PM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 year agoincest cloneslib.lgbtimagemessage-square23fedilinkarrow-up1216arrow-down120
arrow-up1196arrow-down1imageincest cloneslib.lgbtPM_ME_FAT_ENBIES@lib.lgbt to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square23fedilink
minus-squarebstixlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up47arrow-down4·1 year agoIt’s unlikely to have ever happened. 2^42 is 25 times the total number of people ever born in all of history.
minus-squareDaCrazyJamez@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up27·1 year ago…i think it’s quite a bit more than that
minus-squareMatch!!@pawb.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 year agogetting correct within a factor of 2 after a 42-fold exponentiation would be amazingly good mental math
minus-square30p87@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 year agoAlso, twins aren’t identical copies either. Different fingerprint etc.
minus-squareGreyEyedGhost@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up5·1 year agoFingerprints aren’t genetically coded, and clones wouldn’t have the same fingerprints, either.
minus-square30p87@feddit.delinkfedilinkarrow-up1arrow-down2·edit-21 year agoI 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 year agoThe definition of “clone” you believe in is science fiction nonsense. Why believe in nonsense when the scientific definition of clone is different?
It’s unlikely to have ever happened.
2^42 is 25 times the total number of people ever born in all of history.
…i think it’s quite a bit more than that
deleted by creator
I made a typo and used 177 b.
getting correct within a factor of 2 after a 42-fold exponentiation would be amazingly good mental math
deleted by creator
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?