Yes because a clone has everything the same as the original

I understand that, educator9445, but... doesnt it seem crazy to think that a clone would be a perfect duplicate of the original? Hair placements, cardiovascular structure all perfectly identical? I dont think it could follow the same exact DNA blueprint exactly. Human beings are not that efficient.

As I understand it identical twins could be considered as a clone of each other yet they have different fingerprints.

In general, it is said that identical twins do not have the same fingerprint, and neither would clones. The reason is that fingerprints are not entirely genetically determined, and rather determined in part by its pattern of nerve growth into the skin. As a result, this is not exactly the same even in identical twins. However, it is also said that fingerprints are different in identical twins, but only slightly different. from this article: Impact of Artificial "Gummy" Fingers on Fingerprint Systems by Tsutomu Matsumoto Graduate School of Environment and Information Sciences Yokohama National University 79-7 Tokiwadai, Hodogaya, Yokohama 240-8501, Japan

Since, as far as I know, a human being has never been successfully cloned, it is difficult to answer this question with 100% accuracy. I wonder though if we think of a die created to make the exact product (as in the case of car parts) where the end product should be exactly as the mold that creates it, there are always very small differences. I wonder if the same could be said should a human clone ever come to exist.

There is no reason to believe that a clone would have the same fingerprints as the original human. A human can burn off their current fingerprints and they will come back different than their original fingerprints. It's not determined strictly by your genetics, it is influenced by the random growth of the body.

well if there ever would be a clone then we could find out but using science the law of conservation of matter says matter cannot be created or destroyed only changed so here is another question what would the clone be made of

i would say yes because a twin is a diffrent person a clone would be your genetic counterpart meaning it would have the same genetic make up as yourself otherwise it wouldnt be considered a "clone"

Hi Again. This question really intriqued me so I looked into it further. I'll put the link where I found the information at the bottom of this blurb. Okay, it is said that a human clone at it's very beginning "would be" identical in every way to it's dna doner but...and here's the kicker.....it would be in the clone's "adulthood" that changes would/may occur that differentiate it from it's doner. The link with this information explains this in more detail but I believe it said that this happens due to the original "reprogramming" of the egg. So, I guess with regards to the original question of the genetic clone having the same fingerprints as the original, the answer would have to be both...."yes" originally because cloning results at the onset created an "identical" copy and "no" because onward into the clones existence changes like were previously mentioned regarding nerve structure in the fingertips and even life itself, i.e. friction or injury to the clones fingertips(prints) would inevitably change it from it's original causing them at that stage in time to differ from it's dna doner. Here's the link. http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html

hold on I'll be right back I have to check my clone, he's in with the Wife....Shhhhhh!!!!!

Yes, it would, it would be totaly identical '' som morcella'' as the orginal.. just take the sheep Dolly. well you can't take fingerprints as an example, but everything else. i am not sure if identical twins do, i saw this program that they don't. But a clon is a clone and that's a 100% the same as the orginal.

i guess we'll find out soon enough.

What?? I just asked my teacher about a simular thing for like 2 weeks ago.

i don't know. i think that i will wait for evidence. just think if there were a clone of george bush or saadam. distrubing.

Definitely not. As others have mentioned, human cell growth is determined by a massive amount of exogenous and endogenous factors (i.e. variables that come from the outside world and inside your body). In the same way that no two people are totally identical, genetic clones would be different as well. We don't have to clone humans to prove this, as this occurs naturally. So called identical twins are in essence genetic clones and they do have differences in appearance. This is due to nutrition, exposure to light, temperature, moisture, disease, mutagens and many many more. Hormone levels within the body would vary due to human randomness and was as being affected by the aforementioned outside factors.

