Notices
Results 1 to 29 of 29

Thread: applying probabilty at reprodution implies humanitycantexist

  1. #1 applying probabilty at reprodution implies humanitycantexist 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    lets see it this way, girls are purely matrilineal lines and boys purely patrilineal ones

    i finally solved the way to find the chances a boy keeps an exclusivily patrilineal line in the future:

    if the population is to keep he will have two counting childs which each will have another two and so on

    so lets consider a coin toss game, a tail is a boy and a head a girl

    the game to find the chances is simple:

    toss a coin two times and for every tail you get two extra tosses, you keep playing till you run out of tosses

    thise are your chances of having a patrilineal line in the future

    but the tossing game in the end can be reduced or simplified to:

    you have one toss and for every tail you get an extra toss, you keep playing till you run out of tosses and lose

    exactly for the boys in here your chances to get a patrilineal line in the future are 2 elevated to the number of generations

    now if even the hole globality dont have the chances to keep a patrilineal line in the case of boys and a matrilineal in the case of girls, humanity cant exist in 64 generations

    so is it human reproduction a myth or probability fails in this case


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    92
    I think incest solves that one for you!!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Isn't this like the third or fourth time you've posted this exact same thing?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    92
    His father posted the last one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i posted it again because no one helps me to find the chances a person has to have a patrilineal line into the future

    the chances someone has a patrilineal line into the future is one if we suppose humnaity survives


    so chances a person has that line should be one in 6 billion

    but how do you arrive to this figure from a tossing the coin game in which for every tail you get two extra tosses and keep playing till you run out of tosses and lose

    game appliable to suppose each person has two offspring
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Masters Degree organic god's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    567
    well obviously not everyone has 2 offspring do they

    QED
    everything is mathematical.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    There's also the problem of trying to apply this to an infinite situation, whereas the real world is finite but of indeterminate timespan (we know the universe won't last forever).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    There's also the problem of trying to apply this to an infinite situation, whereas the real world is finite but of indeterminate timespan (we know the universe won't last forever).
    Don't you mean "we know the Universe will last forever"?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    (we know the universe won't last forever).
    Who is "we" and how do you know this?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    althought the problem is complex it can be simplified:

    if the population is to keep its number people will have an average of two children neglecting the ones who die without reproducting
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    AFAIK, no current theory in physics predicts an infinite universe that isn't empty after a finite period of time (trillions plus years maybe, but still finite).

    The other problem with your model is that it ignores how people would change their behavior if there was somehow too few men.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12 Re: applying probabilty at reprodution implies humanitycante 
    Forum Senior Booms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    The perceptual schematic known as earth
    Posts
    361
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    so is it human reproduction a myth
    hehe made me laugh

    yup.. it's just a fairytale we tell you kids to keep you behaving "you'll never get a gal if you act like that" and all





    I really don't get your line of thinking at all, there seems to be lots of faults

    You seem to have decided only men can reproduce (for each man you get two extra throws). You've forgotten a woman is also neccessary

    you also seem to have missed the point that we can in fact have more than two kids. If by some miracle the population starts to dwindle, people will have half a dozen kids and we will thrive again


    If we have 10 men and one woman, the woman will be constantly pregnant and there will be lots of siblings. while this would initially lead to incest (as written in that unholy pile of rot the Bible) after a few generations enviromental influences would alter the genepool enough to iron out the flaws

    with 10 woman and one man, the man will be constantly impregnating multiple woman. there will be less incestual impact but again it will be sorted.




    I honestly have no idea where you've come up with this 'myth'
    Men are Xy, women are Xx
    babies are mix the Xx and Xy combine and form either
    XX
    Xy
    xX
    xy
    so theres a clear 50/50 chance of boy or girl

    so yes if everyone had two kids, there would be cases where both were boys, however there would also be cases where both are girls. IT EVENS OUT

    for example, the population is currently tilted slightly towards women, about 60/50. in a few generations it will bounce the other way



    you've also forgotten to take Identical twins, twins, triplets, quadruplets etc. Transexuals, homosexuals and mutants into your 'equation'
    It's not how many questions you ask, but the answers you get - Booms

    This is the Acadamy of Science! we don't need to 'prove' anything!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    The question of what the chances are that a particular person will have a line of male descendants of a certain length is valid, but to generalize from that to whether or not humans will continue to exist is not. Think of what a no answer to the second question would mean in this case. It would mean a generation of all women, a chance. Not only is that incredibly unlikely, but it still wouldn't end things since women would just have to marry/take/mate with older men.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14 Re: applying probabilty at reprodution implies humanitycante 
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    so is it human reproduction a myth or probability fails in this case
    Probability does not fail, you do.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    The question of what the chances are that a particular person will have a line of male descendants of a certain length is valid, but to generalize from that to whether or not humans will continue to exist is not. .
    we all descend from an unbroken line of males

    if someone today doesnt develop an unbroken linage of males noone can exist in the future

    same for females
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    Quote Originally Posted by MagiMaster
    The question of what the chances are that a particular person will have a line of male descendants of a certain length is valid, but to generalize from that to whether or not humans will continue to exist is not. .
    we all descend from an unbroken line of males

    if someone today doesnt develop an unbroken linage of males noone can exist in the future

    same for females
    Please think before you continue the debate. Your reasoning makes no sense, especially this:
    but the tossing game in the end can be reduced or simplified to:

    you have one toss and for every tail you get an extra toss, you keep playing till you run out of tosses and lose
    How did you get to this conclusion?

