posted
Okay, I think the answer is no, but let me throw this out: Would a clone have the same fingerprints as the original person?
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.
posted
As I understand it, a clone is genetically the same as an identical twin, so a clone would not have the same fingerprints either.
Posts: 8826 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
|
posted
Yes, that's correct. Cloning a human would generally not produce someone with identical fingerprints (nor, I believe, identical retinal patterns.)
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.
posted
'Forcing' is such a harsh word...particularly for use on a 10 week old pre-natal infant.
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"
Eric is correct that in this case, the process of accelerating development would be of use to manipulating the outcome of certain developmental events that are normally more or less random. In this case, we would stimulate these formations using precise local application of specific hormones, probably in the 8th week if the overall process were also being accelerated and controlled.
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.
posted
Compare this with the company that intends to offer cat cloning commercially (I forget what they were called) - they specifically warned that your cloned cat is unlikely to look like the source cat, because the patterns on cats' fur form in a similar way to fingerprints...
Posts: 626 | Registered: Jun 2003
|
posted
That said, we had a lecture at school about cloning, and we saw pictures of cloned cows (you know, the ones with black spots on white skin). While the patterns of black were not exactly the same between clones, they did have some similarities. We asked the scientist why, and he said they still had no idea why this happened. So the fingerprints could look very much alike.
Posts: 121 | Registered: May 2002
|
posted
Interesting point. While it is generally assumed (and I made this assumption as well) that a cloned human being would be as different as an identical twin, that assumption may not be true.
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).]
posted
Actually, gene expression in a clone would tend to be more divergent than in an identical twin, which is a special case of spontaneous cloning from the same zygote. When the blastocyst separates into identical twins, they both have roughly identical gene expression (is there a term for gene expression other than gene expression?).
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.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
