181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 12:
Line 12: + +
Talk:Law of Large Numbers (view source)
Revision as of 03:33, March 15, 2012
, 03:33, March 15, 2012→The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution
:Folks, if it's so obvious that the Law of Large Numbers does not disprove the theory of random genetic drift -- which is central to the theory of evolution -- then it should be easy to explain in a few sentences free of jargon. Right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
:Folks, if it's so obvious that the Law of Large Numbers does not disprove the theory of random genetic drift -- which is central to the theory of evolution -- then it should be easy to explain in a few sentences free of jargon. Right?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:17, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
::I'll give it a try. The law of large numbers requires the sample observations (such as heights) to come from the same distribution. Trends are seen in the heights over time. Evolutionists would argue that this may suggest that the distribution of heights in the population (and thus the population) is, in fact, changing over time (which would make the law of large numbers inapplicable to these observations). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:24, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
::I'll give it a try. The law of large numbers requires the sample observations (such as heights) to come from the same distribution. Trends are seen in the heights over time. Evolutionists would argue that this may suggest that the distribution of heights in the population (and thus the population) is, in fact, changing over time (which would make the law of large numbers inapplicable to these observations). [[User:GregG|GregG]] 23:24, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
::Andy, you ever hear of something called a "one-way hash function"? It's a cryptographic (or loosely mathematical) term for something that's easy to solve in one direction, but a real pain to solve in reverse. Sort of like cubing versus finding the cube route. Anyway, you're laying out a one-way hash argument. Your statement is simple, but the disproof would require more effort than I'm willing to expend. But in brief, the human race may have a mean height, weight, skin tone... or whatever. If you take measurements at random intervals you will find that the mean is gradually changing, not that populations are gravitating back towards the original mean. And what do we call a change over time? --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 23:33, 14 March 2012 (EDT)