Talk:Cloning

Ability Naming Conventions
The following sources are used for determining evolved human ability names, in order:
1. Canon Sources	Episodes
2. Near-canon Sources	Webisodes, Graphic Novels, iStories, Heroes Evolutions
3. Secondary Sources	Episode commentary, Interviews, Heroes: Survival
4. Common names for abilities	Names from other works
5. Descriptions of abilities	Descriptions
6. Possessor's name	If no non-speculative description is possible
Note: The highlighted row represents the level of the source used to determine cloning's name.
Source/Explanation
The name is explicitly listed in Julien Dumont's assignment tracker profile. The introduction to Revolutionary War, Part 2 says that Evan creates clones.

Name

"Clone" appears in the novel introduction. Adam uses "replicate" in the novel. Either "Cloning" or "Replication" is probably acceptable, and either one is based on a near-canon source. Any strong opinions?--Hardvice (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2007 (EST)

• My "opinions" are stated on Talk:Duplication.--Tim Thomason 03:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
• To head off any unnecessary discussion, the only options are "cloning", "replication", or "duplication", as those names are used in a near-canon source. No other names can be considered, no matter how wicked-cool you think they are, unless they come from an episode.--Hardvice (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2007 (EST)
• cloning. the seems the most fitting name for the ability. well, lets be honest, cloning means: "the process of creating an identical copy of something. In biology, it collectively refers to processes used to create copies of DNA fragments (molecular cloning), cells (cell cloning), or organisms." "Self replication" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication) seems to be the most precise term possible tho :D

Merged talk from Talk:Duplication

Name?

• Duplication
• Replication
• Cloning

All of these are mentioned in some way in the GN (none directly, just "duplicates," "replicates," "clones"). I could go either way, but the page should be moved (if necessary) to the "correct" page, and the others should be redirects.--Tim Thomason 03:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Okay, someone created cloning (I made mine first!), but it's better than mine, so I guess merging won't be necessary.--Tim Thomason 03:51, 27 November 2007 (EST)

• I just went with "cloning" because it was already redlinked from Evan. I actually prefer duplication or replication because they're less "loaded" than cloning, but it's really all about the same to me. If anything, we could go with "replication" because it appears in the text of the novel, while the other two only appear in the introduction, but I don't think that really matters.--Hardvice (talk) 03:57, 27 November 2007 (EST)
• For now, I'll go ahead and merge these two articles under "cloning" and we can go with whatever name people like later, just to keep the discussion centralized.--Hardvice (talk) 04:00, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • I started the term cloning (on the evan page), but I do prefere replication Dman Dustin
    • Since the graphic novel introductions have never been considered very reliable, are often filled with dubious information, and are definitely not written by the author of the graphic novel, I would feel much more comfortable using the term used by Oliver Grigsby himself. He used the word "replicate", so I'm under the impression that the best name for the power is "replication". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Cloning just sounds... too... I don't know, scientific? Not the word I was looking for. >_> Let's just say I'm a way bigger fan of Duplication. --AnotherNella 06:17, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • I agree with Ryan, given the content of the graphic novel "replication" looks like the best name to me as well. (Admin 09:43, 27 November 2007 (EST))
• Replication or Duplication, gets my vote. Duplication is the name of the power from the Marvel Comics (Multiple Man). Cloning just strikes of controversy. --Snow Leapord 07:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • To me, 'duplication' has more of a 'cloning oneself' connotation, to it than 'replication'. Out of this story's context, if I heard someone had the power of 'duplication', I would think 'Cloning'. If I heard someone had the power of 'replication', I would think they could touch a toaster sitting on the shelf, and replication 12 more toasters....(aka not cloning)....kinda like the 'replicators' on Star Trek. What about using 'cloning' as an adjective of 'duplication', and then calling the power 'Clonal Duplication'. Variations of both words are GN Canon, and by combining them together as the name of the power, there is no doubt or confusion as to what the power is. (In other words, no context is needed to understand what the power does). --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11/27/2007 09:22 (EST)
• I like Replication. When I think 'Cloning' I think of DNA. We don't know if this connection to DNA exists, especially when given the era. --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 11:18, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • The novel said that not only did he create duplicates of himself, but that the duplicates were clones. I'd say cloning is the best description of his ability.--MiamiVolts (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2007 (EST)
• I would go with Self-Replication or Self-Duplication. Clonig makes me think he can clone other things, not himself. Modestoddesy 13:56, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • Neither, unfortunately, is used in the graphic novel. Please confine the discussion to Cloning, Replication, or Duplication.--Hardvice (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2007 (EST)

The three choices don't most accurately convey the GN naming given

The Graphic novel doesn't explicitly say Cloning, nor Replication, nor Duplication. It rather, uses variations of those words in two phrase. ("Duplicates of himself, clones"; AND "replicate himself"). Therefore, the most accurate descriptive name for this power, should be a variation that most closely matches that presented from the graphic novel. 'Using a single word, any of the three suggested, creates ambiguity of the power, which the Graphic Novel itself doesn't, because the graphic novel itself qualifies the term variations with 'himself' . Modestoddesy is correct, the single-word discussion choices aren't the most accurate choices conveyed by the Graphic Novel itself.
The choices should be, based on the graphic Novel which says verbatim: ("Duplicates of himself, cloning") AND ("replicate himself")

• "Self-Duplication"
• "Self-Replication"
• "Self-Replication (Cloning)" .....the most accurate choice, given from the GN itself: from the exact quote "Duplicates of himself, clones" --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11/27/2007 14:29 (EST)
• That's a fair point. There's no way we'd use a power name with a parenthetical, though--it's just too awkward to use in sentences and the like, necessitating a bunch of piping or redirects. But you're right, "self-replication" or "self-duplication" is probably acceptable. I'm just trying to keep these name discussions from degenerating into the usual "oh how about (name X which has no source) because it sounds cool" like all the others, when we clearly do have a near-canon option (three, actually).--Hardvice (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • I'd go with Replication over duplication (even though I personally prefer this) or cloning (kinda weird in a DNA-based show for a power name), mostly since the intro wasn't written by the GN writer (just, presumably, an NBC exec). Barring that, I'd agree with Self-Replication for the same reason.--Tim Thomason 17:55, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • I don't mind, and rather prefer self-cloning over the two alternatives. I should point out, though, that for other powers, we don't specify whether the power is only applicable to oneself (i.e. self-flight vs. flight).--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Duplication is definitely the best choice. Not only does it say it in the intro, it's a common power title like Flight or Invisibility... and I already made it >_>.--Riddler 18:12, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • The thing is that by itself, Duplication or Replication aren't very precise. What is he replicating? Other stuff? Can he hold a fishbowl and repicate it into two identical fishbowls? Self-Replication is the most appropriate description of the power in my opinion. Duplication means splitting into two, while Repication means splitting into multiple parts. And the Self prefix is needed, for the above reason. Even though Self-Replication was never explicitly said in the GN, no other ones were given either, so we must make do with something close to the original. So while Cloning sounds cool, it's not as accurate as Self-Replication.--Piemanmoo 18:20, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • Duplicating doesn't mean split in two? It means to make an identical copy? Duplication is the common works title for the power. If you want to add a "Self" to the beginning, go ahead, but it doesn't make much sense in that it's as precise as it needs to be. Just like the ability of Flight or Invisibility, it's a common name and noone will mistake it.--Riddler 18:27, 27 November 2007 (EST)
• Are the introductions written by NBC or by the graphic novel writers? If it's not written by the writer then it actually falls between #2 and #3 on the naming convention list above and then cloning is off the table since the other terms are of higher precedence. (Admin 18:26, 27 November 2007 (EST))
  • It's a part of the actual comic, like the illustrated ad for Nissan, I'd assume it was the writers.--Riddler 18:28, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • To be fair, "Duplicates" was part of the intro, and only the term "replicates himself" was used in the GN text. It was Mr. Gibson Stewart who stated above that the writer (Oliver Grigsby) wasn't responsible for the intro, which I'm not sure is true or not. It would be a shame if it were true (they gave away Evan's power too soon!).--Tim Thomason 18:31, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • The introductions are written by NBC, not by the graphic novel writers. NBC has a history of making mistakes and not being factual (remember when D.L. was a shapeshifter?)...I recall Mark Sable saying something about being upset with one of the introductions for one of the Blackouts--not so much upset, but just that it wasn't what he wanted. I don't know if that's the case with every graphic novel, but I'll point out that the intros often do not "match" the style of the novel itself. Personally, any of the three names are fine with me, but if we're going with canon (or near-canon) sources, I'd say we'd have to stick with "replication". I could also stretch that to allow for "self-replication" if people feel strongly about it, but I think "replication" by itself is just fine. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:32, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Just read this. We need to update the rename, then. "Duplicate" and "clone" are at best secondary sources.--Hardvice (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • Actually, if the intro pages aren't "official", then the only options are "replication" or "self-replication". 'Duplicate" also only appears on the intro page. In this case, we can of course simply err on the side of caution by choosing "Replication" or "Self-replication", in which case we don't have to worry about who writes the intros.--Hardvice (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • Like I said, I'm not sure who writes the intro in every case, but I can tell you it wasn't Mark Sable for Blackout, and my guess is it's the same for the other GNs. This intro really bugged me because it told me the big reveal before I even read the novel. In fact, I first read the intro on Heroes Wiki, and I was upset because I thought somebody must have spoiled the novel or put the summary in the intro section. My guess is it wasn't written by Ollie. Even if it was, you're right Hardvice, it's best to err on the side of caution. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 18:40, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Well, I guess from now on I'll be skipping page 1.--Tim Thomason 18:42, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • It's upsetting that we're using little tidbits of speech for powers lately when there are common names for the powers that people will actually search for. It'd be odd searching for Duplication and being redirected. I think this should be a case where the common title should apply =/--Riddler 18:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • That's the problem. Common names are subjective and when you've got subjective names then people can never agree on a single name. That's why we've been developing these heuristics we can use to more effectively name a power in the absense of them explicitly naming the power. On a wiki focusing on Heroes it makes sense to use the names they provide (following the naming convention precedence of course) as the name of the actual article. If searching is an issue then redirects are always possible. We're just concerned with the name of the article itself. (Admin 18:54, 27 November 2007 (EST))
          • Its all the same thing, if you were to ask me Duplication is the best thing because Duplication is taking one thing and making an exact copy of it right then and there. Where I think of Cloning as taking a nucleus of one cell and implanting it into an embryo and having someone grow up a normal life having the exact genetic structure. But in common language they are one and the same so it doesn't really make a difference.
        • Why is it odd to search for something and be redirected? That seems completely natural to me, and is a great way to take care of the issue. There's nothing wrong with calling the power "cloning" in an article ("After cloning himself, Evan fought more.") What we're really talking about here is the name of this page and what we call it on articles like our list of abilities and in Evan's infobox. Redirects are designed specifically so that they will all point to the correct location. I love that a person can come to this site, and a search for photographic reflexes, muscle mimicry, and adoptive muscle memory all point to the same page. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Rename, Pt. II

Let's just start this over. Since we now know (or at least have reason to believe) that the introduction is written by NBC, the only options are Replication or Self-replication. Discuss. Please confine yourself to these two or some other variant of "replicate himself", because that's our only near-canon source. Personally, I can see the appeal of either. I tend to think the "self-" is a bit superfluous because, as pointed out above, we don't have "self-flight", and the article itself is the best place to make the limitations of the power known. That said, I could go either way.--Hardvice (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2007 (EST)

