen: their offspring would be equally well-related to each other.  That is to say, each child from either couple would be equally well-related to their brothers and sisters as they were to their cousins.\n\nThere would be only standard risks of problems with the children and this would NOT have any problems associated with incest that other users appear to believe it would.
40335
Some reptile species are parthenogenetic (from Greek: virgin + originate, generate). That is, the development of the ovum can be triggered without sperm intervention.\nAs a consequence, these populations are only formed by females and all the offspring are genetically identical to their mothers (unless there is some recombination at cross-over, which I'm not sure about). \nThere are only a few lizards and snakes that present this mechanism; see the links below for the best known parthenogenetic snake species (there are probably others that have not been studied yet). \nHere in Argentina we have some parthenogenetic lizards! :)
344530
This is called Chimera. After the mythological beast which had body parts of different sets of animals.\nA Chimera will usually have their blood and tissue of one DNA, while their reproductive organs and some inner organs will be of another. This is fairly random as to the "where" and "what," and it usually comes up as a concern in DNA testing when a mother is seemingly not the parent of her child. Or in crime cases where they cannot identify the rapist based on semen.\nThis condition occurs when two twins are begining to form within the womb, and for whatever reason one twin dies--and the other cell takes on the DNA--as a "clean up" if you will. The result is that the one cell finds no reason not to use the perfectly good DNA, and incorporates both wherever it sees fit.
815639
DNA is in chromosomes. Chromosomes are in 23 pairs: 2 *different* copies of Chromosome 1, 2 different copies of C2, etc, in each person.  Whether you get your father's Chromosome 1 that he got from his mother, or the one he got from his father, is random with respect to which Chromosome 2 you get from your father. Same goes for your siblings. The chances of two nontwin siblings getting the same exact set of 23 5chromosomes from one parent are vanishingly small. The chances of siblings getting the same exact set of 23 chromosomes from EACH parent are .. well, it's essentially impossible. \n\nSame goes for the possibility that they would receive NO chromosomes in common - although it is theoretically possible to have siblings that share no genetic relation at all.\n\nDNA evidence is never 100% conclusive, but the tests that are widely used (if done properly) have such a small possibility of being wrong that they might as well be 100% conclusive. That's because there's just so much genetic material in any one person, it averages out ... makes it so that siblings are actually very close to 50% alike - even though they could be anywhere from 0 to 0% alike, in theory.
1185780
yes, it is technically possible.\n\nHowever, as you say, it is almost infinitely unlikely.  The chance of fraternal twins being identical would be the same as any two other siblings being identical.\n\nEach parent has a pair of each of the 23 different chromosomes.  you will get one of two chromosomes in each set from each of your parents.  \n\nIf you assume the odds of getting any one of the two chromosomes of each pair from each parent are 50/50 (assume that each chromosome in each pair is different-which should be true unless there was some incest in your family), the odds would be 2^46 to 1 that a sibling happened to get the same 46 chromosomes.  that comes to about 1 chance out of 70 trillion. (that is, of being genetically identical).\n\nanother way to calculate this is to figure the odds of having two genetically identical eggs from a woman, which is one in 8.4 million, and mulitplying the odds of having two identical sperm from a man, which is also one in 8.4 million, and multiplying these two numbers together-which gives you 1 chance in 70 trillion.\n\nthere are other possible factors, such as how each egg was treated (so were some genes turned on or off), astrology, mitochondrial DNA (which should be the same between any siblings so shouldnt be a factor), development in the womb, and others.  However, i assume what you were talking about was if they could be genetically identical, which they can, 1 out of 70 trillion times.\n\nthe odds of winning the powerball lottery are 70 million to one.  so if you played the lottery one time for each time someone had twins, you would win the powerball lottery one million times for each time someone had identical fraternal twins.\n\nthe chance of two random sets of parents having identical twins is theoretically possible, but the odds of that are so extremely low, it makes the odds of the lottery or identical fraternal twins look like a near certainty.