If the son and LM had their DNA tested, LMs would be identifiable as his mother.

Your timing is a bit off, though, as M/LM would be born in 2042, making the son technically 37 years older.

It simultaneously shows that gun control is an imperative and while weapons must never be used on others, some people should be permitted a gun for personal use.

@doyendroll WTF?

If you have your DNA tested today and 40 years from now it would be the same.

Yeah, the way not-very-scientific books and films tend to present time travel, except for mutations, M and LM are the same person with the same DNA.

Except for the “but both lived in different dimensions and conditions and are complete opposite of each other” statement which I don’t understand. What “conditions”? How are they “complete opposite” – in what way?

I can imagine that the multiverse effects of time travel could play a role, but that’s all science fantasy and I’d have to invent the details.

Also, the butterfly effect of “altering the past”, or just simply being in a different timeline or multiverse, could mean that M never even gets born in the second timeline/multiverse.

In fact, I would tend to think that all bets are off when you time travel, in two ways:

1) If traveling into the “past” creates a new multiverse/timeline, I wouldn’t consider there would be any guarantee that it would be identical to the past of your origin multiverse/timeline. So all bets would be off.

2) As long as events are not super-pre-determined/doomed to unfold in exactly the same way, even in you arrive in an identical past, the outcome of all future actions and reactions would be different, and could unfold in very different ways, so M may be unlikely to be born, and even if a child LM is conceived by the same parents, there is no reason to assume that the same sperm and egg would be involved, nor that they would bond and mutate into the same DNA sequence that M had. So LM would be a sister at best, not a clone.

And… since every other action and re-action would be happening anew, the whole world would be different, and that many years into the future, probably LM would not even be conceived by the same people except by an unlikely coincidence, history would be different, the people would be different, etc.

Maternal DNA and Paternal DNA is not equal
The child will have a percentage of both and not necessarily the same as the child could had picked up the mothers Ancestors exact DNA

I have heard of a person who found out through research that HIS exact DNA was from an Ancestor 17 Generations before him.
Dna research goes way back to ancient times..

@Inspired_2write “I have heard of a person who found out through research that HIS exact DNA was from an Ancestor 17 Generations before him.”
– His own exact DNA???

@zenvelo, Thank you, timings are for reference only as i didn’t calculate deeply about the ages, only needed to know whether they be related or not.

@Tropical_Willie Thank you, for very detailed answer.

And thanks everyone for your replies..

@Zaku
Yes
As the DNA is passed on somewhere it will reproduce the exact DNA of an Ancestor
if you may be interested on reading on this subject here is the reference from the book..

Title:The Family tree
Guide to DNA Testing and Genetic Genealogy by Blaine T.Bettinger
,April 2016
Pages 200–202 writes about this in depth.

If they can go into Roman times surely they can go further back in history especially with through DNA research and they have.
I have read comments on DNA sites where regularly serious researchers into family history at that DNA level have gone further back in time.to these periods.

European periods
Bronze Age (c. 3000 BCE – c. ...
Iron Age (c. 1050 BCE – c. ...
Middle Ages (Europe, 476–1453) ...
Early modern period (Europe, 1453–1789) ...
Long nineteenth century (1789–1914) ...
First, interwar Britain and Second World Wars (1914–1945)
Cold War (1945–1991)
Post-Cold War / Postmodernity (1991–present)

@Inspired_2write “As the DNA is passed on somewhere it will reproduce the exact DNA of an Ancestor…”

That’s not how DNA works. DNA is a pair of helical strands of proteins, one from the mother, one from the father. They join together and create a new entity through the pairing.

Someone whose DNA was identical to another would be a clone.

@zenvelo
Percentages from either parent.
Its possible percentage of one much higher and closer to another ancestor in the lineage.
So its possible in 90–97% or so is possible to inherit.
Not a clone but close to it , I would think?

@Inspired_2write But that is not “HIS exact DNA was from an Ancestor 17 Generations”.

And given how “genetic genealogy” works, it’s really a subset of genetic traits and markers, not a 90 – 97% match. Humans share 90% of their DNA with Abyssinian house cats.

@Inspired_2write It’s not at all possible to have the exact same DNA as an ancestor unless some sort of magic, super comic-book-level technology, or time travel (because the two people ARE the same person, paradoxically, somehow).

The human genome contains something like 20,000 genomes, each child a random mix of half from their mother, half from their father. So even in one generation, there are an unimaginable number of possible combinations of genes, not even including mutations… the number of different combinations has thousands of digits.

Another generation removed, and half of the DNA comes from some entirely different family unless you interbreed. But even if you breed with immediate relatives, the DNA is still a different 50% from each parent and randomly intermixed.

So no, it’s completely impossible to be an exact clone of an ancestor just by chance.

Yes it IS possible but only if your parent carried that ancestors DNA forward.
see third scenario for that explanation.
https://dna-explained.com/2017/06/27/ancestral-dna-percentages-how-much-of-them-is-in-you/

@Inspired_2write your article doesn’t say anything about having your GGG-grandparents exact DNA. Or at least I couldn’t find it.

@Tropical_Willie
It was not in an article but rather a person on a DNA site commenting that HE had gone 16 Generations back in researching HIs family DNA to locate where he inherited HIS GGGGGGGGG grandfathers DNA ( more of it and almost identical to his)..90–97%) which IS a possibility.
Splitting hairs? I guess I should not had used the term EXACT , so that is where you had a problem.

90% of DNA five generations later is 59%.

0.9 X 0.9 X 0.9 X 0.9 X 0.9 = .0.59

Yeah, the confusion is the wording “HIS exact DNA”. We thought you meant ALL of his DNA, but it’s referring to just a very small but recognizable part of it.