Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8924 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-17-2019 10:38 PM
25 online now:
dwise1, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), Theodoric (3 members, 22 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 859,867 Year: 14,903/19,786 Month: 1,626/3,058 Week: 404/868 Day: 43/70 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Explaining the pro-Evolution position
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 91 of 393 (792462)
10-10-2016 6:57 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Kleinman
10-09-2016 8:25 PM


Re: Failing Peer Review
Kleinman writes:

quote:
If you want to peer review my work, you had better have a good understanding of probability theory. Here's the short answer why the theory of evolution is not true, it's the multiplication rule of probabilities which makes the theory of evolution not true. For those who don't understand probability theory, it takes a much, much longer answer. It requires teaching you probability theory and how to analyze a stochastic process.

Congratulations. I'm a mathematician. My concentration was in numerical analysis (which includes probability and statistics). Rest assured that I will understand most everything about probability you care to name.

I dare say that you have no idea what a stochastic process is. For one thing, a stochastic process is an evolutionary one. One of the simplest examples is that of the Markov Chain. It is a probabilistic scenario in which you have a state that can change with a probability for each resulting state that is solely based upon the current state, not any of the previous states. It describes completely independent variables. Roulette is a good example. If you have $500 and bet on a particular number, you will either win or lose. Your odds of winning or losing are not dependent upon anything that happened previously (assuming a fair game). It also doesn't matter how you came to have $500, whether you started with that amount, worked your way up to it, or have lost your way down to it.

It seems you have confused many aspects of probability. To help us determine where you're starting from, I'm going to ask some questions. I hope you will answer them honestly.

You have a standard deck of 52 cards. You randomly choose a card.

What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades?
What is the probability of having drawn an Ace?
What is the probability of having drawn a Spade?
What is the probability of having drawn a black card?
What is the probability of having drawn a card?

What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given no information?
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is an Ace?
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is a Spade?
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is a black card?

Yes, in the case of independent events, you multiply the probabilities. Rank and Suit are independent variables for cards and thus, to determine the probability of a card being drawn, you can determine it by multiplying the probability of having drawn that Rank by the probability of having drawn that Suit.

What makes you think that the evolutionary history of a population is based solely upon a series of independent events? Evolution is not a Markov Chain. What happens next is highly dependent upon what came before. Suppose you have a bin with colored balls in it, red and blue. There are 7 red balls and 4 blue balls. You reach in and draw a ball and set it aside. You then reach in and draw a second ball. What is the probability that the second ball is red?

That very much depends upon the color of the first ball you drew. There was a 7-in-11 chance of drawing a red ball the first time. If you did, then there is a 3-in-5 chance that the second ball is red. If the first ball was blue, it's a 7-in-10 chance.

Now, the chance of drawing two red balls in a row is found by multiplying the probabilities of drawing a red ball the first time by drawing a red ball the second time, but that isn't what we're asking. We're asking what the probability is of the second ball being red and you can't determine that without knowing what happened with the first one.

Do you understand how the game Yacht works? You try to roll certain combinations of dice. You have five of them and you roll them all at once. You can then choose certain ones to re-roll (possibly all of them) in an attempt to achieve the specific combination you wanted. So what is the possibility of rolling all dice the same number on the first roll? What if you can do this choose-and-reroll process three times? If you already have four 5s, how difficult is it to roll a fifth 5?

If you could be more specific about what you think is amiss in the way probability is being used in evolutionary theory, it would be helpful for us to figure out what you're talking about. After all, evolution happens to populations, not individuals, and population biology is all about statistics:

Suppose you have a single-gene trait with two alleles with perfect dominant/recessive expression. If you are homozygous for dominant allele or heterozygous, you display the dominant trait. Only if you are homozygous for recessive allele do you display the recessive trait and you always do if you are homozygous recessive. Suppose the current rate of recessive display is 1-in-1,000. Suppose that those who display recessive trait are sterile and cannot reproduce while those who display dominant trait (either homozygous dominant or heterozygous) have no difference in reproductive capability.

How many generations would need to pass in order to reduce the appearance of recessive trait from 1-in-1,000 to 1-in-1,000,000?

