Journal Stephen Samuel's Journal: Biology, Computers and cloning
They mention that cloning and copying are two different things. In the sidebar:
"In biology, clone usually means an exact copy."
.....
"A copy is not a clone. I guess programmers misused biological terminology.
In biology, a clone is NOT an exact copy. This is a misperception which is mostly in the public press, but not in the technical.
The copying in a clone is only in the DNA (this presumes that the cloning process is exact -- something not yet achieved with any advanced creatures). Although built from the same DNA, creatures can still come out quite different. One obvious example that I can think of is two cloned cats -- same DNA, but their markings came ut remarkably different.
The premise of 'Twins': that two cloned creatures could (mainly as a result of environmental differences) grow up to be entirely disparate creatures (played respectively by Arnold Schwartzeneger and Danny DeVito) may seem far-fetched, but it's not entirely out to lunch. Identical DNA is necessary for an exact duplicate creature, but it is *not* sufficient.
Once you understand that a creature's DNA indicates their basic plan and even functionaly but does not dictate entirely who they are, then I would say that the computer universe's use of the word 'clone' is actually much closer to the technical reality than many people might think.