• Replication (simple enough?)--Tim Thomason 19:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • Sorry for the tone. These discussions begin to grate after a while. One can only say the same thing and point people to the same (evidently unread) help pages so many times before one snaps, I guess.--Hardvice (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • The tone is warranted and not as harsh as you might think. I prefer "replication", but I'm not opposed to adding "self"--I just don't think it's necessary. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 19:32, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Since those are the only two options, I prefer "replication" for reasons stated previously.--MiamiVolts (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • It should definitely be self-replication (imo) and definitely not cloning since Adam says he replicates himself. Random guy 19:39, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • Without the self prefix, it's easy to see someone confusing it for being able to replicate other stuff such as bowling balls, cars, and DVD players. If you were to describe the power most people would say "He makes copies of himself" not just "He makes copies", so the Self-Replication might be important. --Piemanmoo 19:52, 27 November 2007 (EST)
            • I concur. Random guy 19:53, 27 November 2007 (EST)
              • Same here. --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 20:45, 27 November 2007 (EST)
                • Ditto to the defense of self-replication.--E rowe 00:13, 28 November 2007 (EST)
• My primary concern, is because so many Star Trek fans watch Heroes (Hiro being a big Star Trek fan), the entire concept of 'Replication' keeps bringing food replicators to mind, without the 'self' qualification. My secondary concern, is that eventually a person will show up who can replicate objects, but not himself...thus again creating ambiguity and naming confusion. Self-Replication, however, alleviates both concerns, without needing any external explanation. 'Self-Flight' really doesn't compare, because flight by its nature in sci-fi/fantasy genre, is an attribute of an individual. 'Self' is assumed and understood when someone is said to have the power of flight. Outside of the Heroes genre and this discussion, if someone said that a new hero that noone is familiar with named 'Captain Kickbutt' has the power of replication; that would require us to ask 'self-replication' or 'replication of objects'? By listing the power as Self Replication, no confusion nor explanation is needed. --HiroDynoSlayer (talk) 11/27/2007 20:02 (EST)
• Here comes the huge argument. I can predict the future. You guys can't decide on a name, and this renaming thing will continue -- for a very long time.--Ice Vision 20:37, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • I'm not sure who you mean by "you guys", unless you're referring to the entire community minus yourself. But if it takes a long time, I suppose that's the way of the wiki; fortunately, when we're done, we can be satisfied that everybody has had their voice heard and that we've come as close to consensus as possible. I don't expect, in this case, that the process will take very long, though. It's really a matter of choosing between "replication" and "self-replication". Most of us seem to have an opinion, but not really care too much one way or the other. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • I guess I am actually including myself when I said "you guys". I've been a part of these name discussions, too. And, they don't turn out too pretty. Perhaps I was exaggerating when I said that this would take a long time. I must say, it seems like a consensus is going to be decided rather quickly. Choosing between "replication" and "self-replication" should be simple.--Ice Vision 21:20, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Let's hope so. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • I think a big part of the problem in the past is that the rules weren't laid out very clearly, nor were they adhered to all that well. The reason I'm making a point of repeating them and trying to structure the discussion is to save us all time and effort. Rather than wasting time arguing about dozens of names which don't fit the convention, we can focus on discussing those that do. I really hope it's not coming across as pushy or domineering; I'm just trying to help us streamline what has in the past proved a painful and protracted process.--Hardvice (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2007 (EST)

Clone is a bit different that Replication

• Sorry for going scientific again but I think you'll agree. If someone or something creates a "clone" they create a replication. but from when they are first created. For instance when you clone a sheep it'll grow up to be exactly like the original but it has to start from birth. Replication is pretty much what Evan does. Thought this bit might help. Jason Garrick 22:13, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • So I'm for Replication. Jason Garrick 22:15, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • Anything that proves the name needs to be changed is okay with me. =D --AnotherNella 23:20, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • I second that :-) --The Empath 23:44, 27 November 2007 (EST)
  • The word "clone" has been around for awhile. I don't think it's limited to the way it's been used in recent scientific advancements. However, I do think it has a problem. The power as we've seen it so far seems to be that one single self, one conscious being, continues to exist in all of Evan's duplicates. The word clone doesn't work as well for that, as I see it. A clone would be an identical person, but not the very same self. Replication might be better.--E rowe 23:48, 27 November 2007 (EST)
    • I love that we're continuing to have a discussion about a name that's out of the running. *Sigh*. --Hardvice (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2007 (EST)
      • Well, at least it's a discussion that's rooting against the name that is already out of the running. ;)--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:54, 27 November 2007 (EST)
        • But really, I wish we could just get people to simply talk about the difference between "replication" and "self-replication". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)
        • I'm for replication Therequiembellishere 23:55, 27 November 2007 (EST)
          • I also prefer "replication" over "self-replication". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2007 (EST)
            • If it's just replication, then it's implied he can replicate things other than himself. Self-replication for me. --AnotherNella 00:55, 28 November 2007 (EST)
              • Of course, we don't know that he can't replicate other objects, and we do know that his replicants come complete with clothes and weapons, so maybe "self-replication" is too restrictive. He can replicate at least some items, after all--those he's wearing or carrying when he creates a clone, evidently.--Hardvice (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Autokinesis

• 'Nuff said.--E rowe 00:08, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  • You're kidding right? --Hero!^(talk)_(contribs) 00:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)
    • Obviously. It clearly should be "Self-autokinesis".--Hardvice (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2007 (EST)
      • Actually, after I wrote it I thought "dittokinesis" might be better. But I didn't want to go back and change it just to string the joke along. There's also a part of me that would rather not admit it's a joke just to see if anybody might still take the bait.--E rowe 11:10, 28 November 2007 (EST)

consensus check

Replication

1. MiamiVolts (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2007 (EST)
2. Hardvice (talk) 01:15, 28 November 2007 (EST)
3. RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)
   
4. AnotherNella 01:07, 29 November 2007 (EST)
5. Therequiembellishere 23:12, 29 November 2007 (EST)

Self-Replication

1. SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (EST)
2. --E rowe 11:12, 28 November 2007 (EST)
3. --Piemanmoo 16:25, 28 November 2007 (EST)
4. --Random guy 03:22, 29 November 2007 (EST)

It might be too early in the game to put this up however, this may need to be here later on. anyway, my vote is for Self-Replication to make sure it is specific enough to make it clear at a glance what the power does while reflecting the canon description at the same time. (btw, these and they are also replicators in addition to this;) )--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• whoops, late in the game I guess. @u@--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  • It's not too late for a consensus check. The page was moved simply because "cloning" was lower on the hierarchy than "replication" or variants of it. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)
    • cool!--SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2007 (EST)

I Know I'll Get Shot For This...

If it's just "replication," doesn't that hint at the fact he can replicate things or people other than himself? *Puts up flame shield* --AnotherNella 00:38, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• I agree whole heartedly for the above reasons --SacValleyDweller (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2007 (EST)
• Why would you get shot for that? That's really the whole point of the name discussion. We're talking about "replication" vs. "self-replication". -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  • Because the name got changed and finalized and I felt like I reopened a closed case. =P --AnotherNella 00:48, 28 November 2007 (EST)
    • Don't worry, some of these cases are never closed... ;) that being said, if we decide to add "self" to this we should have a consistant policy as to when "self-" should or shouldn't be used. I think it's unnecessarily restrictive, and the "self-" part makes the word uncanon. Another alternative may be to reword it as "Replicant creation", although I'm not sure if "replicant" was a word using in the novel.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2007 (EST)
      • As Hardvice just correctly point out above, Evan did replicate the clothes he was wearing and his sword/weapons, so perhaps he could replicate other people if they were touching him too...replication by itself is sounding better to me all the time.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:19, 28 November 2007 (EST)
        • I agree. Self-replication may be more precise, but in this case that precision may be leading to speculation. "Replication" leaves open the possibility that he can replicate other things/people without affirmatively declaring that he can. This may be a case where we need to be a little vague, and explain the observed limits (he's only replicated himself, his clothing, and his weapons) in the article.--Hardvice (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2007 (EST)
          • Good point. Plus, the difference between healing and rapid cell regeneration is a perfect example of when we haven't used the "self" prefix and things still work out. We really do have characters who can heal themselves and those who can heal others. If a character comes along who can replicate objects and not himself, then we'll cross that bridge at that point--I would hope the writers would point us in the direction of a name that's different enough from "replication". But I hadn't really thought of "self-replication" as being too restrictive. It certainly does have a bit of speculation inherent in its name, doesn't it? -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Different clothes and weapons

In fact ... on closer inspection, the clone he's currently spawning in the lead image may be wearing different clothes than his (are those shirt sleeves or jacket sleeves? He's definitely not wearing his hat.) (Some of the others have different clothes and weapons, too, but they could have changed/grabbed other weapons, so that's not really an issue). Curious. It seems he may not be limited to objects he's touching or wearing after all.--Hardvice (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2007 (EST)

• Yeah, those clones could have changed what they are wearing or wielding, but I added a note about that possibility and also that whether he could replicate living things was unknown. It would be cool to find out that Evan could replicate a younger version of himself and thus cheat death...--MiamiVolts (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2007 (EST)
  • Good points. That's enough to convince me. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 05:37, 28 November 2007 (EST)

Could Evan be weakening himself everytime a copy is made

1. Although Evan may look healthy that is simply a copy not the original. Could the original be dying?

Speculation Therequiembellishere 19:08, 12 December 2007 (EST)

New Replicator

The guy in graphic novel 88 seems to be able to do it as well...my net connection is hella slow so I'll have to let someone else go back and track down his name.--ASEO 14:32, 3 June 2008 (EDT)

• Yeah, though it could also be cloning, Connie disguising several people as the same person, identical septuplets, a cult of people who had plastic surgery to look alike, or a number of other scenarios.--MiamiVolts (talk) 15:46, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
  • Could be, but those scenarios seem less likely. The show seems to favor the straightforward, and those are a little less that straight forward. At any rate, what say we put Julien in here as a suspected replicator? --SacValleyDweller (talk) 15:57, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
    • We can't put Julien as a suspected replicator since it hasn't been confirmed that those are his duplicates. It does make for a good and likely theory, though. So a theory page for Julien is a very good idea, imho.--MiamiVolts (talk) 17:38, 3 June 2008 (EDT)
      • Yeah, I didn't read it and think that Julien had this power. I thought that he had the power to sense something or other (maybe like Molly's clairvoyance?) and that somebody else had the power to replicate. Difference is (in my mind) that Evan could replicate himself, this other person could replicate others. Bottom line, there's definitely a power going on here, we just don't know whose it is, or the specifics of it. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 21:45, 4 June 2008 (EDT)
      • Indeed. I had thought of clairvoyance as a possibility for Julien's ability too. See Theory:Julien Dumont for the related arguments.--MiamiVolts (talk) 22:07, 4 June 2008 (EDT)

Duplicates

• With Evan's replication his replicants were able to also replicate, right? We don't have any proof that the same is true for Julien's replicants, right? (Admin 01:03, 10 June 2008 (EDT))
  • Correct and correct. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 01:26, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
    • Right. If it wasn't clear, Ollie Grigsby confirmed on 9thWonders that Evan's duplicates could replicate, but said he would not discuss Julien's ability at the time.--MiamiVolts (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Vegetative...

