Share your knowledge at the LQ Wiki.
 LinuxQuestions.org Probabilities Question
 General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices

05-31-2019, 06:11 AM   #16
ntubski
Senior Member

Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,450

Rep:

Quote:
 Originally Posted by business_kid If the probability for carrying them on for n generations is not P = (0.75^7)^n, what exactly is it? What's the correct equation pls so I can mark this solved and close this thread?
You've already got the answer explicitly in posts #2 and #11, it's P = 0.75^7. However, you seem to repeatedly ignore it.

Will it help if the equation includes the letter n? P = 0.75^7 * (n/n)

 05-31-2019, 07:18 AM #17 Pastychomper Member   Registered: Sep 2011 Location: Scotland Distribution: Android Posts: 104 Rep: business_kid, I think the confusion is because your original question was based on an incorrect premise. It looks like you're mixing up gene inheritance and gene expression. Either that or most of us have misunderstood the question. As others have pointed out, dominant traits are not three times as likely to be passed on as recessive traits. They are three times as likely to be expressed (if their genes are passed on in equal numbers). That is what Mendel's work was all about. In the absence of selection, all alleles are equally likely to be passed on, so the proportions of alleles inherited by each generation are the same except for random drift. If you start with 75% of the population having one dominant trait (which implies 50% of the alleles being dominant), then two, three or ten generations later about 75% of the population will have that dominant trait. Hence, no need for n unless you're looking at random drift or selection. If you are asking about selection, as in one allele making an individual less likely to breed, then it would be a matter of losing some percentage of the population with each generation. If you have seven "bad" alleles, all independant and each causing a 25% drop in fecundity, then I think (off the top of my head, as a non-statistician) that would be P=0.75^(7*n) ... but that is not Mendelian genetics.
05-31-2019, 01:53 PM   #18
LQ Guru

Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware & Android
Posts: 10,146

Original Poster
Rep:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Pastychomper business_kid, I think the confusion is because your original question was based on an incorrect premise. It looks like you're mixing up gene inheritance and gene expression. Either that or most of us have misunderstood the question.
I have gathered that I misunderstood something, so I'll mark this solved, bookmark this thread, and update myself, and come back and approach it in a more informed state, What's being echoed to me is: "If I was you, I wouldn't start from here at all."

P.S. Thanks to all who beat me up on this

EDIT:Bah, an't mark this sol;ved, perhaps because it was moved? But it's solved.

Last edited by business_kid; 06-01-2019 at 06:19 AM.

