View Full Version : Re: Identical twins die on average 10 years apart

Charles

September 8th 06, 11:47 PM

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:58:28 +0000 (UTC), DZ

> wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/health/31age.html?ei=5070&en=5cb20ad50f9c14e8&ex=1157860800&adxnnl=2&pagewanted=all

>

>Identical twins' lifespans differ by 10 years on average. Is that a

>lot? If the statement is taken at its face value, it implies that if

>your twin lived to 110 years you have VERY good chances to live past

>110. But a random person doesn't.

Not if you were travelling in the same aircraft as your twin, when it

crashed with no survivors. This also proves the rule concerning

"random" persons who were fellow travellers. They will have no chance

of making 110 if they haven't already achieved such age before said

fatal air crash.

Have a great weekend - I intend to! ;o)

TFIF!

David Cohen

September 9th 06, 09:51 AM

Charles wrote:

> DZ wrote:

> >Identical twins' lifespans differ by 10 years on average. Is that a

> >lot? If the statement is taken at its face value, it implies that if

> >your twin lived to 110 years you have VERY good chances to live past

> >110. But a random person doesn't.

>

> Not if you were travelling in the same aircraft as your twin, when it

> crashed with no survivors. This also proves the rule concerning

> "random" persons who were fellow travellers. They will have no chance

> of making 110 if they haven't already achieved such age before said

> fatal air crash.

Two brothers, born to the same mother and the same father. Born within

minutes of one another. They look identical. They are genetically

identical.

But they are NOT twins.

How can this be?

David

ranieri

September 10th 06, 02:44 PM

"David Cohen" > wrote in message

ups.com...

>

> Charles wrote:

>> DZ wrote:

>> >Identical twins' lifespans differ by 10 years on average. Is that a

>> >lot? If the statement is taken at its face value, it implies that if

>> >your twin lived to 110 years you have VERY good chances to live past

>> >110. But a random person doesn't.

>>

>> Not if you were travelling in the same aircraft as your twin, when it

>> crashed with no survivors. This also proves the rule concerning

>> "random" persons who were fellow travellers. They will have no chance

>> of making 110 if they haven't already achieved such age before said

>> fatal air crash.

>

> Two brothers, born to the same mother and the same father. Born within

> minutes of one another. They look identical. They are genetically

> identical.

>

> But they are NOT twins.

>

Part of a triplet package?

David Cohen

September 10th 06, 03:35 PM

"ranieri" <not now> wrote in message

. ..

> "David Cohen" > wrote >>

>> Charles wrote:

>>> DZ wrote:

>>> >Identical twins' lifespans differ by 10 years on average. Is that a

>>> >lot? If the statement is taken at its face value, it implies that if

>>> >your twin lived to 110 years you have VERY good chances to live past

>>> >110. But a random person doesn't.

>>>

>>> Not if you were travelling in the same aircraft as your twin, when it

>>> crashed with no survivors. This also proves the rule concerning

>>> "random" persons who were fellow travellers. They will have no chance

>>> of making 110 if they haven't already achieved such age before said

>>> fatal air crash.

>>

>> Two brothers, born to the same mother and the same father. Born within

>> minutes of one another. They look identical. They are genetically

>> identical.

>>

>> But they are NOT twins.

>>

> Part of a triplet package?

You get a star on your classwork and a candy bar!

David

DZ

September 10th 06, 07:07 PM

Charles > wrote:

> DZ wrote:

>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/health/31age.html?ei=5070&en=5cb20ad50f9c14e8&ex=1157860800&adxnnl=2&pagewanted=all

>>

>>Identical twins' lifespans differ by 10 years on average. Is that a

>>lot? If the statement is taken at its face value, it implies that if

>>your twin lived to 110 years you have VERY good chances to live past

>>110. But a random person doesn't.

>

> Not if you were travelling in the same aircraft as your twin, when it

> crashed with no survivors. This also proves the rule concerning

> "random" persons who were fellow travellers. They will have no chance

> of making 110 if they haven't already achieved such age before said

> fatal air crash.

Good point, Charles. I find it that when I'm pontificating about

"nature vs. nurture", nothing is more enlightening than a gun muzzle

tightly pressed against my forehead by a desperate crack addict.

Charles

September 10th 06, 08:56 PM

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:07:33 +0000 (UTC), DZ >

wrote:

>Charles > wrote:

>> DZ wrote:

>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/health/31age.html?ei=5070&en=5cb20ad50f9c14e8&ex=1157860800&adxnnl=2&pagewanted=all

>>>

>>>Identical twins' lifespans differ by 10 years on average. Is that a

>>>lot? If the statement is taken at its face value, it implies that if

>>>your twin lived to 110 years you have VERY good chances to live past

>>>110. But a random person doesn't.

>>

>> Not if you were travelling in the same aircraft as your twin, when it

>> crashed with no survivors. This also proves the rule concerning

>> "random" persons who were fellow travellers. They will have no chance

>> of making 110 if they haven't already achieved such age before said

>> fatal air crash.

>

>Good point, Charles. I find it that when I'm pontificating about

>"nature vs. nurture", nothing is more enlightening than a gun muzzle

>tightly pressed against my forehead by a desperate crack addict.

You also stand a good chance to not advance in age, for much the same

reason, albeit a different route, as the ill-fated "identical twins"

you originally introduced!

Your "nurturing" instinct will guide you through the ordeal - or not,

dependent entirely upon the "nature" of the "crack addict." So it then

becomes a conjoined "nature vs. nurture" scenario with variant

priorities!

David Cohen

September 10th 06, 09:19 PM

"DZ" > wrote

> David Cohen > wrote:

>> "ranieri" <not now> wrote:

>>> "David Cohen" > wrote >>

>>>> Charles wrote:

>>>>> DZ wrote:

>>>>> >Identical twins' lifespans differ by 10 years on average. Is that a

>>>>> >lot? If the statement is taken at its face value, it implies that if

>>>>> >your twin lived to 110 years you have VERY good chances to live past

>>>>> >110. But a random person doesn't.

>>>>>

>>>>> Not if you were travelling in the same aircraft as your twin, when it

>>>>> crashed with no survivors. This also proves the rule concerning

>>>>> "random" persons who were fellow travellers. They will have no chance

>>>>> of making 110 if they haven't already achieved such age before said

>>>>> fatal air crash.

>>>>

>>>> Two brothers, born to the same mother and the same father. Born within

>>>> minutes of one another. They look identical. They are genetically

>>>> identical.

>>>>

>>>> But they are NOT twins.

>>>>

>>> Part of a triplet package?

>>

>> You get a star on your classwork and a candy bar!

>

> Several generations of sister chasing would make two brothers

> identical.

>

> There is also a non-zero chance of that in an outbred mating. The

> number of crossover events per 33 Morgan human genome is approximately

> Poisson distributed with the mean 33, so the probability of no

> recombination is about exp(-33). Probability of passing on the same

> non-recombinant set twice to two children is then roughly

> 1/(2 * exp(33) * 2^46).

Yeah, I was...uh...thinking the same thing. Funny, that.

David

Charles

September 10th 06, 10:53 PM

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 20:19:28 GMT, "David Cohen"

> wrote:

>

>"DZ" > wrote

>> David Cohen > wrote:

>>> "ranieri" <not now> wrote:

>>>> "David Cohen" > wrote >>

>>>>> Charles wrote:

>>>>>> DZ wrote:

>>>>>> >Identical twins' lifespans differ by 10 years on average. Is that a

>>>>>> >lot? If the statement is taken at its face value, it implies that if

>>>>>> >your twin lived to 110 years you have VERY good chances to live past

>>>>>> >110. But a random person doesn't.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Not if you were travelling in the same aircraft as your twin, when it

>>>>>> crashed with no survivors. This also proves the rule concerning

>>>>>> "random" persons who were fellow travellers. They will have no chance

>>>>>> of making 110 if they haven't already achieved such age before said

>>>>>> fatal air crash.

>>>>>

>>>>> Two brothers, born to the same mother and the same father. Born within

>>>>> minutes of one another. They look identical. They are genetically

>>>>> identical.

>>>>>

>>>>> But they are NOT twins.

>>>>>

>>>> Part of a triplet package?

>>>

>>> You get a star on your classwork and a candy bar!

>>

>> Several generations of sister chasing would make two brothers

>> identical.

>>

>> There is also a non-zero chance of that in an outbred mating. The

>> number of crossover events per 33 Morgan human genome is approximately

>> Poisson distributed with the mean 33, so the probability of no

>> recombination is about exp(-33). Probability of passing on the same

>> non-recombinant set twice to two children is then roughly

>> 1/(2 * exp(33) * 2^46).

>

>Yeah, I was...uh...thinking the same thing. Funny, that.

>

I suspect most of us were there before you...

ranieri

September 11th 06, 12:43 AM

"Charles" > wrote in message

>>> There is also a non-zero chance of that in an outbred mating. The

>>> number of crossover events per 33 Morgan human genome is approximately

>>> Poisson distributed with the mean 33, so the probability of no

>>> recombination is about exp(-33). Probability of passing on the same

>>> non-recombinant set twice to two children is then roughly

>>> 1/(2 * exp(33) * 2^46).

