- 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.
Explain why the following conclusion regarding human cloning is false
In response to the above premise, two cloned people would not have the same fingerprints. Fingerprints are not decided even with indistinguishable DNA thus, identical twins would have different fingerprints. Please note that fingerprints pattern is influenced by variables, which include pregnancy, circulating strain, the physical situation in the womb, nourishment, and the rate of development of the fingers toward the end of the main trimester (A Simplified Guide to Fingerprint Analysis, 2013).
We will write a custom Essay on Fingerprint Technology Analysis specifically for you
301 certified writers online
By implication, human clones and identical twins do not have the same fingerprints. As a result, the assumption that human clones have the same prints is false. The DNA of human clones has 37 distinct traits that separate over 30 thousand cells. Thus, human clones cannot have the same fingerprints as documented in different kinds of literature (A Simplified Guide to Fingerprint Analysis, 2013). Each clone has a specific DNA, which resembles the donor. However, the donor cannot be identical to the human clone because of the distinct qualities of the DNA (A Simplified Guide to Fingerprint Analysis, 2013).
Explain the principles and processes used in the analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification of latent fingerprints
Forensic investigators classify fingerprints based on surface location. The three divisions include fingerprints include retrieved from delicate surfaces, hard surfaces, and unperceivable prints. Thus, investigators assign prints based on delicate surfaces (cleanser, wax, wet paint, and caulk), hard surfaces (doorknobs, furniture, windows, and bookshelf), and unperceivable prints (bloodstain). Patent prints can be found in a wide assortment of surfaces, which include smooth, harsh, permeable, and nonporous membranes.
A crime investigator must ascertain the location of prints for cross-examination. By implication, forensic investigators rely on structural procedures to determine the location of genuine prints from a crime scene. Lee Ramotowski and Gaensslen (2001) described the process of print investigation, which include “physical examination of the territory, consistent investigation of human conduct, field and research facility handling, surface property perception design upgrade, and data assessment” (p. 134). In non-technical language, the inspector uses sound judgment and standard practice to examine hidden prints from crime scenes (Lee, Ramotowski, & Gaensslen, 2001).
As a result, prints can be retrieved from doorknobs, glasses, cabinets, furniture, and bookshelf. Thus, the forensic investigators must analyze, compare, evaluate, and verify prints based on standard practice. Crime investigators must observe loops, whorls, and arches on each print to ascertain its authenticity. Thus, the principles of latent fingerprints facilitate quality assurance and control. From the analysis, the fingerprints of a clone and the host would be different. Consequently, the crime investigator can observe the difference in loops, whorls, and arches of the fingerprint.
Define class characteristics and individual characteristics of latent fingerprints
Forensic investigators classify fingerprints as a class and individual characteristics. Class characteristics prints have measurable components based on design. For example, the width of a homicide weapon, grove impression, and bloodstain reveals measurable characteristics of prints. However, individual characteristics describe the imperfections of the evidence. For example, impression on a homicide weapon and DNA samples from a crime scene.
An investigator must regard this contrast amongst individual and class qualities when analyzing active and inactive prints. On the premise of class qualities, an investigator can say that a suspect cannot be excluded as the owner of an inactive print using reliable models. However, on the premise of individualizing attributes and qualities, a forensic investigator can say that a suspect made a dormant print (A Simplified Guide to Fingerprint Analysis, 2013). Thus, an investigator can evaluate dormant and inactive fingerprints using class and individual characteristics.
A Simplified Guide to Fingerprint Analysis. (2013). Web.
Lee, H., Ramotowski, R., & Gaensslen, R., (2001). Advances in fingerprint technology (2nd ed.). NEw York, USA: CRC Press.