Originally posted by MARCMAN
Forgot to add this.Remember that is was science that toldus that the sun went around the earth and not the other way around. after all the sun rises in the east and sets in the west right?
Science can equal truth but not all the time
Remember it was science that changed this notion, and that it was the Pope who condemned him for saying it.
Agreed,
And I love science. a lot. We just need to take some and leave some. Evolution has never been proven as fact. There is nothing we can find that CAN prove it. Of course we can,t. Some claim it happended over billions of year.
Carbon dating is false: tons of test we done with freshly killed animals and they were tested has being 40,000 year old. A cow that died while given birth (baby hald way out) was dated as being 13,000 and the baby at over 25,000
Geologic colums is also false
Man I could just go on and on and I bet no on.
Honestly though, if you got proof then let me have it
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
No it's not, no function was added whatsoever, you just showed me an example of a mutated phenotype.
um no. You used the word phenotype incorrectly. A phenotype us a characteristic...not a type of characteristsic.
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
Did you read what I said, I know that already. but a single protien which creates specification in the finger print as just as specified it's called "Peptide Mass Fingerprint."
Originally posted by Emperor Ashtar
No traits depend on natural selection, natural selection [B]is envioronment,predators,prey, any thing natural fits under the natrural selection definition. natural selection favors traits blindly. [/B]
Originally posted by MARCMAN
Agreed,And I love science. a lot. We just need to take some and leave some. Evolution has never been proven as fact. There is nothing we can find that CAN prove it. Of course we can,t. Some claim it happended over billions of year.
Carbon dating is false: tons of test we done with freshly killed animals and they were tested has being 40,000 year old. A cow that died while given birth (baby hald way out) was dated as being 13,000 and the baby at over 25,000
Geologic colums is also false
Man I could just go on and on and I bet no on.
Honestly though, if you got proof then let me have it
Unfortunately, your position is obsurd. You claim you love science, but since you clearly want ti destroyed, I'd challenge that.
It is not your place to "take some and leave some" Science is Science regardless of what ti says and it doesnt cater to your personal opinon.
Evolution is immutible fact. Natural selection has been proven again and again and the theory, when it was wrong, was modified repeatedly.
Besides. If you knew anything abotu the subject, youd know that radiometric dating, not radiocarbon dating shows that the earth is 4.6 billion years old.
Originally posted by Alliance
phe·no·type n. Genetics.
1. the observable constitution of an organism.
2. the appearance of an organism resulting from the interaction of the genotype and the environment.um no. You used the word phenotype incorrectly. A phenotype us a characteristic...not a type of characteristsic.
And how does that change the fact mutation do not create functions from scracth.
Originally posted by Alliance
It might create specification, I don't know anything about it, but it DOES NOT create the pattern. There is not genetic dogma.
Do you even know what peptide finger printing is and how it works?
Originally posted by Alliance
NO. Please understand this. Its not blind. Traits are selected by life and death. The things you listed are items in the environment that promote life or death. They are two different concepts.
Again, how does that explain how natural selection is not blind?
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarWhat the f*ck?
Did you read what I said, I know that already. but a single protien which creates specification in the finger print as just as specified it's called "Peptide Mass Fingerprint."
PMF is an proteomic analytical technique not a protein that specifies what a fingerprint looks like. Isoelectric focusing is used to separate proteins by charge. Then SDS-PAGE separates proteins by size. Once separated protein spots on the gel are taken and trypsinized into smaller fragments. Then MALDI-TOF is used to generate a mass spectrum and this is crossreferenced to database.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
What the f*ck?PMF is an proteomic analytical technique not a protein that specifies what a fingerprint looks like. Isoelectric focusing is used to separate proteins by charge. Then SDS-PAGE separates proteins by size. Once separated protein spots on the gel are taken and trypsinized into smaller fragments. Then MALDI-TOF is used to generate a mass spectrum and this is crossreferenced to database.
😉 And is that protein not specified?
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarYou're trying to call some protein that you say specifies the human fingerprint a "Peptide Mass Fingerprint." 😐
😉 And is that protein not specified?
PMF is a proteomic analytical technique. Applied in the identification of many proteins of various functions. A peptide mass fingerprint is not a protein. Period.
This is an example of PMF:
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
1. You're question is unclear. What is the subject? And what is the object?2. Clarify the following statement:
but a single protien which creates specification in the finger print is just as specified it's called "Peptide Mass Fingerprint."
You already know what PMF is, I told allaince to look it up.
my point is PMF (Not too versed in it) has identified a single protien that is responsible for specifying finger prints.
You like to correct me, may I ask why?
EDIT: I'm posting evidence of specified information.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarTo my knowledge no single protein is responsible for the formation of fingerprints. A literature search also fails to produce anything that would substantiate this.
You already know what PMF is, I told allaince to look it up.my point is PMF (Not too versed in it) has identified a single protien that is responsible for specifying finger prints.
You like to correct me, may I ask why?
EDIT: I'm posting evidence of specified information.
I mark student lab reports. Correcting errors is second nature.
Originally posted by AllianceFingerprints have genetic basis, but are subject to random developmental forces. You can find more info here.
.
Is that explanation supposed to be scientific, it says that specifity in complex systems happens by chance... 😕
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
To my knowledge no single protein is responsible for the formation of fingerprints. A literature search also fails to produce anything that would substantiate this.I mark student lab reports. Correcting errors is second nature.
I concede that point then.
Specified complexity DEBUNKED or why William Dembski is a TOOL 😂.
Originally posted by Emperor AshtarThey don't happen by chance, the only "chance" is the fact that they turned out like they did and not something else. The pprocess and cause is by laws of physics.
Is that explanation supposed to be scientific, it says that specifity in complex systems happens by chance... 😕