 06-02-2019, 09:40 AM #19 enorbet Senior Member   Registered: Jun 2003 Location: Virginia Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up Posts: 2,212 Rep: Hello business_kid. Now that you consider this "solved"I'd like to inquire about a few conditions behind your making this thread and your position within it. If it isn't too personal I'm interested in what motivated you to discover some hard data on genetic probability of dominant traits. Is it just a mental puzzle for the exercise or are you concerned for yourself or a family member? I'd also be interested in knowing something about the probability of conflicts that cause people to decide Evolution is something like "fake news". In your case is it because you imagine some conflict with your religion or is it a conflict with some scientific principle you view as contradictory?
 06-03-2019, 04:00 AM #20 business_kid LQ Guru   Registered: Jan 2006 Location: Ireland Distribution: Slackware & Android Posts: 10,146 Original Poster Rep: I sincerely believe evolution didn't happen, as you gather. I was led up the garden path by the religion I was born into, and believed in Creation because I was indoctrinated from an early age. I shook that off, using the Bible, and before the scandals came out. So I wanted to check as much as possible when I changed, and didn't want to be fooled a second time. Fortunately, that was easy, as the lot I joined have much published Biblical material with scientific references written by experts in the field, quoting leading experts. When you check the reference, it's exactly as quoted, not out of context or anything. Most evolutionists hold a distant view of evolution, as in looking out your apartment window at the mountains, where fields are green, or brown, bushes are a line, streams look blue etc; alternatively they have a myopic view, examining samples under a microscope. I'm in between; I've driven up the mountains, dodging potholes, walked into a field leaning into the wind, put my foot in gooey cow dung, realized there's ditches beside those hedges with stinky stuff and rubbish collecting, and that you can't cross those polluted streams because the bridges are all broken and the fish are dead. It's the bridges that interests me most. It's not a well-kept landscape if the bridges are all broken. In evolution, the bridges ARE all broken. And evolution is like a chain of events, so you need every last one. I'm disabled, also, and stuck on a broken femur awaiting an operation. I figured if I could calculate the odds against it, it would save me arguing it. People don't listen to reason about this; My Dad worked in the Civil Service, and recognized the phenomenon, calling it 'Invincible Ignorance.' The idea was a work starting at first base. I've actually looked at more subjects, evolution is just one. In all probability it will never see the light of day. I seem to annoy both sides of the evolution argument (evolutionists & young earthers) with my views. The trouble with working alone, however, is that you're the worst person to check your own work. Last edited by business_kid; 06-03-2019 at 04:05 AM.
 06-03-2019, 08:24 AM #21 enorbet Senior Member   Registered: Jun 2003 Location: Virginia Distribution: Slackware = Main OpSys for decades while testing others to keep up Posts: 2,212 Rep: Thank you, business_kid, for responding. I'm not at all sure what relevant odds you are calculating for your operation but in any case I wish you the best of good luck for your desired results. As for Evolution it is not at all clear to me how or why some conclude that Creation and Evolution are contradictions in terms, but I'm certainly aware many see it that way. I am a bit puzzled why you don't conclude Evolution is at least a fairly accurate model of how things occur, how changes interact and add and subtract as past becomes present, since it appears to me that everything is always evolving, including Biology, but maybe I don't understand yet how you view change. Anyway, thank you for your input.
 06-03-2019, 12:40 PM #22 business_kid LQ Guru   Registered: Jan 2006 Location: Ireland Distribution: Slackware & Android Posts: 10,146 Original Poster Rep: Putting it as briefly as I can,I don't hugely want to get involved in an open forum debate on evolution vs. creation, but I'd be happy to inform anyone with interesting scientifically based material. Whereas Darwin was agnostic, the overwhelming majority of scientists are, or become atheists. If you go around saying you believe God did anything, you can't get your work published. I wouldn't object if Evolution had been used in diversifying creation. I want to distinguish my views from the rather rabid young earthers who make noise on this subject. I know most the places where evolution doesn't make sense even to diehard evolutionists. I've already given up one cherished set of wrong views, and am ready to do so again. We'll continue this on pm if you like. Trying to do it publicly attracts trolls. The fascinating thing is that in an overview, evolution looks just fine, and suits people who don't want to be bothered with the restraints a false religion tells you the creator is placing on your behaviour. It's also a majority viewpoint. But once you look up close, it's full of jaw-dropping holes, and missing bridges. So it's not the answer.
06-03-2019, 05:45 PM   #23
ntubski
Senior Member

Registered: Nov 2005
Distribution: Debian, Arch
Posts: 3,450

Rep:
Quote:
 Originally Posted by business_kid Whereas Darwin was agnostic, the overwhelming majority of scientists are, or become atheists.
While scientists might be more atheistic on average, I think "overwhelming majority" is an exaggeration, e.g., https://www.pewforum.org/2009/11/05/...ts-and-belief/

Quote:
 According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power;
Anyway, this probably belongs more in the The Faith & Religion mega Thread.

 06-04-2019, 03:51 AM #24 business_kid LQ Guru   Registered: Jan 2006 Location: Ireland Distribution: Slackware & Android Posts: 10,146 Original Poster Rep: /Holding himself back Yes, it does belong there, probably;p I won't post on that thread, however.

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is Off HTML code is Off Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post tarballed Linux - Newbie 1 02-07-2003 08:41 PM Radiouk Linux - Distributions 2 06-04-2002 12:53 PM Radiouk Linux - Networking 4 06-03-2002 06:40 PM Radio Linux - Security 3 05-17-2002 06:32 PM phek Linux - General 9 09-18-2001 12:20 PM

LinuxQuestions.org

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.