yes

No. According to the article, "Why Identical Twins Have Different Fingerprints" (http://www.forensic-evidence.com/site/ID/ID_Twins.html), there are factors in fetal development unique for each individual, despite having identical DNA: QUOTE The fingertips are also in contact with other parts of the fetus and the uterus, and their position in relation to uterus and the fetal body changes as the fetus moves on its own and in response to positional changes of the mother. Thus the microenvironment of the growing cells on the fingertip is in flux, and is always slightly different from hand to hand and finger to finger. It is this microenvironment that determines the fine detail of the fingerprint structure. While the differences in the microenvironment between fingers are small and subtle, their effect is amplified by the differentiating cells and produces the macroscopic differences that enable the fingerprints of twins to be differentiated. END QUOTE Genetically, clones are no different than identical twins. Most primates -- monkeys, apes, and humans -- have unique fingerprints. No primate, however, has yet been successfully cloned (http://www.post-gazette.com/healthscience/20030411clonescip1.asp) so this question is strictly hypothetical. The cloning of a mammal like Dolly requires a live female with a womb in which to carry the developing embryo/fetus/offspring. Presumably the same would be true of human cloning -- until maybe WAY in the future, when 'artifical wombs' may be invented. Total sci-fi for now!

Yes, definately.

Funny you should ask, I was watching I think CNN or Fox news and the answer is yes, they are identical.

A Clone Is Like Identical Twins, so my science teacher claims, Yes They Would, Unless Some Nature Force, fire, acid, etc., Could Change It.

What are they teaching you people in school these days? Fact 1: no 2 people have the same fingerprints, noteven identical twins. Fact 2: a true clone (as opposed to a "partial clone) is genitically the same thing as an identical twin, so, No, it wouldn't have the same fingerprints as the original. *a partial clone is one like the cloned sheep "Dolly": it involves the transplation of the nucleus of the cloned organism into a fertilized ovum from another. But as the cytoplasm also contains genetic material (only belonging to the mother), the resulting clone has different mitochondrial DNA than the original (unless the ovum was provided by a woman closely related to the original through the female line).

No, finger prints are not genetic. Identical twins have the same DNA but different finger prints.

First, no two people have identical fingerprints, not even identical twins. Any individual's body is the result of its genes AND its environment AND a good deal of random chance. Many small details of human development, including fingerprints and pore patterns, are heavily influenced by random factors in the prenatal environment, including (among other things) the position of the fetus in the womb at any particular moment during development. Second, a clone is not a perfect copy of its "original," for all the same reasons "identical" twins are not truly identical and more. For example, twins must necessarily occupy different positions in the womb, but at least their mother's activities, movements, moods, diet, and medications are the same for both of them. These things would obviously NOT be the same for two "twins" carried in different wombs at different times. Third, even at the genetic level, a clone is normally less similar to its genetic "parent" than identical twins are to each other. Cloning is done by replacing the nucleus in an egg with the nucleus from another cell. The egg and the nucleus usually come from different individuals. (Since men don't produce eggs, cloning a male ALWAYS requires using the egg of another person.) Unless the egg comes from the cloned individual or a close female relative of the cloned individual, the clone and its "parent" will NOT have the same mitochondrial DNA. The clone, in such cases, will not be genetically identical to its supposed "original." In addition, even the nuclear DNA comes from a nucleus that has had a lifetime of replication and other wear and tear and is no longer identical to the DNA that originally gave rise to that individual. Thus, a clone is normally quite a bit less similar genetically to its "parent" than identical twins are to each other. (For example, clones are often more sickly and shorter-lived than their genetic "originals.") So the answer is no. Even identical twins do not have matching fingerprints. Clones are generally LESS similar than that, and can't be MORE similar, so all the evidence is that human clones will have unique fingerprints, just like everyone else. For those who say "wait and see, you never know," the same thing could be said about two unrelated individuals who have not yet been born. We don't "absolutely, certainly know" that they won't have identical fingerprints, but we don't "absolutely, certainly know" that the earth won't stop in its tracks and fall into the sun tomorrow. However, the evidence is overwhelmingly against it in both cases.