What is the value for p? What is the value for q?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Kleinman, posted 10-09-2016 8:25 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 5:09 PM Rrhain has responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 134 of 393 (792534)
10-11-2016 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Kleinman
10-10-2016 5:09 PM


Re: It's already peer reviewed
Kleinman responds to me:

quote:
See if you can find an error in the physics or mathematics.

Um, what do any of these papers have to do with the topic at hand? In fact, from the abstracts, you seem to accept a priori the previous work that establishes evolutionary theory. Much of it is mathematical in nature. Surely you aren't saying that because we can mathematically describe how randomness works (which is what probability in general and chaos theory in particular are about), that somehow means we have a deterministic system, are you? If you think you have something that countermands what we understand about how evolution works, it would help if you would put it here.

Use your words. Argument by footnote is not helpful.

Be specific.

I notice you didn't answer my questions. I directly stated that I wanted to hear your answers. I did not ask them for my health. I'll reduce it to the last example:

You have a trait that is in a single-gene, two-allele, dominant/recessive scenario. The recessive trait only appears when the individual is homozygous recessive. Otherwise, the dominant trait appears. Those who express the recessive trait do not reproduce.

The recessive trait currently is seen in 1 in 1,000 individuals. How many generations would need to pass in order to reduce the occurrence to 1 in 1,000,000?

What is p? What is q?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Kleinman, posted 10-10-2016 5:09 PM Kleinman has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 254 of 393 (792763)
10-14-2016 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 245 by Coyote
10-13-2016 9:47 PM


Re: Bumblebees can't fly...
Coyote writes:

quote:
If math and physics professionals model the wrong variables they get the wrong answers, even if all the math is correct.

This is a lovely story, but it's just that: A story. You cribbed your story from Physics World and you should have kept on going:

So how do bees fly then? And why do they need to flap their wings while jumbo jets don't? These turn out to be very interesting questions that reveal a lot of physics. Jumbo jets have fixed wings because their wing area and speed are large enough to satisfy the lift equations for flight. But the small wings on a bumble-bee are much less efficient. Coupled with low speeds and the high drag on a wing when flapping, it might appear, at first glance, that insects cannot fly and that most birds can't get off the ground either.

It goes even further, talking about the way the eddies off the wings generate a secondary lift, for example.

quote:
And, as often is the case, math and physics professionals usually know squat about biology and related subjects.

Or, math and physics professionals are smart enough to understand that if you already know the answer and your model doesn't actually spit it out, that means the model is wrong and you need to do more work.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by Coyote, posted 10-13-2016 9:47 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by 1.61803, posted 10-14-2016 11:36 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 255 of 393 (792764)
10-14-2016 4:39 AM
Reply to: Message 249 by Kleinman
10-13-2016 10:12 PM


Re: Bumblebees can't fly...unless they have big enough engine
Kleinman writes:

quote:
And I'm pretty sure I've had a lot more training in mathematics and physics than you.

And I'm sure you haven't. After all, you haven't answered any of my questions about mathematics:

You have a standard deck of 52 cards. You randomly choose a card.

What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades?
What is the probability of having drawn an Ace?
What is the probability of having drawn a Spade?
What is the probability of having drawn a black card?
What is the probability of having drawn a card?

What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given no information?
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is an Ace?
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is a Spade?
What is the probability of having drawn the Ace of Spades given that it is a black card?

Suppose you have a single-gene trait with two alleles with perfect dominant/recessive expression. If you are homozygous for dominant allele or heterozygous, you display the dominant trait. Only if you are homozygous for recessive allele do you display the recessive trait and you always do if you are homozygous recessive. Suppose the current rate of recessive display is 1-in-1,000. Suppose that those who display recessive trait are sterile and cannot reproduce while those who display dominant trait (either homozygous dominant or heterozygous) have no difference in reproductive capability.

How many generations would need to pass in order to reduce the appearance of recessive trait from 1-in-1,000 to 1-in-1,000,000?

To help you start: What is the value for p? What is the value for q?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 249 by Kleinman, posted 10-13-2016 10:12 PM Kleinman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Kleinman, posted 10-14-2016 11:08 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019