tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post1028849941491642905..comments2023-10-26T07:19:41.446-05:00Comments on Science Avenger: Evolution, 21, the Gamblers Ruin, and Zero Sum GamesScienceAvengerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-45655927357720417612008-05-19T19:00:00.000-05:002008-05-19T19:00:00.000-05:00Sal claims on that thread that I misrepresented hi...Sal claims on that thread that I misrepresented him, but he has no facts back him up.<BR/><BR/>The fact remains that his original statement is wrong, and demonstrates a basic lack of understanding of the issue. A 1% advantage in blackjack does NOT mean the player has a 50.5% probability of winning, because some of the plays (like a blackjack) pay better than 1:1, meaning the player can have a 1% edge while having a slightly less than 50.5% probability of winning a hand.<BR/><BR/>That Sal thinks it matters whether he was speaking of a specific set of rules or a specific counting system only reveals even more that he doesn't understand the basics here. But he sure is good at cutting and pasting a lot of impressive-looking irrelevancies to try to cover up that he has no idea what he is talking about.ScienceAvengerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00855046387193200080noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-21084406570160508092008-05-05T21:34:00.000-05:002008-05-05T21:34:00.000-05:00it's gratifying to see so many blogs popping up th...it's gratifying to see so many blogs popping up that are literate and mathematically and biologically cluey. I think even a decade ago there were too many evolution defenders who just couldn't convey the point. This entry is my idea of an excellent dismissal of the sort of creationist bunkum that takes up, and inspires, way too much web space. Neat neat neat.<BR/><BR/>In your arguments against Cordova's ridiculous "selection impasse" argument (I'm fighting to hold down my lunch here), I would add that the very next generation will see these advantages distributed unevenly. The magical symmetry invented to support this intuition-pumping argument disappears, and evolution proceeds as usual, even if there is only one environment and only competition within species.eeenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02965182882573537193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3498725671447004370.post-16213981997204553302008-05-05T09:14:00.000-05:002008-05-05T09:14:00.000-05:00On a related note, there is an excellent article t...On a related note, there is an excellent article that talks about how probability theory is misused by creationists <A HREF="http://richarddawkins.net/article,1271,The-Great-Mutator,Jerry-Coyne-The-New-Republic" REL="nofollow"> in the New Republic magazine (reproduced by Dawkins.net)</A><BR/><BR/>Roughly speaking it goes something like this: suppose 20 distinct mutations must occur within the genome to effect some biological "improvement". Say the chance of each mutation in a given time period (taken independently, which of course, is debatable) is .01.<BR/><BR/>The creationists tell you that the chances are then (.01)^20, which is very low.<BR/><BR/>But in fact, what must happen is that each individual mutation must take place and then get fixed by natural selection (or genetic drift), and so one is really measuring the time for 20 individual mutations to take place.<BR/><BR/>The relevant probability distribution is the negative binomial; that gives one a much, much, much greater probability.Harriethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17953435368705942387noreply@blogger.com