Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The natural selection analogy

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:05:36 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
This analogy was used to prove that natural selection is not random.

QLets say you have an army; each person in that army has a Gun. Each gun suffers from manufacturing errors. There is a 33% chance of the manufacturing error giving the gun better accuracy. There is a 33% chance of the manufacturing error making the gun jam. and a 33% chance of the error not having any meaningful effect.

These errors are distributed randomly.

The army goes to battle against another army who's guns are all the same; and eventually wins despite having a big loss of life.

You inspect the gun of every soldier who survives, and find that 57% of the remaining guns have the error that makes them more accurate. 40% of the remaining guns are normal, and only 3% of the guns have the error that makes them jam.

You go in with an even distribution of random mutations; then you go through a selection phase: those with the faulty gun when faced with an enemy are much more likely to get shot than the other two groups, so your chances of surviving with that mutation aren't good. Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.

So, when this army gets back, you service all the weapons, in the serving process, there is a 33% chance of accidentally introducing a fault that makes the gun jam, 33% chance of not doing anything, and a 33% chance of making the gun more accurate.

You go into another battle again an army with slightly better weapons than the one you just found, and win your army wins again.

You inspect the weapons again; only 3% of people gun that was services improperly and introduced a fault, none of the returning soldiers have a gun with the original manufacturing fault . 15% of the people remaining, have the original normal weapon that was properly serviced. 40% of the people remaining have the gun with the beneficial manufacturing error, with a properly serviced weapon, and 42% of people have the gun with the beneficial manufacturing error, that had been really well serviced to make it even more accurate.

The reason, again; is that those with jamming guns, when facing an enemy, are much more likely to get shot. Those with a normal weapon facing an enemy with an even better weapon, are also more likely to get shot than they were in the last battle. Those with the weapon error that improved accuracy, do better, but those with the improved accuracy and the beneficial servicing do best of all.

All these errors were introduced randomly, but cause a non random skew in the soldiers that return.

Gun Mutations occur randomly, but can increase or decrease a soldiers ability to survive. Whether a solider makes it through a battle depends on his ability to survive.

If a solider has a gun mutation that increases their ability to survive; their chances of making it through are higher than soldiers that don't.

Therefore, after each battle, there will be more soldiers with gun mutations that increase their ability to survive than ones that do not. Because the ones that do not, are far more likely to have died.

So, because of this; the soldiers going into the battle have a randomly distributed set of gun mutations. The returning soldiers have a different distribution of gun mutations; and this distribution is highly biased in favor of survivability; because survivability is the filtering factor between input and output.

So, the changes in the gun are random; the gun mutations.

Natural Selection, which is the battle and the filtering based on whether those soldiers can survive better or worse than their peers with those gun mutations, is non randomly biased towards mutations that are beneficial to survival.
UQ

This analogy is completely wrong. Why?

Wait and watch.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:15:04 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
' These errors are distributed randomly.'

' even distribution of random mutations '

There was never an ' even distribution of random mutations '.

Remember, the army had fought numerous battles before.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:20:35 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
' The army goes to battle against another army who's guns are all the same '

No army has same guns.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:46:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
' Natural Selection, which is the battle and the filtering based on whether those soldiers can survive better or worse than their peers with those gun mutations, is non randomly biased towards mutations that are beneficial to survival.'

Okay, throwing a dice is not random by the argument.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:48:27 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 6:46:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Natural Selection, which is the battle and the filtering based on whether those soldiers can survive better or worse than their peers with those gun mutations, is non randomly biased towards mutations that are beneficial to survival.'

Okay, throwing a dice is not random by the argument.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:53:18 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 6:48:27 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:46:45 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Natural Selection, which is the battle and the filtering based on whether those soldiers can survive better or worse than their peers with those gun mutations, is non randomly biased towards mutations that are beneficial to survival.'

Okay, throwing a dice is not random by the argument.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

That's because you have presumed that there is already a filtering factor - an other army.

Can you start with one army and go on to demonstrate it splitting in two?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %

So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:05:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
' The survivors are not similar to the people going in.'

Weren't we talking about bio - diversity?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:08:26 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

Right?
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:15:46 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:08:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

Right?

That's correct. But how come there be two armies? That's what #9 asks.

How can you explain the bio diversity, which itself plays it's part in natural selection alongside other factors.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:23:42 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:15:46 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:08:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

Right?

That's correct.

Okay. Awesome. That's step one. You've agreed that the statistical process going on non-randomly filters the guns based on whether they infer a survival ability.

The analogy was presented solely as a way of describing how the selection process works, and how it is non random.

It's not intended to explain biodiversity, or speciation, or any one of a million other things that I'm sure you can raise; as that's not the question you originally asked.

The important part, is that you have just conceded that the raw selection process is non random.

