PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 年前incest cloneslib.lgbtimagemessage-square25fedilinkarrow-up1224arrow-down122
arrow-up1202arrow-down1imageincest cloneslib.lgbtPM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 年前message-square25fedilink
minus-square30p87@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 年前Also, twins aren’t identical copies either. Different fingerprint etc.
minus-squareGreyEyedGhost@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 年前Fingerprints aren’t genetically coded, and clones wouldn’t have the same fingerprints, either.
minus-square30p87@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·edit-21 年前I typically associate “clone” 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 年前The 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 “clone” 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?