Literally.

What kind of fine-sanded and stained shits are you having?

nevermind pls don't tell me

Chill with the salt... Honestly, there are people who may need a little confidence boost. You know, those people who flex in the mirror after a work out or those people who get up in the morning, put on a smile, and tell themselves how great they are going to be... that type of shit -

how much fucking Monster do you drink OP?

How the fuck.

Blue+Yellow=green

THAT'S NOT CHEMISTRY.

I GOT PLAYED LIKE A GODDAMNED FIDDLE.

What are you talking about? There's chemicals in pee and in blue toilet water, mixing them is chemistry.

OP, you wrote it down, right? It's not science if you don't write it down.

THAT'S NOT HOW THA- ...

That's not how chemistry works, and I am currently calling the police to arrest all of you people for fraudulent science-ry.

You have no evidence. OP flushed it down ages ago I hope

Which is what I said, even with comparable genetic and mitochondrial factors, you can still expect variation about on par you'd find within genetically identical twins.

Well it depends to what degree we're discussing. It's very likely they don't have the mother of the original dog on hand, so the mitochondria provided for the cloning process would have to come from another source. This could affect the clones characteristics from only a small bit to quite a lot.

If they did have the mother on hand, the differences would be in the same range you'd find between genetically identical twins.

Im saying even cloning with the same exact everything, clones will have slight variations.

Same DNA, I dont think the Donor uterus matters, but that was the same too.

Which is what I said, even with comparable genetic and mitochondrial factors, you can still expect variation about on par you'd find within genetically identical twins.

It's fairly settled on an abstract level. Here is a paper to explain: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223161/

To sum it up quickly, "nature" and "nurture" are inherently tied to one another. It isn't that one is more prevalent or one affects organisms more than the other, it's shown that every trait is acted upon by both in some way to the degree that if either of these factors were adjusted in some fashion the traits that result would undeniably be adjusted as well. The very existence of epigenetic mechanisms shows this as an excellent example, where the experiences of past generations of organisms affect the future traits and experiences of later generations.

So yes, this may very well be virtually the same dog genetically, but to expect it to have the same personality or to literally be a "reincarnation" of sorts of the original dog is absurd because of the multitude of factors and variables that shape how organisms think, respond, etc.

Will the clones be literally spot-on identical genetically?

For the most part. As I said in another post, if all factors are accounted for to produce a genetic copy of an organism you can still expect variation on the same level as genetically identical twins.

Damn that's coo

I read a few articles about how even if the DNA of the clones are the same, they will still look and be different.

Well it depends to what degree we're discussing. It's very likely they don't have the mother of the original dog on hand, so the mitochondria provided for the cloning process would have to come from another source. This could affect the clones characteristics from only a small bit to quite a lot.

If they did have the mother on hand, the differences would be in the same range you'd find between genetically identical twins.

Im saying even cloning with the same exact everything, clones will have slight variations.

Same DNA, I dont think the Donor uterus matters, but that was the same too.

Which is what I said, even with comparable genetic and mitochondrial factors, you can still expect variation about on par you'd find within genetically identical twins.

I did, it's a fuckin picture. How do you think I found out