Thank you.

So, your original citation, was that Natural selection is random.

You've agreed my selection example is non random.

So, how this analogy directly applies is as follows:

Each generation of organisms have mutations (like gun mutations), some provide survival benefit (good guns), some are neutral (normal guns), some are negative (jamming guns)

In life there is no army, just the environment; but, like the army, each organism has to survive to propagate it's genes (the end of the battle), and like the guns, if there is competition, the ones that survive are more likely to be the ones with the positive survival benefit.

So, the analogy is directly applicable to nature; however instead of Guns, in nature I am talking about the organism itself; instead of manufacturing issues, we're talking about mutations; and instead of the opposing army in a battle, I'm talking about the environment, predation, competition with peers etc.

The analogy is explaining the statistical process by which organisms are selected; a process you have just conceded is non random.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:32:08 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:23:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:15:46 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:08:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

Right?

That's correct.


Okay. Awesome. That's step one. You've agreed that the statistical process going on non-randomly filters the guns based on whether they infer a survival ability.

The analogy was presented solely as a way of describing how the selection process works, and how it is non random.

It's not intended to explain biodiversity, or speciation, or any one of a million other things that I'm sure you can raise; as that's not the question you originally asked.


The important part, is that you have just conceded that the raw selection process is non random.

Thank you.

So, your original citation, was that Natural selection is random.

MY POINT WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE RANDOM, IF BASED UPON ToE

You've agreed my selection example is non random.

So, how this analogy directly applies is as follows:


Each generation of organisms have mutations (like gun mutations), some provide survival benefit (good guns), some are neutral (normal guns), some are negative (jamming guns)

In life there is no army, just the environment; but, like the army, each organism has to survive to propagate it's genes (the end of the battle), and like the guns, if there is competition, the ones that survive are more likely to be the ones with the positive survival benefit.


So, the analogy is directly applicable to nature; however instead of Guns, in nature I am talking about the organism itself; instead of manufacturing issues, we're talking about mutations; and instead of the opposing army in a battle, I'm talking about the environment, predation, competition with peers etc.

The analogy is explaining the statistical process by which organisms are selected; a process you have just conceded is non random.

Where are you going? You didn't answer- from where came the two armies?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:33:22 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:32:08 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:23:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:15:46 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:08:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

Right?

That's correct.


Okay. Awesome. That's step one. You've agreed that the statistical process going on non-randomly filters the guns based on whether they infer a survival ability.

The analogy was presented solely as a way of describing how the selection process works, and how it is non random.

It's not intended to explain biodiversity, or speciation, or any one of a million other things that I'm sure you can raise; as that's not the question you originally asked.


The important part, is that you have just conceded that the raw selection process is non random.

Thank you.

So, your original citation, was that Natural selection is random.

MY POINT WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE RANDOM, IF BASED UPON ToE

You've agreed my selection example is non random.

So, how this analogy directly applies is as follows:


Each generation of organisms have mutations (like gun mutations), some provide survival benefit (good guns), some are neutral (normal guns), some are negative (jamming guns)

In life there is no army, just the environment; but, like the army, each organism has to survive to propagate it's genes (the end of the battle), and like the guns, if there is competition, the ones that survive are more likely to be the ones with the positive survival benefit.


So, the analogy is directly applicable to nature; however instead of Guns, in nature I am talking about the organism itself; instead of manufacturing issues, we're talking about mutations; and instead of the opposing army in a battle, I'm talking about the environment, predation, competition with peers etc.

The analogy is explaining the statistical process by which organisms are selected; a process you have just conceded is non random.

Where are you going? You didn't answer- from where came the two armies?

I answered your question "show me how natural selection is non-random".

I showed you;

You have conceded that it is true.

And as I pointed out; "from where came the two armies" is a completely different questions, and needs a completely different analogy; as if that was the original question, I would have provided a very different analogy.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:37:00 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
As per the theory of evolution : natural selection should Not be random. Which is Not true.

WITHOUT BIO DIVERSITY THERE ARE NO TWO ARMIES.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:41:21 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:33:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:32:08 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:23:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:15:46 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:08:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

Right?

That's correct.


Okay. Awesome. That's step one. You've agreed that the statistical process going on non-randomly filters the guns based on whether they infer a survival ability.

The analogy was presented solely as a way of describing how the selection process works, and how it is non random.

It's not intended to explain biodiversity, or speciation, or any one of a million other things that I'm sure you can raise; as that's not the question you originally asked.


The important part, is that you have just conceded that the raw selection process is non random.

Thank you.

So, your original citation, was that Natural selection is random.

MY POINT WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE RANDOM, IF BASED UPON ToE

You've agreed my selection example is non random.