>>

>>Yeah, I was...uh...thinking the same thing. Funny, that.

>>

>

> I suspect most of us were there before you...

Foolishly I had it pegged at 1/(2*exp(33)*2^32).

(too much time doing armadillo research!)

David Cohen

September 11th 06, 01:55 AM

"ranieri" <not now> wrote

> "Charles" > wrote in message

>>>> There is also a non-zero chance of that in an outbred mating. The

>>>> number of crossover events per 33 Morgan human genome is approximately

>>>> Poisson distributed with the mean 33, so the probability of no

>>>> recombination is about exp(-33). Probability of passing on the same

>>>> non-recombinant set twice to two children is then roughly

>>>> 1/(2 * exp(33) * 2^46).

>>>

>>>Yeah, I was...uh...thinking the same thing. Funny, that.

>>>

>> I suspect most of us were there before you...

>

> Foolishly I had it pegged at 1/(2*exp(33)*2^32).

I'd be embarrassed to admit that.

> (too much time doing armadillo research!)

I didn't think one could do too much armadillo research.

David

Charles

September 11th 06, 08:18 AM

On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:43:44 -0500, "ranieri" <not now> wrote:

>

>"Charles" > wrote in message

>

>>>> There is also a non-zero chance of that in an outbred mating. The

>>>> number of crossover events per 33 Morgan human genome is approximately

>>>> Poisson distributed with the mean 33, so the probability of no

>>>> recombination is about exp(-33). Probability of passing on the same

>>>> non-recombinant set twice to two children is then roughly

>>>> 1/(2 * exp(33) * 2^46).

>>>

>>>Yeah, I was...uh...thinking the same thing. Funny, that.

>>>

>>

>> I suspect most of us were there before you...

>

>Foolishly I had it pegged at 1/(2*exp(33)*2^32).

>(too much time doing armadillo research!)

>

An understandable equation miscalculation; you have much to commend

your integrity by admitting the error!

Ugh! It's Monday! ;o)

David

September 11th 06, 09:43 AM

"Charles" > wrote in message

...

> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:43:44 -0500, "ranieri" <not now> wrote:

>

>>

>>"Charles" > wrote in message

>>

>>>>> There is also a non-zero chance of that in an outbred mating. The

>>>>> number of crossover events per 33 Morgan human genome is approximately

>>>>> Poisson distributed with the mean 33, so the probability of no

>>>>> recombination is about exp(-33). Probability of passing on the same

>>>>> non-recombinant set twice to two children is then roughly

>>>>> 1/(2 * exp(33) * 2^46).

>>>>

>>>>Yeah, I was...uh...thinking the same thing. Funny, that.

>>>>

>>>

>>> I suspect most of us were there before you...

>>

>>Foolishly I had it pegged at 1/(2*exp(33)*2^32).

>>(too much time doing armadillo research!)

>>

>

> An understandable equation miscalculation; you have much to commend

> your integrity by admitting the error!

It is also highly commendable for you to have commended his integrity in

this way!

>

> Ugh! It's Monday! ;o)

Charles

September 11th 06, 10:09 AM

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 18:43:46 +1000, "David" >

wrote:

>

>"Charles" > wrote in message

...

>> On Sun, 10 Sep 2006 18:43:44 -0500, "ranieri" <not now> wrote:

>>

>>>

>>>"Charles" > wrote in message

>>>

>>>>>> There is also a non-zero chance of that in an outbred mating. The

>>>>>> number of crossover events per 33 Morgan human genome is approximately

>>>>>> Poisson distributed with the mean 33, so the probability of no

>>>>>> recombination is about exp(-33). Probability of passing on the same

>>>>>> non-recombinant set twice to two children is then roughly

>>>>>> 1/(2 * exp(33) * 2^46).

>>>>>

>>>>>Yeah, I was...uh...thinking the same thing. Funny, that.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> I suspect most of us were there before you...

>>>

>>>Foolishly I had it pegged at 1/(2*exp(33)*2^32).

>>>(too much time doing armadillo research!)

>>>

>>

>> An understandable equation miscalculation; you have much to commend

>> your integrity by admitting the error!

>

>It is also highly commendable for you to have commended his integrity in

>this way!

>

As an English gentleman it is only to be expected; "manners maketh the

man" he quoth pompously!

Ugh! It's Monday! ;o(

vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.