Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 18:
Line 18: + +
Talk:Law of Large Numbers (view source)
Revision as of 04:36, March 18, 2012
, 04:36, March 18, 2012→The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution: Darwin and other founders of evolution were weak in mathematics and probability, and their
Hello. It is very easy. Law of large numbers requires that <math>X_1,X_2,\dots</math> are independent (i.e. every finite subset of them is independent). Yet, a child has usually similar properties to an adult. Therefore <math>X_{i+1}</math> is not independent of <math>X_{i}</math>. It does not mean they are perfectly correlated - a child might sometimes be different from its parent. But they are definitely not independent, and therefore you cannot use the law. Using a mathematical theorem when assumptions are not fully satisfied will easily give you absurd conclusions - think what happens if you to use Pythagorean theorem in an acute triangle. --[[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:54, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
Hello. It is very easy. Law of large numbers requires that <math>X_1,X_2,\dots</math> are independent (i.e. every finite subset of them is independent). Yet, a child has usually similar properties to an adult. Therefore <math>X_{i+1}</math> is not independent of <math>X_{i}</math>. It does not mean they are perfectly correlated - a child might sometimes be different from its parent. But they are definitely not independent, and therefore you cannot use the law. Using a mathematical theorem when assumptions are not fully satisfied will easily give you absurd conclusions - think what happens if you to use Pythagorean theorem in an acute triangle. --[[User:Cipe|Cipe]] 15:54, 17 March 2012 (EDT)
:The [[Law of Large Numbers]] establishes that populations revert to their averages over time. Children of extraordinarly bright or athletic parents are, on average, not so extraordinary. Nothing said above disproves this logical truth. [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] and other founders of [[evolution]] were weak in [[mathematics]] and [[probability]], and their reliance on random genetic drift is nonsensical as illustrated by the [[Law of Large Numbers]].--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 00:36, 18 March 2012 (EDT)