Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#94497 Jun 28, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
A box contains 500 cards. The face of each card is one of five possible solid colors the backs are all the same. There are 100 red cards, 100 green cards, 100 blue cards, 100 yellow cards, and 100 orange cards. These are mixed in the box and 100 cards are drawn at random without looking at the faces of the cards. It should be equally likely to select any color card at random. Each color represents a phenotype within the population of cards. The yellow phenotype is particularly susceptible to predation and predators will target that color. So in turning over cards, you remove the yellow phenotype in a nonrandom manner leaving behind a population consisting of a random selection of the other four phenotypes. Be mindful, this is an analogy and not a perfect one, but it should suffice.
I should have said predators are more likely to target that color. The predators are not taking cards at random when they are hunting prey (selecting cards). It should be noted that in the real world, predators are likely to capture cards of all five colors, but the bulk of the cards will be yellow. Natural selection can act on a population under localized or seasonal changes in the environment shift pressure from one phenotype/genotype to another depending on the prevailing conditions. An extreme alteration in the environment of the organism is not required. Also, remember that the environment includes all the biotic components exerting pressure on populations as well as abiotic components like temperature or water stress.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94498 Jun 28, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Not always the case buddi at all
I agree, not always the case. But in more than 9 times out of 10, it would be the case. And that is one reason that pros win. They know the odds. They know how to read the opponent. They can usually afford to gamble.

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#94499 Jun 28, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Not always the case buddi at all
It is an analogy not a claim of unbreakable fact. Sheesh!

It is a good one too. The cards (variation) are dealt at random and the players (selection pressure) act nonrandomly based on skill level and experience.

But don't let me interrupt. If you want to go on a rant about rookie poker players sometimes winning big, by all means, please do so. We don't see going off on meaningless tangents enough on this forum.

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#94500 Jun 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, not always the case. But in more than 9 times out of 10, it would be the case. And that is one reason that pros win. They know the odds. They know how to read the opponent. They can usually afford to gamble.
Exactly. Nonrandom selection. Admittedly, his point does underscore that not all the susceptible organisms succumb to selection pressure, but enough that their genes are significantly reduced in the subsequent generation or generations depending on the duration of the pressure.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#94501 Jun 28, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is an analogy not a claim of unbreakable fact. Sheesh!
It is a good one too. The cards (variation) are dealt at random and the players (selection pressure) act nonrandomly based on skill level and experience.
But don't let me interrupt. If you want to go on a rant about rookie poker players sometimes winning big, by all means, please do so. We don't see going off on meaningless tangents enough on this forum.
That's one of the wild cards that can't be predicted.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#94502 Jun 28, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree, not always the case. But in more than 9 times out of 10, it would be the case. And that is one reason that pros win. They know the odds. They know how to read the opponent. They can usually afford to gamble.
I guess I did teach you a little bit on how they play cards didn't I? And it is more like 7 out of 10. I also don't see where if a amateur and a pro set down and played 10 different buy ins (10 mini tournaments) how could the pro win more than 9 out of 10 with out winning all 10?

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#94503 Jun 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> That's one of the wild cards that can't be predicted.
That's funny and very apt.

“pshhhhh”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94504 Jun 29, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is an analogy not a claim of unbreakable fact. Sheesh!

It is a good one too. The cards (variation) are dealt at random and the players (selection pressure) act nonrandomly based on skill level and experience.

But don't let me interrupt. If you want to go on a rant about rookie poker players sometimes winning big, by all means, please do so. We don't see going off on meaningless tangents enough on this forum.
Geez you talk alot of smack youngin

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#94505 Jun 29, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Geez you talk alot of smack youngin
ROFL!!!
Still dodging my question about the contradictions you claim are in the theory of evolution I see.

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#94506 Jun 29, 2013
I see another example of the unpredictable going off on a meaningless tangent while ignoring the point of the analogy. That poker analogy really stirs up the anti-evolution crowd.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94507 Jun 29, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Unfortunately, atheism is become the state religion in America. Just sit in any high school biology classroom and try to engage in an honest debate about evolution. My daughter was openly ridiculed and yelled at for questioning that man evolved from apes. This is not "science"... It is indoctrination. Public education has become a farce.
Good on the biology teacher!

I hope your daughter learnt a valuable lesson: that tbkse Creationist arguments only work when engaging other creationist loons. When engaging someone with actual knowledge about the subject matter, those silly arguments fall flat on its face. You see? The doctrine you teach your kids is a total embarassment.

Perhaps it is tine for you to ask yourself a question:"what if I am wrong about this?". If you are, which anybody with half an education can tell you, then you are making your children look like fools.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94508 Jun 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
He states " My daughter was openly ridiculed and yelled at for questioning that man evolved from apes."
You reply with "That's because you have to be a total nut to question something which you know nothing about."
By that statement you support ridiculing children that have questions. That is sad.
An questioning something before you learn it is not curiosity nor a sign of sanity.

“pshhhhh”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94509 Jun 29, 2013
At the end of the day guys believe what you want il believe what i want tired of this thread time to go bang my missus take care and all that jazz Aussiebob out ..

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94510 Jun 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I did teach you a little bit on how they play cards didn't I? And it is more like 7 out of 10. I also don't see where if a amateur and a pro set down and played 10 different buy ins (10 mini tournaments) how could the pro win more than 9 out of 10 with out winning all 10?
Still not to bright are you?

Obviously the number of tournaments would have to be higher than ten. Odds are neat that way. If you win 90 tournaments out of 100 you have won 9 out of 10, here is a new word for you "ratio". If you win 91 out of 100 or even 10 out of 11, you have won more than 9 out of 10.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94511 Jun 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess I did teach you a little bit on how they play cards didn't I? And it is more like 7 out of 10. I also don't see where if a amateur and a pro set down and played 10 different buy ins (10 mini tournaments) how could the pro win more than 9 out of 10 with out winning all 10?
When working with an average, we can use decimals.

For instance, should we do research and find out the chance of winning is 94.3%(just a number, not relevant to the topic discussed), then it is accurate to say that every ten games the pro wins more than 9 times out of ten, or 9.43 times out of ten

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#94512 Jun 29, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
When working with an average, we can use decimals.
For instance, should we do research and find out the chance of winning is 94.3%(just a number, not relevant to the topic discussed), then it is accurate to say that every ten games the pro wins more than 9 times out of ten, or 9.43 times out of ten
So if you play 10 games as I stated, how can you win more than 9 out of 10 without winning 10. Now if you took in several rounds of 10's yes you could use decimals. But I guess that was over your head huh?

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#94513 Jun 29, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Still not to bright are you?
Obviously the number of tournaments would have to be higher than ten. Odds are neat that way. If you win 90 tournaments out of 100 you have won 9 out of 10, here is a new word for you "ratio". If you win 91 out of 100 or even 10 out of 11, you have won more than 9 out of 10.
No No! You said more than 9 out of 10. So as I said how can one win more than 9 out of 10 games without winning all 10? And now you want to add in another 100. LMAO change it all up as usual when you get proven an idiot.

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#94514 Jun 29, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
An questioning something before you learn it is not curiosity nor a sign of sanity.
So by this post you admit that you just take what is shoved down your throat or up your arse without any questioning. That explains a lot about you. LOL

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#94515 Jun 29, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you play 10 games as I stated, how can you win more than 9 out of 10 without winning 10. Now if you took in several rounds of 10's yes you could use decimals. But I guess that was over your head huh?
That was my point. You would only know the ratio after a great many tournaments. It is possible to win more than 9 games out of 10 without scoring 10, ON AVERAGE

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#94516 Jun 29, 2013
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
That was my point. You would only know the ratio after a great many tournaments. It is possible to win more than 9 games out of 10 without scoring 10, ON AVERAGE
Your point is and was moot. As I stated and you replied to " I also don't see where if a amateur and a pro set down and played 10 different buy ins (10 mini tournaments) how could the pro win more than 9 out of 10 with out winning all 10?

What does that say,.,. oh yes it clearly says only 10 games/tournaments. So back to what I said how can you win more than 9 out of 10 games with out winning all 10?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 8 min Chimney1 362
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 33 min Dogen 138,174
Darwin on the rocks 44 min Dogen 357
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 4 hr Chimney1 701
Monkey VS Man Sun Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Sun TurkanaBoy 204
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... Oct 17 Discord 431

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE