Difference between revisions of "Talk:Law of Large Numbers"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(→The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution: The Theory of Evolution, as it is commonly taught, does claim that some new species arose due to random fluctuations.) |
|||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
:The Theory of Evolution, as it is commonly taught, does claim that some new species arose due to random fluctuations. | :The Theory of Evolution, as it is commonly taught, does claim that some new species arose due to random fluctuations. | ||
| + | ::Man. This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. So I'm not going to because I'll get 90/10'ed out the door. It's like an infinite manifold of wrongness. Just know this, you are applying probability theory -a theory you only partially understand- to evolution, a theory you completely don't understand. --[[User:JoshuaB|JoshuaB]] 20:48, 14 March 2012 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 00:48, March 15, 2012
The Law of Large Numbers is a Counterexample to the Theory of Evolution
You can't apply the Law of Large Numbers to a time series with a trend. That's just bad math, not a counterexample! AugustO 20:11, 14 March 2012 (EDT)
- The Theory of Evolution, as it is commonly taught, does claim that some new species arose due to random fluctuations.
- Man. This is so wrong I don't even know where to start. So I'm not going to because I'll get 90/10'ed out the door. It's like an infinite manifold of wrongness. Just know this, you are applying probability theory -a theory you only partially understand- to evolution, a theory you completely don't understand. --JoshuaB 20:48, 14 March 2012 (EDT)