Evolution is mathematically impossible

[OldWiseGuy]

Obviously. Since the atomic weight of carbon is 12 and the atomic weight of oxygen is 16, the molecular weight of CO2 is 44, so the mass of CO2 produced by the oxidation of carbon in wood is nearly four times the mass of the original carbon.



You are forgetting that all the carbon in the wood of a recently dead tree originally came from the CO2 in the atmosphere; therefore leaving the tree to rot, or burning the wood, merely returns the same amount of CO2 to the atmosphere that was extracted from it to make the tree in the first place.

The problem is (believed to be) that there is too much CO2 from other sources that we are unable to sequester. The potential of trees, used for lumber of course, to sequester huge amounts of CO2 is enormous. They're even beginning to build high rise structures out of engineered lumber. If houses were built of solid wood they would sequester lots of carbon, with the additional benefit of being quieter, self-insulating, and more fire resistant. They can even be heated with wood.

 

[tas8831]

Well sir, it appears to me that you’re no better judge of your fellow man than you are a specimen of one... just a quick inventory tells me your ill-humored demeanor and communication style could stand some serious improvement. And I don’t mean to cast aspersions on some of your like-minded friends ‘you refer to,’ but it wouldn’t hurt you guys to seek out a more diversely studied class of penning buddy to associate with.

I see that the thin-skin of the creationist pseudo-intellectual beats out the "inquiring mind" every time.
So there we go - the usual creationist 'I will call you a meany to avoid having to admit my failings as a human being.'

You could stand to grow some humility and admit that you are out of your depth when science is being discussed - your proved it to all some time ago, but refused to see it yourself. The egotistical nature of the creationist drives many of your sad ilk to reach unrealistic conclusions about your own intellectual abilities.

I will interpret your latest sad attempt at face-saving as an unwitting admission of intellectual defeat and simply laugh at your unwarranted over-estimation of your own intellectual worth.

What was it your wrote, with pride, no doubt? Ah yes -

"Thankfully, with the so-called myth you refer to, mine came by way of my heart, long before I knew anything about the middle east or could cloud my mind with too much inquiry. I don’t seem to question with my heart like I do with my mind... it either feels right or it doesn’t."

You, sir, are beaten, but your prideful nature will not allow you to publicly acknowledge this.

Sad, really.

Just for posterity, I will again paste that which you cannot address as an informed, educated adult; that which you have, in the past, pretended to have dismissed due to your 'knowledge' of the material; etc.
Now bask in the failure of your sad feelings and fantasy beliefs:

As I know you have seen this before, since I have posted it more than a dozen times, I am sure you will ignore it or look for ways to dismiss it, but the rationale is quite simple - by using tested methods, we can reconstruct phylogenies.


I forget now who originally posted these on this forum, but I keep it in my archives because it offers a nice 'linear' progression of testing a methodology and then applying it.

The tested methodology:

Science 25 October 1991:
Vol. 254. no. 5031, pp. 554 - 558

Gene trees and the origins of inbred strains of mice

WR Atchley and WM Fitch

Extensive data on genetic divergence among 24 inbred strains of mice provide an opportunity to examine the concordance of gene trees and species trees, especially whether structured subsamples of loci give congruent estimates of phylogenetic relationships. Phylogenetic analyses of 144 separate loci reproduce almost exactly the known genealogical relationships among these 24 strains. Partitioning these loci into structured subsets representing loci coding for proteins, the immune system and endogenous viruses give incongruent phylogenetic results. The gene tree based on protein loci provides an accurate picture of the genealogical relationships among strains; however, gene trees based upon immune and viral data show significant deviations from known genealogical affinities.

======================

Science, Vol 255, Issue 5044, 589-592

Experimental phylogenetics: generation of a known phylogeny

DM Hillis, JJ Bull, ME White, MR Badgett, and IJ Molineux
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Although methods of phylogenetic estimation are used routinely in comparative biology, direct tests of these methods are hampered by the lack of known phylogenies. Here a system based on serial propagation of bacteriophage T7 in the presence of a mutagen was used to create the first completely known phylogeny. Restriction-site maps of the terminal lineages were used to infer the evolutionary history of the experimental lines for comparison to the known history and actual ancestors. The five methods used to reconstruct branching pattern all predicted the correct topology but varied in their predictions of branch lengths; one method also predicts ancestral restriction maps and was found to be greater than 98 percent accurate.

