Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, and I think you are very confused because you think that probabilities change depending on when you do the calculation. If you actually understood what you were saying, you would show us how to do the math.Did you even read what I or Speedwell wrote?
You are confusing an outcome and a probability.
Yes, and I think you are very confused because you think that probabilities change depending on when you do the calculation. If you actually understood what you were saying, you would show us how to do the math.
No, but the calculations are different. Probability is the ratio of the number of favorable outcomes to the number of all possible outcomes. Before the evolutionary "event" the numerator of that fraction is quite large, because there are a number of favorable possibilities. After the "event" the numerator becomes 1 and the calculation becomes useless for predicting the likelihood of future evolutionary "events."So you think that probabilities change whether the calculation is done before or after the random experiment occurs? Why don't you show us how that math works?
An "outcome" is the result of a random experiment, just because you have that outcome does not change the probability of that event occurring.I was suggesting that is what you appear to be doing.
My suggestion for you is to stay away from Las Vegas and gambling casinos.No, the probabilities do not change, that is a fact of maths, and I won't dispute that. But an event, be it a mutation, a birth, a rock falling from space, even if the odds are 1,000,000,000 to 1 for that event to happen, only has to happen ONCE for it to become the 1. That is also a fact of maths.
My suggestion for you is to stay away from Las Vegas and gambling casinos.
That's not correct. You have to divide the number of successes by the total number of trials.No, but the calculations are different. Probability is the ratio of the number of favorable outcomes to the number of all possible outcomes. Before the evolutionary "event" the numerator of that fraction is quite large, because there are a number of favorable possibilities. After the "event" the numerator becomes 1 and the calculation becomes useless for predicting the likelihood of future evolutionary "events."
Suit yourself.I don't gamble, so that won't happen either way.
But I'm not wrong.
No, you said:Alan Kleinman said: said:That's not correct. You have to divide the number of successes by the total number of trials.Which is exactly what I said.
You are confusing an outcome with a trial. Read this if you want to understand the difference:Speedwell said: said:Probability is the ratio of the number of favorable outcomes to the number of all possible outcomes.
An outcome is the result of a trial. But OK, dodge the real issue of you want. I notice that you have not responded to any of my recent posts in this vein except to make criticism of my terminology.No, you said:
You are confusing an outcome with a trial. Read this if you want to understand the difference:
Outcome (probability)
What you call a criticism, I call a correction. And I doubt you will take my instruction on introductory probability theory, so why don't you try watching the YouTube videos on probability theory by the Kahn Academy or Professor Leonard first.An outcome is the result of a trial. But OK, dodge the real issue of you want. I notice that you have not responded to any of my recent posts in this vein except to make criticism of my terminology.
Why should I not at least listen to your instruction on probability theory? I might learn something. I have always supposed, for example, that if I flip a true coin it can land one of two ways and if I desire it to land "heads" I can calculate the probability by dividing the number of ways I want the coin to land (1) by the number of ways it can possibly land (2) and get a result of 50%. Now you tell me this is entirely wrong and I would really like to know why you think so.What you call a criticism, I call a correction. And I doubt you will take my instruction on introductory probability theory, so why don't you try watching the YouTube videos on probability theory by the Kahn Academy or Professor Leonard first.
The statement "E has the probability P(E)" means that if we perform the random experiment very often, it is practically certain that the relative frequency f(E) is approximately equal to P(E). P(E) is the theoretical value, f(E) is the empirical value. So, let's say you perform your coin toss experiment and you toss the coin 4,040 times and you count the outcomes and you get 2,048 heads. Then the relative frequency of heads f(Heads) is (Number of Heads)/(Total Number of Tosses) = 2,048/4,040 = 0.5069.Why should I not at least listen to your instruction on probability theory? I might learn something. I have always supposed, for example, that if I flip a true coin it can land one of two ways and if I desire it to land "heads" I can calculate the probability by dividing the number of ways I want the coin to land (1) by the number of ways it can possibly land (2) and get a result of 50%. Now you tell me this is entirely wrong and I would really like to know why you think so.
Not exactly; Therapods are quite a diverse clade, with varying degrees of bird-like features. But it's another of those arbitrary categorisation & definition problems thrown up by trying to draw demarcation lines across an evolutionary continuum. It did occur to me that Maniraptorans might fit the label.So, therapods have the same respiratory, circulatory, excretory, metabolism, musculoskeletal system,... as birds. That's a thought. Did it ever enter your mind that therapods might be an extinct species of bird?
I've only skim-read the thread, but as I understand it, you're suggesting that the genomic differences we see between species are too great to be explained by the accepted mechanism of mutation and natural selection, given the proposed rates of mutation and timescales - is that the idea?The ToE doesn't work to explain these experiments that do work. Now, when Kishony tries to run his experiment with two drugs simultaneously, it doesn't work and you don't understand why and the ToE doesn't give that explanation either.
That's the idea. If you think there is evidence from other fields that substantiates the ToE, provide your best evidence. The genetic models used by biologists are incorrect and don't correlate with the experimental evidence. The models I've presented do correlate and predict the behavior of evolutionary experiments and I know where the biologists have made their errors.I've only skim-read the thread, but as I understand it, you're suggesting that the genomic differences we see between species are too great to be explained by the accepted mechanism of mutation and natural selection, given the proposed rates of mutation and timescales - is that the idea?
If so, this doesn't invalidate the ToE - the ToE is supported by evidence from many other fields of biology that preceded molecular genetics - it suggests that either the proposed rates of mutation and/or timescales are incorrect, or that there is more going on than the current genetic model describes. The ToE explains the diversity of species in terms of common descent through heritable variation and natural selection; the precise mechanisms involved are still being discovered, refined and extended.
Perhaps it would be worth trying to establish how this discrepancy between the current genetic model and real-world results arose and how it has persisted for so long, undiscovered...
If I have misunderstood what you are suggesting, please explain, or point me to a post where you explained the problem as you see it.
There are masses of evidence - I count 9 major fields in that link with numerous subfields.That's the idea. If you think there is evidence from other fields that substantiates the ToE, provide your best evidence.
I'm no longer competent to judge that myself, but as I said, that doesn't invalidate the ToE, it just suggests that the genetic mechanisms, as currently understood, are inadequate. I suggest submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed molecular biology publication, informing the statistical geneticists they're doing it wrong.The genetic models used by biologists are incorrect and don't correlate with the experimental evidence. The models I've presented do correlate and predict the behavior of evolutionary experiments and I know where the biologists have made their errors.
An "outcome" is the result of a random experiment, just because you have that outcome does not change the probability of that event occurring.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?