Evolution is mathematically impossible

[VirOptimus]

The heart has a mind of it's own, autonomically speaking.

No, it really doesnt, it just pumps blood. Read a biology text.

 

[inquiring mind]

Because many are rational, educated people.

Oh, that's what it is.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

No, it really doesnt, it just pumps blood. Read a biology text.

The heart is more complicated than that according to recent scientific findings. Many such articles are entitled, "The heart has a mind of it's own." You should check into this. Interesting stuff.

 

[VirOptimus]

The heart is more complicated than that according to recent scientific findings. Many such articles are entitled, "The heart has a mind of it's own." You should check into this. Interesting stuff.

No, it really isnt.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Because many are rational, educated people.

Isn't 'rational' a matter of context? Where I live we have a beautiful 'arboretum' enjoyed by many in our city. It is managed by highly educated people with degrees in the natural sciences. However the woodlands are in a terrible mess with tangles of large fallen dead trees littering the forest areas. I spend much time in the forests of our state hunting and photographing wildlife and I have never seen a mess such as is seen in the Arboretum. It is my opinion that these scientists want to allow the woodlands to remain as 'natural' as possible, while at the same time carefully cultivating all other areas.

The gist of my observation is that in a time of increasing co2 in the atmosphere, which is believed to contribute to global warming/climate change, that massive amounts of fallen timber would be allow to decompose above the ground, thus adding all or most of it's carbon to the atmosphere, is completely irrational. Whereas if it was utilized as lumber, firewood, or simply buried (as is done in some places) it's carbon would be safely sequestered.

 

[VirOptimus]

Isn't 'rational' a matter of context? Where I live we have a beautiful 'arboretum' enjoyed by many in our city. It is managed by highly educated people with degrees in the natural sciences. However the woodlands are in a terrible mess with tangles of large fallen dead trees littering the forest areas. I spend much time in the forests of our state hunting and photographing wildlife and I have never seen a mess such as is seen in the Arboretum. It is my opinion that these scientists want to allow the woodlands to remain as 'natural' as possible, while at the same time carefully cultivating all other areas.

The gist of my observation is that in a time of increasing co2 in the atmosphere, which is believed to contribute to global warming/climate change, that massive amounts of fallen timber would be allow to decompose above the ground, thus adding all or most of it's carbon to the atmosphere, is completely irrational. Whereas if it was utilized as lumber, firewood, or simply buried (as is done in some places) it's carbon would be safely sequestered.

Tl; dr.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Tl; dr.

That's ok, lurkers will read it, and ponder.

 

[xianghua]

Why not?

why not? because we have no evidence that its possible.

 

[Speedwell]

why not? because we have no evidence that its possible.

You may not have any; we've got plenty.

But I asked for logic, not evidence.

 

[xianghua]

You may not have any; we've got plenty.

But I asked for logic, not evidence.

simple logical conclusion: if a dog produce more variations of dogs, do you think that its logical to conclude that such a dog may evolve wings?

 

[Speedwell]

simple logical conclusion: if a dog produce more variations of dogs, do you think that its logical to conclude that such a dog may evolve wings?

Yes. A population of dogs which reproduce with randomly selected variation and subject to the right selection pressure could have their forelimbs modified to become wings.

 

[pitabread]

why not? because we have no evidence that its possible.

This is what creationists are reduced to: burying their heads in the sand.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's ok, lurkers will read it, and ponder.

I read it, and I think you're talking out of your backside with it.
But that's a discussion for another sort of thread.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I read it, and I think you're talking out of your backside with it.

Why would I post something that wasn't accurate?

Improving measurements of CO2 production from dead wood - Agroforestry World

Note that this study isn't conducted to determine if rotting wood gives off co2 to the atmosphere, but how much.

When completely decomposed the co2 released by the dry carbon matter in wood is nearly four times it's weight. Thus one ton of dry woody matter yields three-plus tons of co2. Not insignificant considering the sheer mass of dead trees rotting above ground worldwide. Thus my surprise that the highly educated, environmentally aware folks that manage our Arboretum seem oblivious of this fact.

 

[VirOptimus]

Why would I post something that wasn't accurate?

I give up, why did you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I give up, why did you?

I'm actually surprised that you guys don't know this.

 

[xianghua]

Yes. A population of dogs which reproduce with randomly selected variation and subject to the right selection pressure could have their forelimbs modified to become wings.

but we know that a wing is a product of design. so its not a logical conclusion to assume that a natural process can make wings. it contradict everything we know about nature.

 

[Speedwell]

but we know that a wing is a product of design. so its not a logical conclusion to assume that a natural process can make wings. it contradict everything we know about nature.

How do you know a wing must be a product of design?

A manufactured wing is a product of design. We know that because we can see the rivets, refined or non-natural materials, tool marks, and all the evidence of manufacture from which we conclude that an object is designed. None of those things are present in a bird's wing or a bat's wing so we can't tell whether they were designed or not.

 

[xianghua]

How do you know a wing must be a product of design?

because any wing we know of is the product of design.

 

[Speedwell]

because any wing we know of is the product of design.

In other words, circular logic. What you are saying is that we know the wings of a bird or a bat are designed because we know that all wings are designed. But where is you evidence? Where, on a bird or a bat's wing will you find rivets, tool marks or other evidence of manufacture?