So, how this analogy directly applies is as follows:


Each generation of organisms have mutations (like gun mutations), some provide survival benefit (good guns), some are neutral (normal guns), some are negative (jamming guns)

In life there is no army, just the environment; but, like the army, each organism has to survive to propagate it's genes (the end of the battle), and like the guns, if there is competition, the ones that survive are more likely to be the ones with the positive survival benefit.


So, the analogy is directly applicable to nature; however instead of Guns, in nature I am talking about the organism itself; instead of manufacturing issues, we're talking about mutations; and instead of the opposing army in a battle, I'm talking about the environment, predation, competition with peers etc.

The analogy is explaining the statistical process by which organisms are selected; a process you have just conceded is non random.

Where are you going? You didn't answer- from where came the two armies?

I answered your question "show me how natural selection is non-random".

I showed you;

You have conceded that it is true.

based upon a presumption.

And as I pointed out; "from where came the two armies" is a completely different questions, and needs a completely different analogy; as if that was the original question, I would have provided a very different analogy.

Make a different analogy and if you succeed to explain bio diversity (the presumption), i will accept ToE. This is an open Challenge(how you like to say).

Okay?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2016 7:44:14 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:41:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:33:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:32:08 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:23:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:15:46 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:08:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

Right?

That's correct.


Okay. Awesome. That's step one. You've agreed that the statistical process going on non-randomly filters the guns based on whether they infer a survival ability.

The analogy was presented solely as a way of describing how the selection process works, and how it is non random.

It's not intended to explain biodiversity, or speciation, or any one of a million other things that I'm sure you can raise; as that's not the question you originally asked.


The important part, is that you have just conceded that the raw selection process is non random.

Thank you.

So, your original citation, was that Natural selection is random.

MY POINT WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE RANDOM, IF BASED UPON ToE

You've agreed my selection example is non random.

So, how this analogy directly applies is as follows:


Each generation of organisms have mutations (like gun mutations), some provide survival benefit (good guns), some are neutral (normal guns), some are negative (jamming guns)

In life there is no army, just the environment; but, like the army, each organism has to survive to propagate it's genes (the end of the battle), and like the guns, if there is competition, the ones that survive are more likely to be the ones with the positive survival benefit.


So, the analogy is directly applicable to nature; however instead of Guns, in nature I am talking about the organism itself; instead of manufacturing issues, we're talking about mutations; and instead of the opposing army in a battle, I'm talking about the environment, predation, competition with peers etc.

The analogy is explaining the statistical process by which organisms are selected; a process you have just conceded is non random.

Where are you going? You didn't answer- from where came the two armies?

I answered your question "show me how natural selection is non-random".

I showed you;

You have conceded that it is true.

based upon a presumption.

Based on me explaining what the bias in the system is, then followed by you stating

"That's correct."

And as I pointed out; "from where came the two armies" is a completely different questions, and needs a completely different analogy; as if that was the original question, I would have provided a very different analogy.

Make a different analogy and if you succeed to explain bio diversity (the presumption), i will accept ToE. This is an open Challenge(how you like to say).

I can create an analogy to explain speciation, the splitting of one group of organisms into two different types of organism, if that's what you want.
Looncall
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 12:15:39 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:37:00 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
As per the theory of evolution : natural selection should Not be random. Which is Not true.

WITHOUT BIO DIVERSITY THERE ARE NO TWO ARMIES.

Wrong. The environment is the "second army". Variations are tested against an organism's environment.

Where do you get the idea that selection is random? That makes no sense.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 2:58:52 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:37:00 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
WITHOUT BIO DIVERSITY THERE ARE NO TWO ARMIES.

Sure there are. Suppose rifles work better in plains, shotguns work better in caves. Soldiers in caves with shotguns survive better than soldiers in caves with rifles, even though soldiers on plains with rifles survive better than soldiers on plains with shotguns.

Cave-soldiers begin to equip shotguns as standard issue. Plains-soldiers begins to equip rifles. Each group trains with nothing else. Eventually they don't even talk to one another, having nothing in common.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 6:31:48 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/15/2016 7:44:14 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:41:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:33:22 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:32:08 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:23:42 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:15:46 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:08:26 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
' Those with the more accurate gun are much more likely to survive when faced with an enemy as their gun is much better, so they form much more of the resulting population.'

It shows that soldiers with similar weapons survived. How then, can you explain the bio - diversity.

In my example, there are gun mutations.

Are the numbers of types of gun mutation going in the same as the ones coming back.

Are the gun mutations of the survivors much more likely to be ones that improve the Gun?

They are similar. You can notice the similarity is maintained.

At no point will a soldier be powerful enough to take on the very army he belongs to.

No they are not similar, as I pointed out throughout this example, the similarity is not maintained.

This is basic statistics.

