Jump to content
BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers

Twins


rookie1ja
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The women was impregnated by two different men. Thus the babies have different DNA and are not scientifically speaking twins. For those who may doubt this is possible look up the term superfecundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just thinking about what someone said about that twins cannot be born at the same time.

I'm not sure about this, but what if they were conjoined?

Two were conjoined, and the third was born regularly, making two born at the same time.

I don't know much about conjoined birth, so I could be wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Most of these answers are implausible and unlikely. Asuming that the woman and her children are HUMAN (This is most likely because most riddles are not about animals), that she was not impregnanted by two men (And even then they would still be considered twins, as they were born at the same time, by the same person, regardless of the father), that this is in normal circumstances, no different dimensions or otherwise, that the answer that rookie1ja is correct, and as he has said the answer, that IS the answer (although, yes, there may be others), that the two children are two children of a set of triplets.

(Although another very minor mistake, is that you forgot to put the week. If you did not intend to put week, than that could be another answer indeed. They could both be born on Monday, in June, in 2007, by the same woman. But there are more Mondays in June than just one, correct?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This riddle suffers from two semantic problems. Fifty years ago, when such variables as cloned life and sex changes did not exist, the riddle would be straight forward and have only one probable solution - that the children were born of a set that is more than two.

The first of the problems is that the children were born "to" the mother. This only implies that the mother 'received' the children or has some ownership over them. Not necessarily that she birthed them.

The second problem stems from the first, since a child can be born to a family, this means that the 'mother' does not necessarily have to be the one birthing the child

Though the two possibilities below are unlikely, they are still very POSSIBLE. Thus ruining this riddle.

1) The technology exists to have multiple eggs of the same mother fertilized in vetro at the same time. The woman does not have to actually birth the children....if she has ownership, they are still born TO her

2) More unlikely but still possible, a lesbian couple gives birth to their babies both at the same time. One mother has two children born TO her. They are not twins in any sense of the word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This makes sense for me...

The chicken gave birth to two chicks.

The hen is the mother. The two chicks hatch simultaniously from two seperate eggs. They are not actually born until the eggs hatch and in theory they could hatch at the same time, even if they were laid minutes or even hours apart.

Am I correct? I submit that I am!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the children developed from two eggs (i.e. faternal twins) and if these eggs had been fertilized by two different men, they would technically only be half-twins. However, I think such a thing is unlikely to occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mother could give birth to one baby in New Zealand, then would have 23 hours because of the time zone changes to fly to Hawaii to have the other baby at the exact same time on the same day in the same month in the same year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its obvious they are triplets. one question, if there are two girls who are sisters and i dentical but one was born one minute before midnight and the other after, would they still be twins but with different birthdays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Can't we say that that the two babies were born in different months of the same year (like one born in Jan, the other in Dec) as the question doesn't specify anything about the months.

Whaddya know, I was gonna say the same thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't we say that that the two babies were born in different months of the same year (like one born in Jan, the other in Dec) as the question doesn't specify anything about the months.

Whaddya know, I was gonna say the same thing.

it actually does mention the same month

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Easy! The woman was impregnated by two different men.

As odd as this may seem, yes, it is possible. There are women who will ovulate from both ovaries at the same time, so it is possible for her to be impregnated by 2 different me. Or even if it was the same man, they still would not be twins.

On the other hand, I must agree with whoever said that unless you have a c-section 2 people cannot be born at the exact same time. But I do think we understand the point about being born at the same time, probably should have been worded differently. But of course, triplets work as well

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...