Darren New wrote:
> Warp wrote:
>> 1) "He uses a value of N which is way too small,
> 
> Not just that's too small, but is unrelated to the actual value of N in 
> any way. It's too small because he wants it related somehow to the wrong 
> value on top.
> 
> What he's doing is taking (say) the formula which is the equivalent of 
> "for what percentage of time that you roll two dice do you get a total 
> of seven." Instead of having "number of combinations that total to seven 
> divided by total number of possible pairs of dice", he's saying "roll 
> the dice three times. Note it doesn't come up seven any of those three 
> times. Probability that it comes up seven is 0 / 3."
> 
>> 2) "He ignores the value M(Ex) and replaces it with something else." Then
>> I fail to see how the article explains what would have been the correct
>> value for M(Ex) and why it was wrong. The article just says it's wrong,
>> without really saying why, or what it should be.
> 
> M(Ex) is the number of ways you can get the result you're looking for by 
> arranging proteins (not the way they happen to be arranged today, which 
> is what Durston says). You divide it by all the possible ways you can 
> arrange proteins (not all the ways that they've already been arranged, 
> which is what  Durston says).
> 
> Durston doesn't do anything with M(Ex).
> 
> The formula says "the likelihood of a random protien doing X is the 
> number of protiens that do X divided by the total number of possible 
> protiens." Makes sense, yes?
> 
> Durston says "The likelihood of finding exactly how we evolved is 1 
> divided by the largest possible number of evolutionary changes in 
> history up to now."
> 
> The two would seem to be entirely unrelated.
> 

Yep. He's not even using the "same" equation, he is just pasting it on 
the board and hoping no one notices him deleting bits, and replacing 
others with entirely unrelated bits. Its like he did this:

2 + x = 5, but I don't like 5, so lets make it 12, and since I don't 
know what X is, I will use 1, and since 2 + 1 is not 12, every scientist 
on the planet must be an idiot to believe that any value of x, when 
added to 2 will produce 5.

Or, the way I described it in the comments (more or less), Durston sat 
down and worked out how many ways you could get a full house, 
incorrectly concluded that full houses are the **only** winning hand, 
and that the only *real* full house is two jacks and three 4s, since its 
the one he won with last week in his one and "only" hand of poker, then 
proceeded to go around telling other people how dumb they where because 
they thought any bigger hand, or other "way" to get a full house existed 
at all, and that it was totally impossible to win with any hand that 
wasn't a full house, even if the other player only had a pair of twos. 
He isn't just using the rules wrong, he doesn't even own a copy of the 
rule book. He isn't just making bad guesses about the odds of anyone 
getting a full house, he fails to even "consider" the possibility that 
some other sort of hand "could" win, or that there is some "other" way, 
other than the one he saw, that could produce the one he "knows" won.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message