Normal gun vs enemy = Average chance of dying in each encounter.
Good gun vs enemy = lower chance of dying in each encounter.
Bad gun vs enemy = higher chance of dying in each encounter.

Ergo. The returning soldiers, by the laws of statistics will be biased towards better guns, because they don't die as often.

The strong ones have survived.

Their guns are more likely to be accurate.

They are similar.

I'm talking about the guns.

A normal gun has a 50/50 chance of the soldier surviving.
A good gun, has a 70/30 chance of soldier surviving.
A jamming gun, has a 10/90 chance of soldier surviving.

With 1000 individuals with good guns, 1000 with jamming guns, and 1000 with good ones:

500 will survive with normal guns. ~ 40%
700 will survive with good guns. ~ 54%
100 will survive with jamming guns. ~ 6 %


So no. The survivors are not similar to the people going in.

Now, they go to battle - again,

eventually those with weaker guns are eliminated.

They all become similar.

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

#9

But not the same as the ones that went in. The weak ones are eliminated, and the ones that get better because of the error are much much more common, right?

Right?

That's correct.


Okay. Awesome. That's step one. You've agreed that the statistical process going on non-randomly filters the guns based on whether they infer a survival ability.

The analogy was presented solely as a way of describing how the selection process works, and how it is non random.

It's not intended to explain biodiversity, or speciation, or any one of a million other things that I'm sure you can raise; as that's not the question you originally asked.


The important part, is that you have just conceded that the raw selection process is non random.

Thank you.

So, your original citation, was that Natural selection is random.

MY POINT WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE RANDOM, IF BASED UPON ToE

You've agreed my selection example is non random.

So, how this analogy directly applies is as follows:


Each generation of organisms have mutations (like gun mutations), some provide survival benefit (good guns), some are neutral (normal guns), some are negative (jamming guns)

In life there is no army, just the environment; but, like the army, each organism has to survive to propagate it's genes (the end of the battle), and like the guns, if there is competition, the ones that survive are more likely to be the ones with the positive survival benefit.


So, the analogy is directly applicable to nature; however instead of Guns, in nature I am talking about the organism itself; instead of manufacturing issues, we're talking about mutations; and instead of the opposing army in a battle, I'm talking about the environment, predation, competition with peers etc.

The analogy is explaining the statistical process by which organisms are selected; a process you have just conceded is non random.

Where are you going? You didn't answer- from where came the two armies?

I answered your question "show me how natural selection is non-random".

I showed you;

You have conceded that it is true.

based upon a presumption.

Based on me explaining what the bias in the system is, then followed by you stating

"That's correct."

And as I pointed out; "from where came the two armies" is a completely different questions, and needs a completely different analogy; as if that was the original question, I would have provided a very different analogy.

Make a different analogy and if you succeed to explain bio diversity (the presumption), i will accept ToE. This is an open Challenge(how you like to say).

I can create an analogy to explain speciation, the splitting of one group of organisms into two different types of organism, if that's what you want.

Yes, That's what I want.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 6:33:21 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 12:15:39 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:37:00 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
As per the theory of evolution : natural selection should Not be random. Which is Not true.

WITHOUT BIO DIVERSITY THERE ARE NO TWO ARMIES.

Wrong. The environment is the "second army". Variations are tested against an organism's environment.

Where do you get the idea that selection is random? That makes no sense.

You don't understand what random is.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
keithprosser
Posts: 1,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 6:58:29 AM
Posted: 4 months ago
An analogy should bear some resemblance to what it is supposed to represent! The biggest problem I see is that the bad guns get another go to get serviced and try again. Getting another go isn't what happens in natural selection!

If guns of varying quality go into a battle and the worse guns are more likely to be lost in the battle, at the end of the battle the average quality of the guns remaining will have gone up. If those surviving guns are used to equip a new generation of soldiers those new soldiers will be better armed that before. How you compensate for the number of lost guns is anybody's guess. In natural selection new surviving guns would be produced by getting the old ones to breed, but that isn't art of the analogy.

I am not sure what the analogy is an analogy of, but its too different from how natural selecton works to say anything useful.
Looncall
Posts: 449
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2016 12:09:17 PM
Posted: 4 months ago
At 7/16/2016 6:33:21 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/16/2016 12:15:39 AM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/15/2016 7:37:00 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
As per the theory of evolution : natural selection should Not be random. Which is Not true.

WITHOUT BIO DIVERSITY THERE ARE NO TWO ARMIES.

Wrong. The environment is the "second army". Variations are tested against an organism's environment.

Where do you get the idea that selection is random? That makes no sense.

You don't understand what random is.

Listen, buddy, I have worked with radioactivity for more than 30 years. I am intimately familiar with randomness. You have made very clear that you have no clue about it.

Biologically, mutation is random (unpredictable), but selection is, for all practical purposes, constant.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.