A genetics experiment involves a population of fruit flies consisting of 1 male named Carlos and three fema?
A genetics experiment involves a population of fruit flies consisting of 1 male named Carlos and three females named Diane, Elaine, and Fergie. Assume that two fruit flies are randomly selected with replacement. After listing the possible samples and finding the proportion of males in each sample, use a table to describe the sampling distribution of the proportion of males. Proportion of males Probability 0 0.5 1 Please show your work.
A genetics experiment involves a population of fruit flies consisting of 1 male named Carlos and three fema?
Here is the list of possible samples (with the proportion of males in each in parentheses): Carlos and Diane (0.5) Carlos and Elaine (0.5) Carlos and Fergie (0.5) Diane and Elaine (0) Diane and Fergie (0) Elaine and Fergie (0) So both the 0 and 0.5 proportion of males have the same probability: 3/6 = 1/3 So we fill out the table as follows: Proportion of males . . Probability . . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1/2 . . . . . 0.5 . . . . . . . . . . .. 1/2 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0
What are some of the best examples of "beauty with brains"?
Raghuram RajanI thought of writing an introduction myself ,but Shobha De has done an awesome job already, so I am just quoting her ."The guy's put 'sex' back into the limp Sensex. That makes him seriously hot. So hot, in fact, he has made it to the Amul hoarding (a first for a chap in his lofty position). But nobody is calling the man a Billboard Bimbo. You know why? Because this man knows his onions.And right now, onions are playing a major role in our lives. Forget our obsession with gold. We are hoarding onions now.All hail the freshly minted 23rd RBI Guv — the very dishy Raghuram Govinda Rajan — the Messiah of Markets. At 50, Rajan is young (come on, SRK at 48 is still playing lover boy), brilliant (IIT-IIM-MIT vaghera, vaghera) and on the ball (ex-IMF chief economist). That his chiselled features are as sharp as his brain, add to his current status as the Poster Boy of Banking.Funny how quickly Rajan has been slotted as a much-panted-after sex symbol (he took over from Duvvuri Subbarao on September 4). He's the guy who's got the groove. I plead guilty, too.Recklessly and happily, I went ahead and tweeted (will this woman never learn?) about his appointment, calling him the Ranbir Kapoor of Banking (note the spelling — banking, there's an 'a' in this word, not an 'o'). Why not? Rajan's sex appeal has propelled him straight into the league of movie stars. He can easily top 'India's Most Desirable' lists.Had he not been in this tricky, ultra conservative (let's be upfront here, and call it tight ass) assignment, he'd have been instantly snapped up by smart celeb managers and signed juicy endorsement deals. Sorry, Raghu. But you are stuck. Deal with it.The media has declared Raghu the latest sex symbol in the land. He should lie back and enjoy the attention. It's not often that one gets an RBI Guv who makes hearts (not just female ones) go dhak dhak each time he strides into a room. I entirely endorse the positioning. Why should only comely ladies in the rarefied world of finance get branded and walk away with all the compliments?Source -http://articles.economictimes.in...
Does evolution mean no God?
NO! A 19th century Christian theologian put it succinctly:"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." Rev. James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspect of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.What Rev. McCosh was emphasizing is that there are 2 claims/statements involved:The belief that deity exists and created. “I believe in God the Father, creator of heaven and earth”. (Apostle’s Creed)How deity created. That is, the timing and mechanism involved.A segment of theists have confused those statements. In effect, they have said “God must create by instantaneous miracle and according to our interpretation of scripture. If creation did not happen this particular way, then God did not create and does not exist.”The does-not-follow is easily seen there. As Rev. McCosh pointed out, God is not required to create according to a particular method that humans want. God can create any way It chooses to.I strongly suggest you read this essay: Richard W. Berry, 1982http://wayback.archive.org/web/j...What we have seen, starting around 1900, is a new religious movement that insists on a literal, inerrant reading of scripture. In fact, they insist on calling the Bible the Word. Capitalized. (like we capitalize “God”) Now, in the Bible, the only time “word” is capitalized is when it refers to Christ (“In the beginning the Word already existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God.”). Never does the Bible refer to itself as “Word of God”.This new religious movement (originally called “Fundamentalism”) has made a god out of their interpretation of scripture. Scripture must be literal and it must be inerrant. This is “bibliolatry”.Evolution contradicts a literal reading of Genesis 1–3. Individual “kinds” (including humans) were not miraculously made by deity and placed on the earth in their present form. Evolution does mean that their god does not exist.But, since the Fundamentalist god is their interpretation of scripture instead of God, I do not see any downside (from science or religion) in evolution meaning “no god” for that god.