Posted: May 06, 2016 10:50 pm
by Keep It Real
igorfrankensteen wrote:Here's an article specifically refuting the primary claim of this thread:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... identical/

You really shouldn't attempt to deduce anything so dramatic as that differences between "identical" twins PROVES that environment is 100% responsible for differences, before you first ask the more logical question.

How genetically identical are "identical twins," exactly?

As we see in that article, the answer is, not all that identical.

Now that we can directly map DNA, we can now see that 100% of all twin-based studies done to date, are functionally meaningless, unless the DNA of all subjects was preserved, and is now inspected, to remove all NON-identical "identical twins" from the results.

Back to the propaganda drawing board.


Tiny differences occur. Big deal. The article cited is nothing more than headline grabbing propaganda. Hypocritical much.