Wednesday, November 21, 2007

Genetic Imprint

I found this website where you plug in a picture of yourself, a picture of your spouse, and a picture of your offspring, and it tells you which parent the baby most closely resembles. According to the mysterious inner workings of this website, Max is 6% more like me than like Ian, and Maggie is 36% more like me than like Ian. When I showed these findings to Ian, he said dismissively that the website would conclude that almost all babies would resemble the mother more than the father, since women tend to have rounder faces and softer features. Ian is no fun at all, and the only reason I even keep him around is that he can make a mean french onion soup. Since my chart and graph research did not impress him, I have been forced to find further proof that I rule the genetic roost. The first picture is of me at around four months old. The second picture is of Maggie when she was the same age. Clearly, I have the hair advantage -- I was a freakishly lustrous-maned child -- and Maggie, of course, is an improvement on the original model in both beauty and strength, but I think we can all see which genetic tree the apple fell nearest.

Chelsa in December of 1977. I am wearing a double cloth diaper for bedtime, in case you are reflecting that I was a curiously lumpy child.

Maggie in August of 2007. She is a beautiful little clone, is she not?

1 comment:

Aunt C said...

One thing Maggie obviously got from the Tillman side was her hair challenged-ness. However, Tillman females do obtain, and for the most part retain, a mane eventually, so fear not--it may just be a little while before she has as much hair as in your baby pic Chelsa! It's fun to see the kids on the blog since I can't in person!