Don't listen to these idiots saying 'twins.' Fingerprints are not determined by DNA. They are formed in the uterus, and their shape depends on the uterine conditions (ie. pH, temperature, chemical composition, etc.) They have absolutely nothing to do with DNA. They are completely random, just like capillaries or the shape of a person's iris.
2006-12-12 00:21:39
·
answer #1
·
answered by jsprplc2006 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Purposefully engineered clones!
first of all, fingerprints are the striations on your finger tips, and DNA is the genetic makup of your very existence, written into every cell, including your fingertips. The term DNA fingerprint is thus an oxymoron, however it is used by crime sitcoms and cheap films who haven't done their homework. The term refers to the representation of an individuals DNA in a scientifically identifible format, just like the way fingerprints are "printed" onto paper with ink applied directly to the finger.
Secondly, every organism in the universe has unique fingerprints, a unique retina, and unique DNA in that order of probability.
As one answerer mentioned, fingerprints are believed to be random chemical sequencing at the zygote stages of birth. This makes them subject to higher probabilities of there being people alive with identical prints, but they could be anyone. Even an exact clone would have different fingerprints. probability is about 1 in 100 million.
The probability of an exact retina match is far smaller, because the retina may also be formed in the womb around the same time, but it's formation is based on a much more random combination of processes; namely the mixing of genetic matter at conception, combined with any chemical alterations that may affect the formation in this period. Therefore, if an exact clone of a person were to receive the exact same sequence and concerntration of chemicals at conception then they would still not have identical retinas because the exact same genetic matter cannot be used twice, so the only way two retinas could be identical is if they were grown together as a single organism (like the left and right eyes of 1 person) then split and became 2 people at a later stage of the growth. Or by fluke. probability is about 1 in 4 billion.
DNA is even more improbable still, at about 1 in 600 billion, more than the population of the globe. However tests show that it is still possible. The greatest population of any species on the globe, according to Guiness World Records, is the Earth Worm. Due to their simple genetic makeup, studies show that exact clone genetically identical twins have occured, however never as a part of natural process. This means that even the most identical of identical twins are not identical genetically unless they have been engineered to be so (which is an illegal practice according to international law set by the United Nations), and even then they will have subtle differences!! This is because on a deep subatomic level there is no piece of matter in the universe that is exactly identical to any other, and yet we are all part of the one thing that is. This is the divine duality:
We are all one, and we are all unique. Simultaneously!
Therefore, my short answer to your question, as I said at the beginning is purposefully engineered clones.
2006-12-12 01:00:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Bawn Nyntyn Aytetu 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
So far there have been no reports of identica lfingerprints, not even in identical twins because the pattern appears to be due to a combination of genetic and environment in the womb. Bty the same token it is unlikelt that a clone would have the same fingerprints as the original.
2006-12-12 00:24:43
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Identical siblings would have the same DNA fingerprints, however, the sample would have to be taken before they are exposed to viruses that alter the DNA of one individual to make them somewhat different.
2006-12-12 00:24:04
·
answer #4
·
answered by docrider28 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
same twins have an identical DNA, and this is available that somebody else accessible might, too, because of the fact it is not comparable to fingerprints, with no person having an identical--not even twins. 2nd element of your question is g
2016-12-11 07:33:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by motato 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Identical twins.
2006-12-12 00:19:24
·
answer #6
·
answered by i hate hippies but love my Jesus 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
DNA finger prints are specific to each individual.
2006-12-12 00:20:01
·
answer #7
·
answered by red rose 5 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
no one has same dna fingerprint
2006-12-12 00:39:10
·
answer #8
·
answered by b94897p8 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
identical twins
2006-12-12 08:38:35
·
answer #9
·
answered by slustephi 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
identical twins
2006-12-12 00:19:35
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