Throwing 1,000 Consecutive Heads

Authentic Nouveau said:
Thanks for confirming you have no clue on evolution.

NONE

Evolution insists for example with mutation you can roll a pair of dice and come up with a pair of 7's.

Why don't you learn maths?
Click to expand...
Unlike you, from someone competent to teach maths. You have no clue about either maths or evolution and therefore don't have the capacity to make meaningful comment.
 
rossum said:
All species change over generations. 100,000 years ago humans did not have widespread lactase persistence mutations. When some humans started pastoral agriculture, raising cattle, sheep, goats etc. Today the descendants of those pastoralists have lactase persistence mutations, which enable adults to digest milk, as supplied by cows, sheep, goats. Those mutations are present in about one third of the current human population.

Evolution happens and can be observed if you are prepared to see it.


How long is a generation? For bacteria it can be about 30 minutes. Small animals take weeks or months. Elephants take longer than humans.


The chance I gave was the chance of reproducing or not. By observation the chance of any individual reproducing is greater than 50%, because we can observe that most populations are steady over time. That means that on average every individual has one offspring that reaches reproductive age and itself reproduces.

In my scenario half the individuals have 0 offspring and half have 2 offspring. That gives the observed one descendant on average per individual. That maintains a steady population.

Over time, my scenario does indeed produce 1,000 heads in a row, because any tails thrown are eliminated. That mirrors the face that all of your ancestors succeeded in reproducing. None of them failed, as shown by your presence here today.

As the saying goes: "If your parents didn't have any children, the chances are that you won't have any either."
Click to expand...
YOU just admitted it again they stay the same. So they have a few things like lactase persistent mutations? But they are the same overall correct?
 
rossum said:
You appear to forget that at each round we cut off half the possible results. You need to rework the calculation, since all throws after the first 'T' never happen. The scenario throws away cards after a tails. It only makes new cards when heads is thrown.

The scenario does not follow failing sequences. It cuts them off as soon as it is evident that they are failing. That means you cannot use a standard random probability calculation since the continuation of any sequence is not random.
Click to expand...
Again you are manipulating it to your advantage and since evolution would not know to cut off half the possible results, you also have to do a calculation where you do not cut off half the results and see what figure you come up with and then present that along with your other calculation? I am not the one who needs to rework the calculation.
 
Temujin said:
On the contrary. It's a very good reflection of reality. You are just grasping at straws to avoid acknowledging the facts. What number would you prefer?
Click to expand...
Real numbers.....the model acts as if each heads is a beneficial mutation.
 
rossum said:
Yes, tails were thrown, which mean that the sequence from that card was not carried forward into the next round. Only throws of heads got two cards carried forward into the next round. That models the fact that if your parents hadn't had any children then you would not be here.
Click to expand...
That's not evolutionism.
 
Authentic Nouveau said:
Thanks for confirming you have no clue on evolution.

NONE

Evolution insists for example with mutation you can roll a pair of dice and come up with a pair of 7's.

Why don't you learn maths?
Click to expand...

Lol. You commenting on mathematics is laughable, given you don't even understand averages.
 
CrowCross said:
Why are you insulting people?
Click to expand...
He isn't. He is stating a fact. I would advise not dragging the old thread where this was proven into the open air again, as it is intensely embarrassing for the poster concerned. Just be aware that he doesn't understand how to calculate a simple mean.
 
CrowCross said:
You were refuted HERE.
Click to expand...
No I was not.

Your argument is founded on the claim that evolution definitely could not produced the organelle assembly line. My post refuted that claim.

You then shifted the goalposts, and required proof evolution produced the organelle assembly line. I accept we do not haver that proof, but we do not need it to refute your claim, we merely need to show it is possible.
 
Nathan P said:
YOU just admitted it again they stay the same. So they have a few things like lactase persistent mutations? But they are the same overall correct?
Click to expand...
Wrong. They are not the same, they have a lactase persistence mutation that their ancestors did not have. That is a difference. If there is a difference then they are not the same, obviously.

Nathan P said:
Again you are manipulating it to your advantage and since evolution would not know to cut off half the possible results
Click to expand...
Bwahahaha! If you have no offspring then your particular DNA is not passed on to future generations. That specific sequence dies with you. There is nothing to "know". If you don't have offspring then your DNA is not passed on.
 
The Pixie said:
No I was not.

Your argument is founded on the claim that evolution definitely could not produced the organelle assembly line. My post refuted that claim.

You then shifted the goalposts, and required proof evolution produced the organelle assembly line. I accept we do not haver that proof, but we do not need it to refute your claim, we merely need to show it is possible.
Click to expand...
It is true...evolutionism definitely could not produced the organelle assembly line.

You presented a scenario that was for the most part identical to my illustration of a house evolving.
 
CrowCross said:
Why are you now lying about people?
Click to expand...
I'm not. The statement "AN does not understand how to calculate a simple mean." is true and has been demonstrated in excruciating fashion on a thread about vaccination deaths. Making a true statement about someone, even if they are a Christian, is not lying.
 
rossum said:
Wrong. They are not the same, they have a lactase persistence mutation that their ancestors did not have. That is a difference. If there is a difference then they are not the same, obviously.


Bwahahaha! If you have no offspring then your particular DNA is not passed on to future generations. That specific sequence dies with you. There is nothing to "know". If you don't have offspring then your DNA is not passed on.
Click to expand...
But overall they are the same when looking at them correct?
 
Temujin said:
I'm not. The statement "AN does not understand how to calculate a simple mean." is true and has been demonstrated in excruciating fashion on a thread about vaccination deaths. Making a true statement about someone, even if they are a Christian, is not lying.
Click to expand...
Edit per mod

You do know your point is lessened when you employ such tactics....Is it your goal to puff yourself up by putting others down?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CrowCross said:
Stop backpeddling....you lied.

You do know your point is lessened when you employ such tactics....Is it your goal to puff yourself up by putting others down?
Click to expand...
No lie. AN does not understand how to calculate an average.

Do you know how to calculate an average?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top