Jump to content


Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum

Welcome to BrainDen.com - Brain Teasers Forum. Like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process. To be a part of BrainDen Forums you may create a new account or sign in if you already have an account.
As a member you could start new topics, reply to others, subscribe to topics/forums to get automatic updates, get your own profile and make new friends.

Of course, you can also enjoy our collection of amazing optical illusions and cool math games.

If you like our site, you may support us by simply clicking Google "+1" or Facebook "Like" buttons at the top.
If you have a website, we would appreciate a little link to BrainDen.

Thanks and enjoy the Den :-)
Guest Message by DevFuse
 

benjer3

Member Since --
Offline Last Active Oct 30 2013 05:30 PM
-----

#321897 One Girl - One Boy

Posted by benjer3 on 10 July 2012 - 10:52 PM

Did you get to the end of my post? I came to a very important conclusion, I think. Your program assumes that the parents randomly told us the gender of one of their children, which is perfectly logical. On the other had, mine assumes that if a girl is present, the parents would mention that, as that is what we're testing for. I believe that that is the whole teaser in a nutshell. It all depends on how you test it. The problem is, the 1/3-ists can't prove the 1/2-ists wrong as any 1/3-ist proof doesn't apply to the 1/2-ists, and vice versa.

Let's do a little mind experiment. Say we went to test this out for real. You go around asking parents with two children what the gender of one of their children are, while go around asking if one of their children are a girl. You then (if they say a girl) ask the gender of the other child, while I (if they respond yes) do the same. Our results will be obvious: about 1/2 of your second children will be girls, while about 1/3 of mine will be girls. Did we do something wrong? Well yes and no. Yes because we tested for two completely different things. I can't say to you, nor you to me, "You should have gotten my results," because we each tested for something different. However, there is nothing wrong with either of our methods of testing.

The big question now is which is right? I propose that they are both right. It just depends on how you read the question. So if anyone ever points a gun at your head and asks you, "I have two children. One of them is a girl. What's the gender of the other one?" you should first ask him, "If you had a boy and a girl, would you tell me one was a girl, or would you pick arbitrarily between them?"... and that would probably leave him stumped enough for you to get away. :P
  • 1


#321624 Human origin" according to my own theory"

Posted by benjer3 on 08 July 2012 - 11:50 PM

From what I've heard, in the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, the actual wording is a period of time, but that was translated to a "day."

As to the rest of it. I am personally wary of evolution, and that's not because I'm religious but because I'm logical. I can see the earliest beginnings where the primordial soup formed the basics of life, and I can see the very end where evolution and natural selection are making subtle changes in species. However, I can't for the life of me see the middle.

If you think about it, once you get even only to the first single-celled creatures, hardly any mutations will be beneficial. The chances are probably in the range of one out of a billion or so. That would mean you need billions of one species for a few to have beneficial mutations. Then the mutants have to be able to survive long enough to make a billion more of their kind, with many more, probably detrimental mutations getting in the way. While getting to the proper numbers probably wouldn't be a problem in the bacterial world, there is still a lot going against even them probability-wise.

If you look deeper into the probabilities, you will realize that for every beneficial mutation, there will be millions of other mutations, most of them detrimental. The only way greater organization can come out of that is with incredibly large numbers. Again, this isn't much of a problem for bacteria, but when you carry this over to the multi-cellular world, I see major problems.

Today we're worried about the genomes of species, including ourselves, degrading rather than continuing to evolve, for the same reasons that I just mentioned. So how could species have evolved so far up to this point, but only just now have genomic problems? I know some of it has to do with the lack of natural selection, especially in humans and agricultural breeds, but in no way does that cover all of it. The only solution I can come up with is divine intervention. Without it, I can't see any hope for complex life.

So to get back to your theory, I believe all the species we're created by God through evolution. I don't think significant complexity-building evolution is possible without God. Some species may have evolved on their own, but from my observations, none of them are more complex than their ancestors. So maybe there was one race of mankind that other species diverged from, or maybe primitive man-like beings did evolve from apes, but I can't see equals to humans being the offspring of pure evolution.
  • 1