Gael Cruz mentioned "[Julien] can vegetatively replicate himself.", so the most descriptive name with the least amount of speculation is "Vegetative replicate." This makes Evan's ability and Julien's ability different. Take a look at this panel of Evan duplicating himself - his replicate came directly out of his body. Julien, however, replicate by "growing" other replicate like a plant does and he must connect to his duplicate by what seems to be branches. Conclusion: Julien's ability is not Evan's, s0 we need a new article for Julien's ability. Chrisyu357 05:41, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Let's wait until the assingment tracker for Julien comes up, then we'll worry about new articles. --Piemanmoo 06:08, 10 June 2008 (EDT)

Cloning vs. Replication vs. Duplication

Any of these names can be used interchangeably, as all three have appeared in the Heroes world. Revolutionary War, Part 2 and Julien's assignment tracker profile say things like "replicants", "clones", and "duplicates". Since we have to choose one name for the article title, we choose "Cloning" since that's what it explicitly says in the AT2.0 profile. But there's no reason to necessarily prefer one name over the other. In other words, Hartsdale duplicate is just a valid as Hartsdale clone. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 22:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT)

• As long as we preserve that Evan's and Julien's abilities are different, then I'm fine with using the same name (cloning). However, although it is technically correct to say you can clone inorganic items, such as weapons or clothing like Evan could, it is not common usage so I could agree with a split as well. I don't really have a preference for splitting over keeping the same name, or vice versa; but if we do split, I think the name for Evan's ability should be "replication".--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:12, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
  • The products from Evan using his power were called "clones". However, I plan to ask Ollie Grigsby specifically about the power (though holy cow, that assignment tracker gave us a ton of information!) since he wrote Revolutionary War and Root and Branch. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 23:28, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
    • On the more meta-level, I wanted to say that as a whole the writers have been very generous in accomodating us when it comes to helping to explicitly document and name these abilities. Sometimes the info comes out through the assignment tracker, sometimes through Ryan's excellent interviews, but whenever they seem to be able to provide us information that is helpful they do. I'm very impressed with the degree to which the staff of Heroes is responsive to the fans of the show. (Admin 23:37, 11 June 2008 (EDT))
      • Yeah, their responsiveness is very good. I was very impressed with the detail and it was a nice touch on all the omitted "classified" information.--MiamiVolts (talk) 23:47, 11 June 2008 (EDT)
        • You know, they're all just a bunch of nerds like we are. That's why their details are so intense, and that's why Heroes rocks. That's meta. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:00, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

If Dumont's control is at 90%, then is Evan at 100? Because Evan just...cloned. Dumont had to spend (what look like) weeks to incubate his. Therequiembellishere 03:48, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

• It's hard to say. We really don't know what "control index" means since it's a concept that has never been referred to anywhere outside the assignment tracker pages. I would assume it something to do with how much control Julien has over the power, but it could mean a number of other things. Even still, the amount of time it takes for a clone to mature really might not have much to do with the control index. Perhaps Evan just spontaneously cloned and had no control over how many replicants he made, whereas Julien can decide how many clones to make, etc. Julien's assignment tracker profile also hints that there's a connection between the root and the branches, so perhaps Julien has some control over what his clones do (despite some going rogue).

  In the end, it's a lot of fun speculation. We really don't know what the number means, what exactly is being controlled, and how Julien's control index compares to Evan's power, which is subtly different than Julien's power. -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

  • It might just be me but I don't think we're supposed to look into things like the control index too much, personally I think they're just there as a nice extra for the assignment page, or maybe for rough comparisons between similar evolved humans, like Peter and Sylar. -- Friskymuffin - (talk) 11:40, 13 June 2008 (EDT)

Clothes

"The clones Sabine finds surrounding Julien do not appear to be clothed." They sure look like they're wearing pants to me--the same pants the root is wearing, mind you! :) -- RyanGibsonStewart (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

• Oops, I just reworded that. I also took out the part saying "oneself", since we don't know whether or not Julien can clone his clothing. Besides which, Evan can clone other items besides his clothing so we should not be too restrictive.--MiamiVolts (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2008 (EDT)

Multiplicity

I suggest the name Multiplicity. On an interveiw I heard Kristen Bell use that word to describe cloning. --Tsmarg

• We have an AT profile and a GN calling it cloning. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:15, 11 June 2009 (EDT)

Contradictory Near Cannon Sources

In the recent GN it was said that Julien could replicate, with Adam saying the same about Evan and cloning used only once in Julien's assignment tracker, does this mean this should be renamed to Replication? or does the company files trump GN's? If so this may mean that naming conventions need to be updated to include assignment trackers or would it simply be fine to make a not of this on the cloning page that this ability is referred to as replication? --posted by Laughingdevilboy Talk 10:31, 16 June 2009 (EDT)

• well if both of these sources are correct than we should vote on which one. --Tsmarg

Glad to see Cloning make a comeback

Is anyone else glad to see cloning make a return to the world of Heroes? I always thought that this was one of the coolest powers in the graphic novels. Vampirate68 | Talk | Contribs 18:12, 24 November 2009 (EST)

• Me. I've loved it since Evan and Adam spent two GN's knocking the stuffing out of each other. Swm 10:23, 1 December 2009 (EST)

No blood or bones

Is this really Eli's power? Did Evan's or Julien's clones not have blood, bones and not need to breathe?--PJDEP 21:26, 24 November 2009 (EST)

• No they did as when Julien was released from the company and went into shock his clones went into a bloody frenzy. I like Eli's way of cloning as it is different from the rest. As was Julien's from Evan's. AJUTChronicles

Multiplying

Lauren Gilmore called Eli a "multiplier". Is this enough to change the name of the ability?--PJDEP 21:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)

• Also, is this even the same ability that Julien had? Julien seemed to have much more intricate and biological cloning process, where Eli seems to spit out and take in his clones instantly.--PJDEP 21:56, 30 November 2009 (EST)
• He hasn't been shown to take his clones back into his own body, has he?. I don't think the ability name should be changed, as "multiplier" is a colloquialism, just like "stopping time" and "teleporting" are for Hiro's ability and "healing" is for Claire's. I'm pretty sure this is the same ability as the rest- Eli just has better control over it, like Evan did. Swm 10:22, 1 December 2009 (EST)
  • If I recall correctly he had a few hundred clones working in his mine, I guess I'm just assuming that he didn't leave them out there. Also, the whole no blood and bones thing implies that they aren't actual living organisms.--PJDEP 11:17, 1 December 2009 (EST)
    • I just read the new Prodigals and it look liked when he snapped his fingers all of the other clones disappeared. I really think that him and Julien have different abilities, they can both copy themselves but in drastically different ways. Julien has his clones grow out of him and they become living breathing organisms, no evidence that he can just pull them back in. Eli can make several copies of himself appear and disappear at will and his clones vanish when they die, suggesting that they aren't actually alive.--PJDEP 12:28, 1 December 2009 (EST)
      • The ability was explicitly named in Julien's assignment tracker profile as cloning. As a general rule, Assignment trackers trump general descriptions, whether or not they are given in episodes. This happened when Elle's lightning ability was moved to electric manipulation, so I believe it should apply here too. -- Psilaq R.- \m/ -_- \m/- 18:08, 1 December 2009 (EST)
        • But isn't it possible that Eli doesn't have the same ability as Julien?--PJDEP 18:11, 1 December 2009 (EST)
          • Sometimes abilities work a bit different. Mohinder has regular enhanced strength, but Michael Fitzgerald had glowing tattoos. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 18:16, 1 December 2009 (EST)
            • Exactly, IA. Also don't forget that Evan's version of this ability was pretty much the same as Eli's. Both seem to have their clones just apparate from nowhere and have a collective thought process with them. -- Psilaq R.- \m/ -_- \m/- 18:39, 1 December 2009 (EST)
              • I understand both sides of the argument, although since primatech had cloners in their records, why did lauren call them multipliers. It begs the question as to whether it is a different ability. Just now I'm fine keeping it as cloning, but I do think it is something a little different. --mc_hammark 18:42, 1 December 2009 (EST)
                • It was implied that Evan's abilities were exaggerated by Adam's retelling, so his similarities with Eli may not actually be real. Also, I always thought the the glowing tattoos were just an creative choice on the writer's part, like how many characters GN's also have their eyes glow. In any case, the differences between Julien's and Eli's abilities is more radical then glowing tattoos.--PJDEP 19:41, 1 December 2009 (EST)
• Just because Eli's clones don't bleed, doesn't mean that it's a different ability then Evan/Julien/et al. It's ultimately a trivial difference, like the tattoos for the enhanced strength example. Other cloners could make them disappear too, so that's not new. Lauren called him a "multiplier" because it's her way of referring to the ability. It's not a formal name, no more then Life and Death was the formal name for Jeremy's power when Noah said it, "healing" is Claire's, etc etc. Swm 13:16, 2 December 2009 (EST)
  • The name life and death is currently in dispute as a canon name so that shouldn't be used as an example. And the fact that Eli's clones do not have bones or blood, don't breathe and seem to appear and disappear instantaneously is not a trivial difference, while Julien's clones were clearly actual living organisms, Eli's may be some sort of weird metaphysical entities for all we know. Just because they have similar results doesn't mean they're the same ability.--PJDEP 13:24, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Unknown Level 5 guy

Can we place him under confirm? Even though we didn't see him use his ability we seen the result. In my opinion I see this as a reason to make him confirmed for having this ability. That, and the video was title something along the lines of "Clones".--OutbackZack 11:13, 2 December 2009 (EST)

• I always assumed that those clones were Julien Dumont's, but we can't just say that as there is no confirmation. And as with Dee H, this is a heroes evolution ability so can't be counted. Plus there could be a number of explanations for there being multiple copies of him in the same cell. Ever heard of Illusion? --mc_hammark 11:47, 2 December 2009 (EST)
  • I think that because we didn't see the clones being produced, his ability is not confirmed. We only saw the clones that were already there. But this issue is rather moot I think.--Referos 11:57, 2 December 2009 (EST)
  • To add on. If it was illusion then we shouldn't have the guy on this page, right? Confirmed or unconfirmed. Also why wouldn't a Heroes Evolution ability not count? Heroes Evolution content is deemed near canon along with webisodes and graphic novels. Ontop of that, the people who worked for the show controlled the content on the tracker map. So to say that it doesn't count would be like saying half of the stuff on here from webisodes to graphic novels don't count. I'm sticking strong with that unless we change the whole system around and lower Heroes Evolution content below near canon. There should be no problem, we have an image that we are show casing on the page --OutbackZack 11:59, 2 December 2009 (EST)

Bumped to add more discussion. --OutbackZack 06:34, 3 December 2009 (EST)

Split Article

I nominated the article to be split into two different abilities, cloning and multiplying, because I truly believe Eli has a different ability from Julien. For the sake of the argument, let's temporarily forget the other "cloners" and focus on the differences between Eli and Julien.

Eli

• Eli's copies do not have blood or bones. They do not carry out basic metabolic functions like breathing.
• Eli is able to retract his copies, causing them to appear and disappear instantaneously anywhere within his immediate vicinity.
• Eli is able to copy objects.
• Eli's copies simply vanish when he dies.
• His copies are able to spread out over a small town. It is unknown if they are able to travel farther differences away from the "root" Eli.

Julien

• Julien's copies appear to be exact replicas. They have fully functional biological systems (blood, bones, organs, etc.).
• Julien's copies have been shown to travel extremely far distances away from the "root Julien", with three copies traveling to three different continents away from the root.
• Julien's copies are copied without clothes or any other objects, only the body itself is cloned.
• Julien's copies seem to have somewhat independent thought processes, one started a relationship. A few were capable of rebellion.
• Julien copies himself through a process similar to cellular mitosis (or meiosis, I forget the difference). They "sprout" from his body.
• Julien can "feel" when his copies die.
• Once Julien creates a copy, it is permanent. They cannot be retracted and if they die, a body is left behind.

Same

• It would appear that only the "root" can clone, clones cannot clone themselves.
• Both can make copies of themselves (somewhat obvious...)
• Some sort of hive mind (although more limited in Julien's case) is involved.
• If the original, root, prime, omega, whatever, is killed, all of the clones die.

Feel free to add anything I missed.

Looking at the above points, the one basic fact that leads me to believe that these are two similar, but ultimately different abilities is that Julien produces exact replicas of himself, that are biologically living organisms, though a slow and involved process, while Eli produces copies that appear to be hollow skin shells that may very well not be actual organisms. In my mind at least, this is enough to classify them as having two separate abilities. Not only are their methods of copying different, they also end up with different results. One thing that kept Knox and Niki listed as having the same ability, despite the fact that they gained their strength through different methods, was that the end result in both cases was enhanced strength. However, this is not the case with "cloning", they may both end up with copies but these copies are very different.

Other points that should be brought up are that Lauren Gilmore called Eli a multiplier, while the assignment tracker (made by a company she worked for) called Julien's ability cloning. It is possible she may have been using the phrase colloquially however. Many people have used Evan to refute the idea of Eli and Julien having different abilities because his ability has characteristics of both characters. However, it is important to bring up the fact that it has been stated that Evan's abilities may have been exaggerated by Adam's retelling. Also (please note that I'm just bringing this up as a fact and not necessarily suggesting that Evan should be split too), in the interview with Zach Craley, he said "perhaps these powers are the same or very similar, but told from Adam's perspective it takes on a more fantastical quality". While this is not enough to suggest Evan should be split as well, it does cast enough doubt on Evan's descriptions being a reliable source.

While the above information may not be all that is required to change the article here and now, it is more then enough to warrant further debate.--PJDEP 16:21, 2 December 2009 (EST)

It can go either way for me, I'd just like to point out that Eli's clones can also be very far from the original, Tracy said they were all over Cape Town or something similar. Intuitive Empath - Talk - Contributions 16:40, 2 December 2009 (EST)

• I'm actually fairly inclined to agree to a split between Julien's cloning and Eli's multiplication. The abilities seem substantially distinct. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 03:46, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • I oppose this move, for the evidence presented for the differences seems shoddy at best. First of all, you cannot just ignore all other examples of cloners, as the power has been shown to have several attributes that some, but not all of its controllers have developed. Hence, saying "Eli can do this, Julien can't, so Eli has a different power to Julien" doesn't work. You'd have to prove that "Eli can do this, no other cloner has ever done this, so Eli does not have cloning." There's a very important and clear difference between the two. It's also entirely speculative to say that Adam was exaggerating in his retelling, because Zach said that the powers might well be the same, and Oliver Grigsby says in the same interview that there is clearly the possibility that they are the same.

Secondly, I don't think the biological properties of Eli's copies is at all a relevent difference. The fact that his clones are different from Julien's clones (which in turn behave slightly differently from Evan's clones, who can clone themselves, and different from Mag's clones who can make themselves disappear through contact) does not mean that Eli has a different power to Julien, no more then Julien has a different power to Evan or Evan to Mag. Other cloners could retract their copies (another reason why just comparing the two is not a fair test), so Eli is not different in that regard. Both Julien and Eli's clones can exist far apart from each other, as pointed out above by IE (as well as many of them being in South Africa while Eli was on the boat). Eli's ability to copy objects has been shared by other cloners (again, notably Evan), and so could some of Julien's clones (Our Lady of Blessed Acceleration Part 1 - An army of Julien clones suddenly materialises in the sewer, all dressed identically to the one they came from). The methods of copying are not really different- Eli's method is just faster and less painful, which is easily attributed to him having better control. Your analogy with Niki and Knox is inaccurate, because the end result here is also the same- they produce copies of themselves, just as Niki and Knox become stronger.

As for Lauren, I have already brought up the parralel between "multiplier" (Eli) "time traveller" (Hiro), "healing" (Claire). These are colloquial terms. An assignment tracker (a formal study of an ability) is far more reliable then one former agent's name in the heat of a fight. Noah calls Stephen Canfield's ability "Vortexes", but the official assignment tracker calls it Gravitational Manipulation. Lauren calls Eli a "multiplier", but the ability has already been named "Cloning" by the Company. As Cloning covers everything Eli can do, I see no difference between these two cases. Besides, if you did split the page, what would you call it? Multiplication/Multiplying is not a name that has been used in any medium in the Heroes world whatsoever. Lauren called him a "multipiler", but we can't use that as a name, and that's the only thing from the episode so it doesn't outrank Cloning in the hierarchy anyway, as it's just a description. Since the differences presented are either inaccurate, held by other cloners then Julien, or ultimately trivial, I think the page should not be split. Swm 06:48, 3 December 2009 (EST)

