Originally Posted by CTD
I consistently use the terms 'clone' and 'clonal' in the very same sense they are used in the literature I cited.
Really? The very first line from the introductory post states:
Originally Posted by CTD
There is a myth about clonal reproduction that says the clones are all the same.
Where in the literature you cited is the indication that all clones are the same?

Quote
It is you who introduced the "popular meaning for clone" to the discussion for the very first time. It's a tad late for any attempts to reverse-confuse the readership. If they have read this far, it's a pretty safe bet they understand.
Your first sentence introduced the idea that all clones are the same.

Quote
I asked you if you agree to a statement that is perfectly consistent with your contention, and you refused. You have access to the evidence; you can evaluate it. What then prevents you from agreeing with my statement?

I agree that clonal reproduction doesn't always result in identical individuals. I don't agree that biologists have claimed that it does. Could you show me where they have claimed this?

Additionally, this seems to have nothing to do with whether all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor or not.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke