PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 year agoincest cloneslib.lgbtimagemessage-square25fedilinkarrow-up1222arrow-down122
arrow-up1200arrow-down1imageincest cloneslib.lgbtPM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square25fedilink
minus-square30p87@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 year agoAlso, twins aren’t identical copies either. Different fingerprint etc.
minus-squareGreyEyedGhost@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 year agoFingerprints aren’t genetically coded, and clones wouldn’t have the same fingerprints, either.
minus-square30p87@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·1 year agoI typically associate “clon” with “an exact copy”, with the same exact molecular layout and even thoughts. So a literal exact copy. Clones on a DNA basis, so something possible for years, would indeed be different in some details.
minus-squarePM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbtOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoThe definition of “clone” you believe in is science fiction nonsense. Why believe in nonsense when the scientific definition of clone is different?
Also, twins aren’t identical copies either. Different fingerprint etc.
Fingerprints aren’t genetically coded, and clones wouldn’t have the same fingerprints, either.
I typically associate “clon” with “an exact copy”, with the same exact molecular layout and even thoughts. So a literal exact copy. Clones on a DNA basis, so something possible for years, would indeed be different in some details.
The definition of “clone” you believe in is science fiction nonsense. Why believe in nonsense when the scientific definition of clone is different?