==================================

Science, Vol 264, Issue 5159, 671-677

Application and accuracy of molecular phylogenies

DM Hillis, JP Huelsenbeck, and CW Cunningham
Department of Zoology, University of Texas, Austin 78712.

Molecular investigations of evolutionary history are being used to study subjects as diverse as the epidemiology of acquired immune deficiency syndrome and the origin of life. These studies depend on accurate estimates of phylogeny. The performance of methods of phylogenetic analysis can be assessed by numerical simulation studies and by the experimental evolution of organisms in controlled laboratory situations. Both kinds of assessment indicate that existing methods are effective at estimating phylogenies over a wide range of evolutionary conditions, especially if information about substitution bias is used to provide differential weightings for character transformations.



We can ASSUME that the results of an application of those methods have merit.


Application of the tested methodology:

Implications of natural selection in shaping 99.4% nonsynonymous DNA identity between humans and chimpanzees: Enlarging genus Homo

"Here we compare ≈90 kb of coding DNA nucleotide sequence from 97 human genes to their sequenced chimpanzee counterparts and to available sequenced gorilla, orangutan, and Old World monkey counterparts, and, on a more limited basis, to mouse. The nonsynonymous changes (functionally important), like synonymous changes (functionally much less important), show chimpanzees and humans to be most closely related, sharing 99.4% identity at nonsynonymous sites and 98.4% at synonymous sites. "



Mitochondrial Insertions into Primate Nuclear Genomes Suggest the Use of numts as a Tool for Phylogeny

"Moreover, numts identified in gorilla Supercontigs were used to test the human–chimp–gorilla trichotomy, yielding a high level of support for the sister relationship of human and chimpanzee."



A Molecular Phylogeny of Living Primates

"Once contentiously debated, the closest human relative of chimpanzee (Pan) within subfamily Homininae (Gorilla, Pan, Homo) is now generally undisputed. The branch forming the Homo andPanlineage apart from Gorilla is relatively short (node 73, 27 steps MP, 0 indels) compared with that of thePan genus (node 72, 91 steps MP, 2 indels) and suggests rapid speciation into the 3 genera occurred early in Homininae evolution. Based on 54 gene regions, Homo-Pan genetic distance range from 6.92 to 7.90×10−3 substitutions/site (P. paniscus and P. troglodytes, respectively), which is less than previous estimates based on large scale sequencing of specific regions such as chromosome 7[50]. "




Catarrhine phylogeny: noncoding DNA evidence for a diphyletic origin of the mangabeys and for a human-chimpanzee clade.

"The Superfamily Hominoidea for apes and humans is reduced to family Hominidae within Superfamily Cercopithecoidea, with all living hominids placed in subfamily Homininae; and (4) chimpanzees and humans are members of a single genus, Homo, with common and bonobo chimpanzees placed in subgenus H. (Pan) and humans placed in subgenus H. (Homo). It may be noted that humans and chimpanzees are more than 98.3% identical in their typical nuclear noncoding DNA and probably more than 99.5% identical in the active coding nucleotide sequences of their functional nuclear genes (Goodman et al., 1989, 1990). In mammals such high genetic correspondence is commonly found between sibling species below the generic level but not between species in different genera."

 

[tas8831]

Why would I post something that wasn't accurate?

You've done it before - lots of times.

Or rather, your interpretation of things is often very inaccurate.

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.

No mention of combustion byproducts. Another of your famed misdirections.

 

[tas8831]

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

Any human designed wing, yes.

Argument via analogy is the argument of the desperate and the one unable to find evidence for their proclamations.

Self-replicating robot penguin is getting mad....

 

[tas8831]

so we cant conclude design by looking at this structure?:

HUMAN design, sure.

Do you ever have a legitimate point?

 

[tas8831]

Did you think I meant piling it up and having a big campfire?

Right - burning wood in a campfire is TOTALLY different from burning wood for heat. Totally no CO2 made that way.

Burning wood for heating replaces fossils fuels like oil and gas which can then be left in the ground, and is therefore carbon neutral. Creationist smart, yup.

So precious how you try to cover your tracks. Problem for you is, your original claims are still intact:

"...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."


