On 6/5/07, Binand Sethumadhavan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 05/06/07, Biju Chacko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "With identical twins, even if you sequenced their whole genome you
> > wouldn't find difference…they're clones," said Dr. Bob Gaensslen...
> >
> > Is that correct? I was under the impression that DNA would be
> > different even for clones.
>
> I believe this is true, but it's an artifact of current cloning
> technology -- it would not apply to identical twins.
Doesn't seem to be. What I gathered from 30 minutes of Google is that
both identical twins and clones carry identical DNA. Cloning in the
Dolly-the-sheep sense means creating an identical twin artificially.
The case under discussion is probably an attempt to escape paying
child support; but I suppose having an identical twin can guarantee
certain impunity in jurisdictions where innocent-until-proven-guilty
prevail. Like in India, where several rape cases are proved on DNA
evidence alone. Does seem to open up a legal can of worms.
So when the tech comes it'll be "Get a Clone and firewall yourself
against charges of Rape, Murder and Pillage".
Binand
