tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post4396241981612657088..comments2023-10-29T08:04:00.488-07:00Comments on Quintessence of Dust: Behe botches basic probability...how likely is that?Stephen Mathesonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05057004085073574659noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-43716029732203701692010-06-01T10:00:33.356-07:002010-06-01T10:00:33.356-07:00Short program to check the previous result.
Rand...Short program to check the previous result. <br /><br />Randomize<br /> c = 0<br /> For z = 1 To 1000000<br /> For x = 1 To 6<br /> If Random(1, 6) = 1 Then Exit For<br /> Next x<br /> For y = 1 To 6<br /> If Random(1, 6) = 1 Then Exit For<br /> Next y<br /> If x <= 6 And y <= 6 Then c = c + 1<br /> Next z<br /> print c<br /><br />{Random function returns integer value.}Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-91144591370853163042010-06-01T09:53:59.495-07:002010-06-01T09:53:59.495-07:00The probability that you will get snake eyes in th...<i>The probability that you will get snake eyes in this scenario is 0.60 </i><br /><br />.4424<br /><br />There are two ways to lose, by missing on the first die, or by hitting on the first die and missing on the second. <br /><br />Let P = 1/6<br /><br />Probability of missing after six rolls of a single die is (1-P)^6 = .3349. <br /><br />.3349 probability of missing on first round<br /><br />.6651*.3349 probability of winning on first round, but missing on second round<br /><br />Total probability of missing is .3349+(.6651*.3349) = .5576<br /><br />Odds of snake eyes is 1-.5576 = .4424<br /><br />The key for the discussion is that the odds are additive, not multiplicative.Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11268229653808829377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-87266798509285538482008-10-24T11:56:00.000-07:002008-10-24T11:56:00.000-07:00But to be effective, the second mutation must oc...But to be effective, the second mutation must occur in an individual possessing the other mutation. It is not just a matter of the second mutation occurring anywhere in the population.Larry Fafarmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01840916980486608228noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-28413453888342276092008-09-08T05:23:00.000-07:002008-09-08T05:23:00.000-07:00Whoops. When replying to "I think a lot of it com...Whoops. When replying to <I>"I think a lot of it comes down to motivation ... "</I>, I must have skipped over the rest of it, cause I <I>don't</I> really agree with the statement. It concludes with, <I>" ... what does he have to do to make reality fit his mode of truth?"</I><BR/><BR/>This kind of aludes to making the facts fit your preconceived agenda. I see more of that in mainstream evolutionary theory, where randm selection of random mutations is given as the <I>de facto</I> means of complexity.<BR/><BR/>I guess that what I meant to say was, of course there was motivation, but there was <I>no</I> bending of reality to fit truth. I therefore totally disagree with the commenter's summary statement.<BR/><BR/>Leanna 'Lee' BuswinkLeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12620861351809063338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-13595177334604901542008-08-28T18:43:00.000-07:002008-08-28T18:43:00.000-07:00Thanks again for your work!Thanks again for your work!Martin LaBarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14629053725732957599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-50609615791685985272008-08-28T06:56:00.000-07:002008-08-28T06:56:00.000-07:00"I think a lot of it comes down to motivation. Wha...<I>"I think a lot of it comes down to motivation. What does he want to be true and what does he have to do to make reality fit his mode of truth?"</I><BR/><BR/>Correct, but rather than his consensus regarding evo data helping him, it's made his life difficult. Sure he's sold a couple books, but his ID position has effectively isolated him from his colleagues.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, motivation to blindly back the current NDE synthesis aids in funding, publishing ability, and careers. That's not the way science <I>should</I> work.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12620861351809063338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-32443311418808799572008-08-24T09:26:00.000-07:002008-08-24T09:26:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Chris Harrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11383092030160768244noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4948885059517209129.post-55612589544790850182008-08-23T12:53:00.000-07:002008-08-23T12:53:00.000-07:00I think a lot of it comes down to motivation. Wha...I think a lot of it comes down to motivation. What does he want to be true and what does he have to do to make reality fit his mode of truth? Motivation gets a lot of us in trouble...the ends justify the means. Right? Except for the fact that, really, they don't.Tsidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09552250367565974315noreply@blogger.com