• I would say that Eli's multiples being shells versus Julien's clones being individual beings with their own wants and desires is significant enough to open the door to them being two different powers. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 09:41, 3 December 2009 (EST)
• I disagree. All other cloners have had "shells" for Clones to varying degrees- Evan's are all completely subservient to him, and Mag can merge with hers as she wishes. Julien's clones just have a weaker "hive mind" then the rest- he's less able to control what they do. Eli's clones may not be of blood and bone, but that by itself doesn't say anything special about the means by which they are generated. The argument that since the results are slightly different, the powers must be different, is like saying that Draph and Peter have different abilities because Draph can absorb five powers and Peter only one. It doesn't work. Swm 09:55, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • I support the split. These powers maybe be similar, but there are enough differences for them to be called separate powers. Vampirate68 | Talk | Contribs 15:25, 3 December 2009 (EST)
• Personally, I agree that there is enough of a difference between Eli's ability and Julien's cloning to warrant a split. The fact that he is seemingly able to cause them to materialize anywhere at will without sprouting from his body, in addition to the fact that they appear with clothing and items, as well as that they simply dissipate upon being shot, and the fact that none of them seem to exhibit any form of free will or dissent makes me think these are two very different abilities. Eli's ability is not outright cloning because Eli's men appear to not be exact biological duplications and more of a construct. I see it similar to a line between Puppet Master and Telekinesis. Both exhibit very similar functions but one power is much more involved and complicated then the other, ultimately the rules and results are different enough in my opinion to be considered different powers. Shallon 15:50, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • The rules and regulations are more or less exactly the same as the cloning case- prime dies, they all die. I'm pretty sure that Eli can only cause his clones to come out from his body, or at least in his immediate vincinity, so it's not "anywhere at will". Julien can clone items as well. The fact the clones behave differently says nothing about them being produced in a different way, and how does the fact that Eli's better at controlling his clones, somehow make it a different power? I'm not seeing how the fact that Eli's clones don't bleed, which is really the only difference between his power and other known cloners', means it can't be cloning and must be something else. More then likely it is a device devised to keep the special effects department from having to work too hard (hiding/showing Eli's body everywhere anytime there's a clone battle). How is what Julien does more complex then what Eli does? Just because it takes him more work to produce a clone, doesn't mean it's a different power. It just means Eli is better at it. Swm 16:12, 3 December 2009 (EST)
    • A clone is a copy of someone using DNA. If dna was used then they would have all the same things as Eli, organs/would breath etc. Since Eli's multiples have none of these, they cannot be clones. --mc_hammark 16:16, 3 December 2009 (EST)
    • Nice, but under that logic Evan isn't a cloner either, because all his imperfections were also copied- his scar, for example, which isn't covered by DNA. And Evan's ability is specifically named as "Cloning". Hence, while it may be technically inaccurate, that is the name we're working with. Swm 16:21, 3 December 2009 (EST)
  • The fact that Eli's clones don't bleed or breathe is everything. This one fact proves that Eli's constructs are not biological organisms, which automatically makes it different then Julien's clothing. Also, his clones do not come from his body, in The Fifth Stage, he was shown alone at Noah's door, and when Noah turned around there were several Eli copies that were not there moments earlier. In addition to this, Evan should not be used in this argument as the writer (or artist, whatever) said in an interview that Adam may have exaggerated Evan's ability, and that he may not have the same power as Julien in the first place. There is a possibility that they are the same, but both Eli and Julien have hard evidence and should only be taken into consideration. Also, Julien's copies could not clone themselves, this was also confirmed in an interview. The army of clones must have been brought along with the other Julien clone.

Even if we were to disregard all of that, the fact that Eli does not create biological organisms with his ability, and that there is no noticeable process for his copying is enough to separate the abilities. The word "cloning" itself denotes a biological process.--PJDEP 20:53, 3 December 2009 (EST)

• • Different in results, I agree. This says nothing about the process by which they're generated. Eli's clones are different from Julien's clones. But Julien's clones are also different, in other ways, to Mag's clones, and certainly to Evan's. Do they all have different abilities, just because their copies have different properties? No. Why, then, is Eli special just because his clones have a somehow "special" difference- not being biologically human? I'm really not seeing it. The same method (cloning) can produce different results (clones), like ability replication with Draph and Peter. It's entirely speculative to say which parts of Evan's ability were exaggerated and which were not, as we do not have confirmation that any part of it was exaggerated, only that it "might" have been. I could make the exact same argument about the entire Prodigals arc because it's told from Tracy's perspective, and yet we still seem happy to use that. Just because a writer pointed out the obvious (that a story happening over 300 years ago could be distorted) doesn't mean anything special. The GN with him in it is as canonical as any story told in the past, and should be treated as such until we get confirmation the events were falsified. And even if you did ignore Evan, what about the fourth cloner we have in canon? You still have to compare all three, not just the two that work for you. You expect me to believe that there was an army of clones, all identically dressed to the one that Sabine was sleeping with, that just so happened to be hiding in the sewers at the perfect moment to catch Samir as he phased through the street? When they didn't even know he was a phaser? That's a weak argument at best. It's far more intuitive to believe Julien's power just evolved since the interview and his clones became able to clone themselves. I shot down the biological definition with Evan's scar, as (unless you want to speculate and say that Adam was exaggerating on facial features as well as everything else) his clones aren't biological duplicates either. Now, if you want to move both Evan and Eli to Multiplication/Replication/whatever, and leave Mag and Julien on Cloning, that's one thing. But should another cloner ever appear in the world of Heroes, how would you decide where to put them, since Evan's clones clearly did bleed?

I still do not accept that because Eli's clones are slightly different in form, that his power is anything more then a highly controlled form of cloning. Everything he can do can be accounted for by it, including not having to make the clones jump out of his physical body (Evan's clones could clone themselves, hence not all the clones came from his body, either). As I said at the top, in order to show that Eli's power is distinct from cloning, it must be shown to do something cloning cannot do. He has not shown such an ability, and until he does he should remain on the same page. Swm 03:54, 4 December 2009 (EST)

• That's the thing Swmystery, clones are biological duplicates of the creator. That's how cloning works. If it's not biologically alive, then it can't be a clone. Although I'm interested as to why Ryan hasn't had his input here yet; I'll ask him. --mc_hammark 04:58, 4 December 2009 (EST)
  • They have their own mind so I don't really care about "biologically alive" actually, they consider themselves as their own family... Moreover, if Knox's power, Mohinder's, and Draph/Peter are the same, there is just no way to split this article since it's the same problem : Different way to use a core ability. We do it for all the powers or not, so since it has been decided not to do it for the others, it's not logical to split it now.--Kleith 07:02, 4 December 2009 (EST)

Eli's clones are not "slightly different" in anything.

• They do not breathe, Julien's do.
• They do not come out of Eli's body, Julien's do.
• They do not have biological functions, Julien's do.
• They duplicate clothes and items held, Julien's don't.
• They can't travel far from the Prime, Julien's do.
• They vanish when destroyed, Julien's don't.
• They share a hive mind, Julien's don't.

That's seven MAJOR differences in their powers. The ONLY things they have in common is that they (through different processes) make copies of themselves, and if the Prime dies, they all die. That's like saying that because TK and PM both control physical motion and tend to use a flick of the wrist, that they are the same. Julien and Eli have distinct powers. --Ricard Desi (t,c) 09:46, 4 December 2009 (EST)