Explain why the following conclusion regarding human cloning is false.

Part 1

Based upon your expertise in regards to fingerprint and friction-skin development, explain why the following conclusion regarding human cloning is false.

Premise: The proven fact that identical twins do not have the same fingerprints has been accepted. However, human clones present a different set of friction skin development issues.

Conclusion: The clone, being directly derived from the host, would indeed have the same fingerprints. That is, the ridge events in a unit formation of the host and the clone would correspond.

Part 2

Explain the principles and processes used in the analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification of latent fingerprints.

Part 3

Define class characteristics and individual characteristics of latent fingerprints. Present one example of each and explain how your examples fit the definitions.

SAMPLE SOLUTION

Part 1

Intensive research has arrived at the conclusion that despite the similarity of fingerprints of identical twins, they are far from being identical. In spite of having a considerably high correlation of loops, whorls, as well as ridges, the details differ between any given set of twins, for instance, in terms of where the skin ridges meet, divide into branches, or even end (Jain, Prabhakar & Pankanti, 2002). The difference between twins and clones is just time as the child in the process of cloning can be said to be delayed twin of the DNA donor. Therefore, just like in normal twins, the fingerprints of the DNA donor and the child cannot be identical.

Part 2 Latent prints formation occurs when the body’s natural oils, as well as the sweat appearing on the skin, are deposited onto another surface. They are present in several surfaces although it is not easy to view them and thus their detection is done….