According to Patrick Lawless on the net:
quote:
Fingerprints are formed before birth, during the development of the hands. Fingerprints aren't actually formed in the skin, but are caused by ridges in the flesh underneath the skin. Their development is partially random, and can be affected by health issues, sometimes distorting them or eliminating them altogether. Genetics plays some part in their formation, but even identical twins (who have identical DNA) have different fingerprints.
It would seem the development process of a clone would preclude the possibility of exactly mimicking the original donor's fingerprints.
However, when a plot involves the use of a clone to impersonate someone, generally the cloning process was not begun until years or even decades after the person's birth. A standard clone would take years to mature, so you would end up with a duplicate much younger than the original.
Therefore, cloning for purposes of impersonation generally involve some form of forced maturation. If the cloners had access to the fingerprint patterns of the original, it does not seem implausible that the forced maturation could also include forcing the fingerprints of the clone to duplicate the original.
quote:
Epidermal ridges first appear as localized cell proliferations in the basal (deep) layer of the epidermis during the
10th week postfertilization.--Attributed to William J. Babler, PHD
"Embryologic Development of Epidermal Ridges and Their Configurations"
On the other hand, for certain purposes, it might actually be better to retard overall development of the pre-natal organism. If we delay the....
Hmmm...my point is that Eric is right, though these events are normally somewhat random, they actually can be controlled under the proper conditions.
If identical twins have exactly the same genes, why are they not exactly identical down to the sub-cellular level? After all, both of them are created by executing the same genetic code.
The reason is that some characteristics are determined not just by the genes, but by the way the genes express themselves (I forget the term for this.) Fingerprints fall into this category.
A cell taken from a mature animal might contain information about how the genes expressed themselves during development. Therefore, a clone made from that cell might tend to mimic the original in such aspects.
I have no idea whether scientific evidence backs up that idea at all. Just thought I'd throw the idea out.
[This message has been edited by EricJamesStone (edited February 23, 2004).]
A nucleus taken from a mature animal has the genes for development turned off (not expressed), they have to be 'jumpstarted' by methods which are very crude at the present time (even with recent refinements).
Basically, the overall pattern (whether you'll tend to get a tabby or a tigerstriped, for instance, and the general color) is pretty much genetic. But the specifics tend to be determined by various conditions in the womb during development...variations that, for the most part, cannot be totally controlled. In the case of finger-prints, your family will have a predisposition to either loops or swirls, and you identical twin will probably have loops on the fingers you have loops on and swirls on the fingers you have swirls on. But the patterns will not be identical unless the developmental conditions are exactly the same.
Try looking at the prints on your left and right hands for a moment. The patterns are very nearly mirror images of each other, but there are also noticible differences. You would normally expect the fingerprints of twins to vary a little bit more than that.