Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# The natural selection analogy

 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:05:36 PMPosted: 1 year agoThis 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.UQThis analogy is completely wrong. Why?Wait and watch.(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:15:04 PMPosted: 1 year 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.)
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:20:35 PMPosted: 1 year 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.)
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:30:10 PMPosted: 1 year 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.)
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:41:40 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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?
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:46:45 PMPosted: 1 year 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.)
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:48:27 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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?
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:50:02 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.)
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:53:18 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.)
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:54:47 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 6:58:50 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.)
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 7:01:38 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 7:03:21 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.)
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 7:04:45 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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?
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 7:05:00 PMPosted: 1 year 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.)
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 7:06:57 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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.)
 Posts: 4,910 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 7:08:26 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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?#9But 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?
 Posts: 1,046 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 7/15/2016 7:15:46 PMPosted: 1 year agoAt 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?#9But 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.)