Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

I don't think we even need Google to figure this out. Here are my calculations for the odds of getting at least 2 of a kind when rolling typical 6-sided dice:

2 dice - 1/6 - 16.67%
3 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) = 44.44%
4 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) + 3/6 * (1 - .4444) = 72.22%
5 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) + 3/6 * (1 - .4444) + 4/6 * (1 - .7222) = 90.74%
6 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) + 3/6 * (1 - .4444) + 4/6 * (1 - .7222) + 5/6 * (1 - .9074) = 98.46%
7 dice - 1/6 + (2/6) * (1 - .1667) + 3/6 * (1 - .4444) + 4/6 * (1 - .7222) + 5/6 * (1 - .9074) + 6/6 * (1 - .9846) = 100%

If I made any mistakes in my calculations please let me know. I can explain these numbers to anyone who has questions. But I tried to make them easy to follow without using variables by simply adding the odds that the last die matches on of the other dies if there is not already a match each time we add a die.

When we look at it more closely, it seems quite obvious that among 5 dice you would have more than a 5/6 (which is 83%) chance of getting a double, since the other fallacious calculation would mean when you roll 6 dice you would have a 6/6 or 100% chance of getting a double which is ludicrous since you could roll one of each and would imply that when you roll 7 dice you have a 7/6 chance of getting a double which doesn't even make sense since it is over 100%. It seems people are fallaciously mixing up the average statistics of a specific roll/match (e.g. what are the odds of rolling a three) versus the odds of getting any match. Obviously, the latter is more likely than the former. Obviously, it is more likely to get at least either two ones, two twos, two threes, two fours, two fives or two sixes than to specifically get two sixes.

[Prismatic]

I don't think we even need Google to figure this out.

No, but it is a pain to write out the entire calculation without mathematical notation available, but here is a summary.

1. Start with one individual and note his birthday. 2. Choose a second individual. The probability that his birthday is different is 364/365. (We omit leap year for the sake of simplicity.) 3. Choose a third individual. The probability that his birthday differs from those of the first two (assuming they are different) is 363/365. The probability that the first three don't have a common birthday among them is then going to be the product (364/365)(363/365). 4. Continue in this manner and for n individuals the probability of differing birthdays will be:

(364/365)(363/365) ... (365 - n + 1)/(365).

[Gulnara]

In the entire world about 583 million people were born the same month, and about 19 millions of them also on the same day of the same month. Does that sound right, Prismatic?

[Prismatic]

In the entire world about 583 million people were born the same month, and about 19 millions of them also on the same day of the same month. Does that sound right, Prismatic?

Yes, it's correct estimating a total world population of 7 billion.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Yes, I was agreeing with you Prismatic. In fact, I think you are so clearly right about this that I don't think one needs to search Google to see it.

In regards to the topic at hand, of course these kind of seeming coincidences can not be seen as evidence of intelligent design or divine intervention. Moreover, many of the things unscientifically attributed to intelligent design are not even seeming coincidences on the level of 2 kids in a class of 23 having the same birthday but are the completely expected result of non-biological evolution and natural selection. It's not really even a coincidence that humans breathe air and fish don't, nor is it much of a coincidence that the remaining planet's orbits are relatively stable. It's less a coincidence even then the students having the same birthday.

[Gulnara]

Then any story written is a sum of probabilities realized ? Also, any story that would appear spontaneously, say, in the crevices of the stones, would be the same - the probabilities realized? There is one Russian linguist professor Chudinov, he deciphered ancient Russian written language, and then he started finding similar inscriptions on stone all over Russia. I wonder if he stumbled over spontaneously, by nature created carvings /crevices that match written human language? could he be fooled by nature and probability capable to match intelligent design?

[Prismatic]

Moreover, many of the things unscientifically attributed to intelligent design are not even seeming coincidences on the level of 2 kids in a class of 23 having the same birthday but are the completely expected result of non-biological evolution and natural selection. It's not really even a coincidence that humans breathe air and fish don't, nor is it much of a coincidence that the remaining planet's orbits are relatively stable. It's less a coincidence even then the students having the same birthday.

You are quite right about that. When intelligent design advocates do their probabilities they assume that the whole thing is random from start to finish, but of course it does not work that way. There are any number of stages in between and what we don't know are exactly what were all those stages and what were the probabilities of going from one stage to the next.

[Xris]

To dismiss the idea that life is more than chance you need to judge it on more than one example. Everything has to be compared and as we have no comparisons the question remains open. The dice have only been thrown once. Fine tuning of the universe requires we accept chance to dismis the amazing ability of complex atoms to form. That is if you believe in the BB. We have to admit we are not in a position to explain our universe only to observe and speculate. Is the universe one lucky break or determined?

[Steve3007]

When intelligent design advocates do their probabilities they assume that the whole thing is random from start to finish...

I think the mistake that's often made is in thinking that evolution by natural selection is random at all. The randomness simply provides the raw material on which the selection acts. It allows genetic characteristics to spread out evenly into organism space.

[Xris]

When intelligent design advocates do their probabilities they assume that the whole thing is random from start to finish...

I think the mistake that's often made is in thinking that evolution by natural selection is random at all. The randomness simply provides the raw material on which the selection acts. It allows genetic characteristics to spread out evenly into organism space.

Its not truly random Steve. It will only work within strict confines. Life as we know it Jim, will only survive and prosper under certain conditions.Microbes will not evolve without certain conditions. Even mankind will not advance without suitable climatic conditions. There is a formula that can repeat its efforts, that puts it into strict laws of engineering. It makes nature a determined beast if it does not act randomly.

[Steve3007]

I was talking more specifically about the way in which random genetic variations ("mutations") are acted on by natural selection.

[Prismatic]

I think the mistake that's often made is in thinking that evolution by natural selection is random at all. The randomness simply provides the raw material on which the selection acts. It allows genetic characteristics to spread out evenly into organism space.

Yes, very good point. They neglect the fact that deleterious mutations do not stay around and that mutations are in fact quite frequent. One estimate was that every human genome carries 40 to 50 mutations. (I don't know how reliable that number is.)

[Xris]

I was talking more specifically about the way in which random genetic variations ("mutations") are acted on by natural selection.

To have a random event you must not be able to find a cause are genetic variations truly random?

[Gulnara]

I think the mistake that's often made is in thinking that evolution by natural selection is random at all. The randomness simply provides the raw material on which the selection acts. It allows genetic characteristics to spread out evenly into organism space.

Yes, very good point. They neglect the fact that deleterious mutations do not stay around and that mutations are in fact quite frequent. One estimate was that every human genome carries 40 to 50 mutations. (I don't know how reliable that number is.)

What about mutation of a thought, can thought process be swayed by this thread into some useful mutation (deviation from norm or tradition) in order for us to finally have some unforeseen answer?

[Steve3007]

Xris: I don't think it really matters if the variations are truly random, so long as they provide a reasonably good spread of different variations on which natural selection can work.

Gulnara: I, for one, didn't predict what you were going to say there so the answer to your question is, I guess, "yes".

But, seriously, if you have an original slant on the whole ancient ID debate, share it.