Note that there was no differentiation made between 'firewood' being used in a campfire or in a woodstove.

Not that it matters - the burning of wood is the burning of wood.

Nice attempt at ego-protection. Nice failed attempt, just like every other time.

Aorta sends motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN... I mean, ridiculous...

 

[OldWiseGuy]

You've done it before - lots of times.

Or rather, your interpretation of things is often very inaccurate.


No mention of combustion byproducts. Another of your famed misdirections.

You have to peruse my whole body of work on the subject. Don't be like the blind monks grappling at the elephant.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Right - burning wood in a campfire is TOTALLY different from burning wood for heat. Totally no CO2 made that way.
So precious how you try to cover your tracks. Problem for you is, your original claims are still intact:

"...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."


Note that there was no differentiation made between 'firewood' being used in a campfire or in a woodstove.

Not that it matters - the burning of wood is the burning of wood.

Nice attempt at ego-protection. Nice failed attempt, just like every other time.

Aorta sends motor impulses to the larynx via the RLN... I mean, ridiculous...

I burn "firewood" (cut with a cordless chain saw) in my fireplace; heats the whole house including the apartment upstairs. Saves on fossil fuel, very enjoyable activity (do you have a problem with enjoyable activities?).

 

[tas8831]

The problem is (believed to be) that there is too much CO2 from other sources that we are unable to sequester....They can even be heated with wood.

Yup.

Creationist-smart!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yup.

Creationist-smart!

Makes my point.

Pellet Stoves vs. Wood Stoves: Which is Greener?

Pellet stoves: Pros

Pellet stoves are very efficient -- 75 percent to 90 percent overall efficiency -- and have a BTU output
content four to five times higher than cord wood or wood chips. Pellet stoves also have very low particulate emissions; 50 times less than older, non-EPA certified wood stoves, and two to five times lower than more efficient, EPA-certified woodstoves. If you're looking for a new stove, pellet stoves can be a good option for those without a fireplace or chimney, because they can often be vented through a small hole in the wall, rather than a whole chimney. Pellets themselves are also often made from sawdust and other small wood particles which are byproducts of wood milling, and might otherwise be headed for the landfill.

Plus, if you can use wood that would have decomposed otherwise, you'll get the added benefit of heat while the wood releases the carbon dioxide it has sequestered during growth -- if left to rot in the woods, all the carbon dioxide gets released (albeit much more slowly) and you're left in the cold. Cord wood tends to be easier to come by than pellets, and wood stoves don't require electricity, so wood stoves can provide heat when the power goes out.

 

[tas8831]

I burn "firewood" (cut with a cordless chain saw) in my fireplace; heats the whole house including the apartment upstairs. Saves on fossil fuel, very enjoyable activity (do you have a problem with enjoyable activities?).

And you just keep digging that hole... Do you do this on purpose, thinking it actually works, or do you just not understand?


"...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."


Are you trying to admit that you were in error when you said using lumber as firewood would sequester safely sequester its carbon?

I don't understand your antics, they seem perpetually self-defeating.

 

[tas8831]

Pellet Stoves vs. Wood Stoves: Which is Greener?

It is so precious how once you have stuck your foot in your mouth, you then go on these keyword-searches to try to find post-hoc articles that you think will either somehow support your initial claim or will sufficiently distract people.

"Greener" wood-burning techniques STILL BURN WOOD.

BURNING WOOD still releases CARBON DIOXIDE, contrary to your earlier and repeated implications/assertions.

You did this same sort of thing when you made that truly laughable claim about the gut, and the ability of the RLN to carry nerve impulse in the wrong direction, etc.

I am curious - do you even believe half the things you write? Or is it just trolling?

 

[tas8831]

I burn "firewood" (cut with a cordless chain saw) in my fireplace; heats the whole house including the apartment upstairs. Saves on fossil fuel, very enjoyable activity (do you have a problem with enjoyable activities?).

Good for you.

That does not explain how burning wood sequesters its own carbon.

"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."

I should think that admitting error, or even spinning it as some sort of typo, would be better than overtly trying to engage in some sort of historical revisionism to try to save face. Doing so actually makes you look worse.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And you just keep digging that hole... Do you do this on purpose, thinking it actually works, or do you just not understand?


"...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."


Are you trying to admit that you were in error when you said using lumber as firewood would sequester safely sequester its carbon?

I don't understand your antics, they seem perpetually self-defeating.

I agree that burning wood doesn't sequester carbon. But burning wood clearly reduces the use of fossil fuels, and recycles carbon above the ground rather than bringing old carbon up from beneath. So it's a net benefit in regard to atmospheric CO2. That is my point.

 

[tas8831]

Makes my point.

If your point is that burning wood for heat does NOT sequester its carbon, yes. Thanks for your roundabout admission.

Plus, if you can use wood that would have decomposed otherwise, you'll get the added benefit of heat while the wood releases the carbon dioxide it has sequestered during growth -- if left to rot in the woods, all the carbon dioxide gets released (albeit much more slowly) and you're left in the cold. Cord wood tends to be easier to come by than pellets, and wood stoves don't require electricity, so wood stoves can provide heat when the power goes out.

How does what you bolded support your earlier statement:

"...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."


I have a hard time understanding your "thinking" process here - you initially claim that burning lumber sequesters its carbon somehow, and now you paste sections of an article you think helps your case and bold the part you think does so, yet the section just prior to what you bolded totally contradicts your initial statement.

So, why do you do this? Are you a Poe with way too much time on his hands?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If your point is that burning wood for heat does NOT sequester its carbon, yes. Thanks for your roundabout admission.
How does what you bolded support your earlier statement:

"...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."


I have a hard time understanding your "thinking" process here - you initially claim that burning lumber sequesters its carbon somehow, and now you paste sections of an article you think helps your case and bold the part you think does so, yet the section just prior to what you bolded totally contradicts your initial statement.

So, why do you do this? Are you a Poe with way too much time on his hands?

I made that correction (not an apology or admission) in post #196.

 

[tas8831]

I agree that burning wood doesn't sequester carbon.

Then why did you initially write that it did, and then DEFEND that claim over the course of several posts?

But burning wood cleanly reduces the use of fossil fuels, and recycles carbon above the ground rather than bringing old carbon up from beneath. So it's a net benefit in regard to atmospheric CO2. That is my point.

Then why didn't you write that in the first place?

You seem to have a tendency to alter your points to reflect the fact that you could find no legitimate support for your original claims... Sometimes.

 

[tas8831]

I made that correction (not an apology or admission) in post #196.

Right - wouldn't want to admit that you admitted to having made a major error and then followed up that error with a defense of it for several posts. Better to try to deflect a bit and then later imply that you knew it all along... So much better for one's self-esteem and integrity that way.

 

[inquiring mind]

I see that the thin-skin of the creationist pseudo-intellectual beats out the "inquiring mind" every time.

Oh, I wouldn’t say that... I’d hardly be back here over and over reading the continual drivel about my knowledge and condescending nature if that was the case.

So there we go - the usual creationist 'I will call you a meany to avoid having to admit my failings as a human being.'

I didn’t say you were a meanie, just that your social graces could stand improvement, and that you have poor judgment, which you’ve once again proved with this post.

You could stand to grow some humility and admit that you are out of your depth when science is being discussed - your proved it to all some time ago, but refused to see it yourself. The egotistical nature of the creationist drives many of your sad ilk to reach unrealistic conclusions about your own intellectual abilities.

I don’t seem to have any problem with your generally googled info and opinions, when and if I can get you out of the ‘cut & paste’ posts, which only serve the purpose of boring everyone to death and laying the trap of causing someone to have to compose a research paper for an answer. I think if you even came close to understanding science as much as you claim, you’d be able to discuss it with entertaining dialogue. I won’t hold my breath on that one.

I will interpret your latest sad attempt at face-saving as an unwitting admission of intellectual defeat and simply laugh at your unwarranted over-estimation of your own intellectual worth.

More evidence of your poor judgment.

You, sir, are beaten, but your prideful nature will not allow you to publicly acknowledge this.

Beaten? That certainly doesn’t sound like someone interested in ‘inquiring’ or exchanging ideas. So much for your humility. Who would've figured?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Right - wouldn't want to admit that you admitted to having made a major error and then followed up that error with a defense of it for several posts. Better to try to deflect a bit and then later imply that you knew it all along... So much better for one's self-esteem and integrity that way.

An error hardly deserving of the death penalty. I'm sorry that you don't understand the main thrust of my assertion.