Quote:
Originally Posted by MeisterBabylon
Exact clones of Quint was disputed once, and I don't recall them being exact matches of Quint. What confuddles me (and my crew as well) is the mention that they are similar in genes... but Quint did not mother them biologically.
Who should we believe? Which one is red truth?
|
Because they (Ginga and Subaru) aren't.
I'm not sure how to explain this without going into too much technobabble, but unless humans start reproducing mitotically (i.e. asexually), there is very rarely -- if any -- chance of one human to be exactly identical to another person. Even monozygotic twins (i.e. identical twins) can retain morphological similarity, yet not genetic identity.
In the course of identification, DNA compatibility between two persons need not be 100% exact to determine whether you're the biological parent/child of another person. In fact, I don't think even our current DNA fingerprinting techniques can reach more than 95% fidelity in identification. Regardless, assuming the accuracy of Midchildan technology to be undisputable, you need only 99.9% compatibility to be considered genetically related to another person.
But, humans are all 99.9% genetically identical! Which is true, unless you are a chimpanzee or an orangutan or something else. The wonder of the human genome in circumventing this problem is that it is large enough that a very minute difference (of less than 0.001%) has a very high discriminating power in distinguishing biological relatives from one another.
I could try explaining this a little more easily if I could draw the ASCII diagram out, but alas, I couldn't get it to work properly.
