nope, if what i understand is right, then no they don't.
No human has yet been cloned. With the exception of identical twins.
As of today, scientists have not cloned any people. They have only cloned animals and are still trying to find the symptoms of cloning. If it is harmless, scientists may start cloning people. If it is harmful, you will not might hear about clones in this world....
Cloning VectorsVectorMaximum Insert sizeApprox. No. of clones required in libraryAdvantages?Disadvantages?lambda20 kb5 x 105easy to construct libraries,relatively stable insertsmany clones requiredhard to prepare DNA from clonescosmid45 kb2 x 105easy to construct librarieseasy to prepare DNA from clonesnot always stableYAC1 Mb104few clones requiredvery prone to rearrangement,difficult to constructBAC> 500 kb5 x 104few clones requiredvery stablesingle copy origin of replication therefore harder to prepare DNA
Cloning is considered a taboo in the sense that no human should have the power to do what "god" does. Cloning happens naturally in nature when identical twins are born, but that is the only situation where it is present.
Maybe,it depends.
Not really. While koalas are the only known animal to have distinctive fingerprints, they can be distinguished from the fingerprints of a human. Like humans, their fingerprints comprise ridges in a variety of patterns.
No humans have been cloned yet. Should a human ever be cloned, then presumably, the clone would be identical (genetically) to the original from which it is copied; thus, it would be a human.
In the human population, clones are referred to as identical twins. Identical twins occur naturally when a fertilized egg splits into two separate embryos, resulting in two individuals with the same genetic makeup. Cloning, on the other hand, refers to the artificial creation of an identical copy of an organism.
The koala is the only animal with distinctive and unique fingerprints. The fingerprints are very similar to that of humans in that they are comprised of patterns, but the trained eye can distinguish them quite easily from human fingerprints.
No, fraternal twins do not have identical fingerprints. Fingerprints are determined by a combination of genetic and environmental factors, so even siblings who are not twins will not have the same fingerprints.
Human beings and koala bears can have fingerprints. The fingerprints of koala bears are often confused with that of human beings!
A clone.
No they are not.
no. every human has different fingerprints, twins or not
No you do not have the same print as your twin. Every single human being on Earth has a different print. But it is good to have different fingerprints. That's how some people can tell twins apart. No twins or anybody for that matter have the same prints. But identical twins do have the same DNA ( doxyribo Nucleic Acid )
Koalas have fingerprints that are very similar to human fingerprints, with unique patterns that can be used for identification. This distinct feature has made them the only non-human animal known to possess this characteristic.
Its almost impossible. The human gene creates diversity, thus creating individual prints (this is the same for the tongue, by the way). The only recorded identical prints can be found on twins, triplets, etc. Identical siblings will have the same prints (fraternal twins obviously have different prints).