Posted on 01/28/2005 4:28:41 PM PST by metacognative
As far as I understand, and I haven't counted the number of tosses. You are not asking whats the chance of that number of H's and that number of T's, eh?
There were fifty. Now what is the probability assuming randomness of this sequence (50 tosses)?
HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH HHHH
No. The exact sequence as posted.
retrospective placemarker
It's even deeper than that. No uniform probablity distribution exists for the whole line (or plane, etc.). Nor does a uniform distribution exist on the integers. Otherwise, if challenged to "pick a number" one would usually pick a number that takes longer than the age of the universe to write down.
Scientist, as with all human beings, do hope, have faith, and believe things. They have faith that, for example, what is published in peer-reviewed publications have actually legitimately gone through the peer-reviewed process. The have faith that crackpot IDers haven't surreptitiously taken over the editorship in order to publish crap articles on ID that would not be legitimately published any other way.
Religion, on the other hand, is all about faith, hope and belief . If you are a Christian, you have a book, written by men, that you believe was inspired by God. There is no real proof of this, you just believe it. You believe it because of faith, which is belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. You do it out of a hope for something--eternal life--for which there is no objective proof.
Nor need they be competitive.
Tell that to the Taliban or to the hard-core creationists.
This is nonsense. Evolutionists claim (correctly) that evolution follows certain (very complex) guiding rules, though without a predefined outcome. The randomness enters the equation due to the absence of a predetermined outcome, not due to the absence of a predefined method. If the 'coin' of evolution comes up fifty times heads, it is not because the coin was determined to come up fifty times heads, but rather because the nature of the coin is such between each toss that a result of heads is far more likely than a result of tails and there is insufficient external impetus to elevate the odds of tails.
Stated differently, if you have fifty kids the odds are excellent that all fifty of them will be human, and not any one of the other millions of species on earth, although the random odds of this result are infinitesimal. You can quantify this if you'd like (the random odds are roughly one in 5 × 10300, which might as well be infinitesimal, and sound even more absurd than your silly coins; the true odds are roughly 1:1) but it contains an inherent and obvious non sequitur. The reason why all 50 results will probably be human is because it is your nature to have human progeny, although there is a slight chance that one or more of the progeny will be an incremental step toward a future result of 'tails'...
Evolution involves not having fifty kids - which is analogous to fifty coin tosses - but rather having a lineage of fifty generations, which is analogous to a series of coin tosses where each succeeding toss is highly likely to approximate the preceding toss with a slight chance of variation within given parameters that may accummulate over time under reinforcement.
No problem, I do this TOO often myself.
Lots of times it has to do with answering someone here, when another has done better, further than I've read so far.
Yes, but the result is a worthless argument. Call it a false assumption if you like. But I named it, and I'll stick with it for a while. (I'm my biggest fan.)
Still, tortoise's suggestion that the chance of this point in meta-space we are all part of right now being equivalent to any other point in meta-space infers that we are in a such a meta-space. That is the rub. His and your apriori of a belief system. Are we? Can't prove it.
Comes back to the fifty coins on the table. All heads after a toss -- what's on their other face?
What is most logical to say?
Ok. Skipping the Bible which has probably no resolution there are two issues which could be addressed.
1)Evolution is impossible since it is very improbable based on the same old years/random mutation evidence.
2) Evolution is impossible since it contradicts the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy). I am sure we have all heard both sides. Can we agree to call these false arguments?
(And when "jack" is in front of "ass" is usually means a creationist or an IDer...) Given the general incomprehensibility of much of your post, I figured that English was a second language to you. I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, and figured that perhaps you didn't realize that here in the English-speaking world, when referring to organisms that reproduce without sex, the term "asexual" is used and not the word "sexless."
Can you respond to #1502?
Buy a calculator. What is the point you are getting at?
There is ALWAYS an "E" solution, isn't there!?
What species is a jackass, by that I mean a mule?
Did this precede DaVinci?
You can simply post the formula, as was done before. We don't need a calculator.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.