Darwanism its false?

  • Thread starter Jikx
  • Start date
  • #26
amos behavin
Hi Russ:
The probability of this event occurring is 1/100!
The probability of this event not happening is 1-(1/100!)

The odds of this event not happening are 100!-1:1

Almost the same I admit, but odds and probability are not the same thing. If any of you guys go to Vegas, or even get into a crap game, you'll find that it's helpful to know the difference.
Consider flipping a coin: What is the probability of heads? Then what are the odds that you'll flip heads?
Please correct me if I'm mistaken.

Thanks

Amos Behavin
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
128
0


Originally posted by amos behavin
But it's not the odds, it's the probability. Odds and probability are not the same.

He states; ...are 1/100!
That's true. The "!" representing "factorial".
Well if he meant "!" to mean factorial then I agree. However it is difficult to tell, as no brackets were used, I took the "!" to be an exclamation point, as it is in my post.
 
  • #28
amos behavin
Hi Pauly Man:
I agree with you. When I first read that, I said, "This guy's a idjit". But then I realized what he was doing. Maybe he's just having a little fun with everybody?
 
  • #29
203
0


Originally posted by O Great One
Here's one way of thinking about creation or evolution Jikx.

You have 100 ping-pong balls numbered 1 to 100. You put them in a big bag and shuffle them up. There is a room with 100 boxes numbered 1 to 100. You give your bag of ping-pong balls to a friend of yours and tell him, "Go into the room with the boxes and, starting with box #1, reach into the bag and pull out one ping-pong ball without looking at it and put it in box #1. Then do the same thing for every box all the way through box #100." Your friend agrees, then leaves, and returns a short time later. You ask your friend "Did you randomly put the ping-pong balls into the boxes?" Your friend says yes. You then go into the room with the boxes. You look at box number #1 and find ping-pong ball #1. You then look in box number #2 and find ping-pong ball #2 and so on all the way through box #100. You ask yourself, "How is this possible? The odds are only 1 in 100!"

If you believe in creation, you think your friend is lying.
If you believe in evolution, you think your friend is telling the truth.
If it were my friend, there would be no balls left.. he would have racked them all :smile: .

It kind of irked me that the term "Survival of the Fittest", is a bit odd in that it has to be true - of course the fittest will survive, wouldn't make sense if a mouse born with no eyes (for example) would survive. And Natural Selection is much the same. I guess Darwin just put 2+2 together.. seems so logical now, maybe not back in those days.

BTW, i believe we were created, the whole universe was created - because if we weren't, obviously we wouldn't be here discussing it.

Now, I do think we've hit a limitation of the english language, in the past two sentences i've inferred that "Nature" selects (whatever nature is..) and that someone "created" the universe. Thats what i find so confusing, is that we always seem to personify everything. I've also found this during chemistry, one particle is "attracted" to another one.. someone need to write new words that get rid of the "life" of things that aren't
 
  • #30
Another God
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
976
3


Originally posted by Jikx
I guess Darwin just put 2+2 together.. seems so logical now, maybe not back in those days.
Darwin did much more than just coin a couple of phrases. He put meaning into them.

BTW, i believe we were created, the whole universe was created - because if we weren't, obviously we wouldn't be here discussing it.
Hmm, to be here doesn't require that we were created. It simply requires that we exist...


Now, I do think we've hit a limitation of the english language, in the past two sentences i've inferred that "Nature" selects (whatever nature is..) and that someone "created" the universe. Thats what i find so confusing, is that we always seem to personify everything. I've also found this during chemistry, one particle is "attracted" to another one.. someone need to write new words that get rid of the "life" of things that aren't
It is unfortunate that talking without teleological speach (ie: Speach which implies design, and purpose), and talking without personifying everything is very hard. As long as it is understood that we know that cells don't 'think' and they don't 'choose to evolve' and that x feature didn't 'evolve for y purpose'...then the difficulty in our typical methods of speach shouldn't be a problem.

nature, can be taken as another word for 'The Universe' when used in the sense of natural selection. It applies everywhere, although in this situation, it is being applied to our local part of the universe, Earth.

You are claiming that someone 'created' the universe. This is not a problem with english, but a 'problem' with your own beliefs.

And attraction is a more than apropriate word to describe how atoms interact. Electronegative attraction is precisely what happens. The 'attraction' which people feel towards one another is the abusive use of the word in this situation.
 
  • #31
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Originally posted by GlamGein
Darwin's ideas on Natural Selection were pretty good, I will give him that much credit. But he was no genius. In fact, the same theory was formulated at the same time by a guy named Wallace, and if it wasn't for the goading of friends, Darwin never would have published. His ideas about sex were a little too "of his era" to be palatable.

For a breakdown of evolution and some cool articles, go to talkorigins.com, I think it is.
Genious schmenious. What does that matter? :wink:
To paraphrase Gould, new scientific ideas are "in the air" and many researchers simulataneously wave their nets around. The ideas of evolution were around even before Darwin and Wallace. (Is that like Wallace and Gromit? ) The thing is that Darwin developed the idea further and gathered/presented the evidence more thoroughly than ever before. Even Wallace acknowledged that Darwin presented a better case than he did. (Wallace & Darwin wrote to each other often once their initial publications were issued.) Darwin was also correct in some aspects of the theory where Wallace was not (e.g., effects of other evolutionary "forces" like sexual selection, applicability of natural selection to the human brain).
 

Related Threads on Darwanism its false?

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
673
  • Last Post
3
Replies
71
Views
17K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
7
Views
4K
Top