    Why should noone exist in the future? As long as children are born, your concerns are blatantly false.
    Or do you fear that one gender can die out? Why do you think it should happen?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    i got that one wrong thats why i ask for help`

    i dont think humanity will die out nor one gender die out

    but the thing is that getting an unbroken line of males into the future is damn hard

    yet the probaility for this to happen is one or humanity just wouldnt exist since a male descends from an unbroken lines of males and a female from an unbroken line of females

    is like nature is playing a gambling game in which theres a o.5 chance to win but nature using an strategy gets a chance of 1 yet gets paid as if the chance is 0.5
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Your error is in the sentence I cited.
    toss a coin two times and for every tail you get two extra tosses, you keep playing till you run out of tosses
    can't be simplified to
    you have one toss and for every tail you get an extra toss, you keep playing till you run out of tosses and lose
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    yeah i already admitted that mistake

    but what are the chances to win at this game which i think are the same to get an unbroken line of males supposing pulation keeps so everybody has an average of two children neglecting the ones who die without reproducting:

    toss a coin two times and for every tail you get two extra tosses, you keep playing till you run out of tosses

    imo if the whole humanity starts playing this game seems unlikely that in a trillion years theres a single player left who hasnt run out of tosses
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    There are three possibilities with each round:
    50% chance for one tail. You have two tosses again so nothing changes.
    25% chance for no tails. Game over.
    25% chance for two tails. Now you have four tosses.

    So for each round you have 50% chance for two tosses in the next round, 25% chance for no tosses and 25% chance for four tosses.

    As you can see, the average number of tosses in the population remains the same.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    Quote Originally Posted by luxtpm
    toss a coin two times and for every tail you get two extra tosses, you keep playing till you run out of tosses

    imo if the whole humanity starts playing this game seems unlikely that in a trillion years theres a single player left who hasnt run out of tosses
    oh, I think that I finally got what you mean! You mean that with each round, some "players" are removed? But that's exactly why we can trace human lineage to only some 50000 years ago. It does not mean that only one (wo)man was alive, it means that all others have lost all their tosses.

    This article explains it in more detail:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    all right lets concentrate on females

    there are now 3 billion females, lets see the chances a gambler female from today has of getting an unbroken line of females in x number of generations

    there are 3 posible outcomes on the offspring:

    male, female, a draw, the gambler keeps playing
    male male this gambler has lost

    female female, the gambler has won this hand

    so we can see that with this example every generation a thrird of original female gamblers are removed

    so when theres only one original female gambler left after countless generations apparently she has no way to lose since she would be the mithocondrial eve?

    this is really confusing

    so you see of 3 billion females you keep dividing by 3 for every generation and when you get to one thats the age mithocondrial eve should have

    but consider it a gambling game:

    a female can win draw or lose by having two girls, one boy and one girl or two boys

    so chances of winning or losing for a female are 50% percent for every generation


    but with the gambling method nature uses it grants that at least one girl of the 3 billion there are now is gonna win it all posible that theres to win, remember a girl is a win and a boy is a lose and all and every girl in the world in the future will descend from this winner gambler girl

    what nature does, seems to me, is like if a crowd of people goes to the casino and by a coomon startegy have a cahnce of braking the bank of 1
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    MM, MF, and FF aren't equally likely. MM and FF are 25%, but MF is 50% (you have to count FM too).

    There's another error. The average number of children is only approximately 2. In fact, it's more than 2, or the total population wouldn't be changing.

    Let's assume there are 4 billion females and it really is 2 children each. In one generation, there would be 8 billion kids, 4 billion males and 4 billion females, and the same thing would happen the next generation.

    If you look at it from the perpective of a single female, it works out like Twit of wit said, and the expected value is (.25 * 0) + (.5 * 1) + (.25 * 2) = 1. So, on average, every female would expect to contiue their line indefinitely, and those that drop out are exactly balanced by those that get 2 chances.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Masters Degree Twit of wit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    553
    luxtpm:I don't want to be rude, but this is tiresome. You lack even the most basic mathematic skills. Please talk about this with your math teacher or someone similarly suitable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    As someone working on becoming a professor (of Computer Science, though that's fairly math heavy), I don't mind trying to teach people when I understand the question myself, but they have to be willing to learn or nothing I can do will make a difference. (It's still worth arguing a bit though, for the sake of the lurkers.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    1,847
    Quote Originally Posted by lux
    but the thing is that getting an unbroken line of males into the future is damn hard
    Genghis Khan figured it out - so no worries, it's covered: http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/25/gen..._0301khan.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    893
    of course i know little maths but that doesnt refrain me from asking questions and trying to find answers

    for example what are the chances my fathers original surname lasts 100 generations applying the tossing the coin game?

    edit:

    thats a very interesting article

    as i see it khan was a gambler with a lot of cash which increased his chances
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope MagiMaster's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    3,440
    Some quick calculations, which I haven't double checked, suggest that the chances that your last name will carry on 100 generations given exactly 2 kids per generation is about 3.7%. You should check this yourself.

    Of course, this does not say anything about the chances of it happening in general, since the chances for those seperate lines wouldn't be independent events, at least not when you start getting to the scale of the whole population.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    130
    Booms wrote:

    with 10 woman and one man, the man will be constantly impregnating multiple woman. there will be less incestual impact but again it will be sorted.
    I like this consideration. 8)
    I am.
    You can't deny it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •