If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
That made my head hurt...not really that hard though.
1994 Ohio Gran Prix 4th place
2010 Kentucky State Championships 1st place
2011 Northern Kentucky 4th place
2012 Kentucky Grand Prix 1st place
2014 Francois Classic 3rd place
2015 Francois Classic 2nd Place
If only the top sperm make it to an egg, how do you explain all the idiots walking around? How is it that their blood line is not extinct?
Ponder this, if that was the TOP sperm to make it to the egg, just imagine what what kind of winners would be walking around if the second rate sperms fertilized as well.
Be true to yourself and fuel your body with nothing less the highest quality supplements. Only available at TrueNutrition.com Use discount code: KSP945 to save 5% on your order!
Stickies...just read the damn stickies...
2014 Xcalibur Cup Bantam Open - 1st
2014 Tracey Greenwood Classic Bantam Open - 1st 2015 Beat Cancer!
Ponder this, if that was the TOP sperm to make it to the egg, just imagine what what kind of winners would be walking around if the second rate sperms fertilized as well.
If sperm were either intelligent or conscious, or if they had an inherent code of ethics, you would both have good points, haha.
Unfortunately the TOP sperm is just the one with the pointiest head that got shot out first
There's another flaw in the logic of how those "odds" are calculated. They concentrate on one event going back to the big bang but only as this one event. This is a common argument used by creationists to "prove" that only an intelligent being could have created humans because of the "odds" of humans evolving.
This is called the Anthropic Principle. To give an analogy, Imagine that you kept flipping a coin over and over and over and over again. And in one sequence of events, you finally get 10 heads in a row. You record that "event" and then present it to somebody as "what are the odds that I would have flipped 10 coins in a row"? And you present some astronomically low odds to prove how incredible that sequence of flips was. What is lost is how many failures occurred leading up that situation.
So back to the universe example. The Anthropic Principal assumes that with us being intelligent beings living in the perfect set of conditions, it would be practically "zero" chance of it occurring on its own. But what is ignored is that it is possible (and likely) that trillionsXtrillionsXtrillionsXtrillionsXtrillionsX trillions of failed universes existed leading up to our particular "fine tuned" one. So in essence, there is nothing special about it other than we are existing in that universe, marveling at how it's "impossible" for us to exist while the universe itself has gone through an infinitely long history without us being along for the ride.
There's another flaw in the logic of how those "odds" are calculated. They concentrate on one event going back to the big bang but only as this one event. This is a common argument used by creationists to "prove" that only an intelligent being could have created humans because of the "odds" of humans evolving.
This is called the Anthropic Principle. To give an analogy, Imagine that you kept flipping a coin over and over and over and over again. And in one sequence of events, you finally get 10 heads in a row. You record that "event" and then present it to somebody as "what are the odds that I would have flipped 10 coins in a row"? And you present some astronomically low odds to prove how incredible that sequence of flips was. What is lost is how many failures occurred leading up that situation.
So back to the universe example. The Anthropic Principal assumes that with us being intelligent beings living in the perfect set of conditions, it would be practically "zero" chance of it occurring on its own. But what is ignored is that it is possible (and likely) that trillionsXtrillionsXtrillionsXtrillionsXtrillionsX trillions of failed universes existed leading up to our particular "fine tuned" one. So in essence, there is nothing special about it other than we are existing in that universe, marveling at how it's "impossible" for us to exist while the universe itself has gone through an infinitely long history without us being along for the ride.
Let's say you DID flip 9 heads in a row, can you tell me the odds that the 10th flip will be heads? ;-)
Exactly...the odds of the next flip being heads is 50%. And actually that's a good point, I shouldn't have used the term "odds" in my example. I used it incorrectly. More accurately, I should have said the probablity of flipping 10 heads in a row is very, very small. The odds of flipping an 11th heads is still 50/50. In fact, the article should not have used "the odds are practically zero" either. They are mixing and matching odds and probability together. Just like in that example from the article. The probability might be infinitely small of me existing...but the "odds" of me existing aren't really as small as the article would have you believe. It's a classic example of lieing with statistics.
Comment