"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:akm0vh$cls$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article "John Knight" <jwknight at polbox.com> writes:
> <
> <"Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab at lojban.org> wrote in message
> <news:1f55mukbu39srm1uuq3rdqnke33pa3ah9q at 4ax.com...> {..}
> <> >How many more? The factorial of 170 is 7.3 x 10^306.
> <>
> <> Nonsense as usual. There would not be more breeds than there are
> <> dogs, and dog breeding is anything but random.
> <
> <The POINT is exactly that! Dog breeding is not random. And now we have
to
> <explain to you what "factorial" means? If dog breeding WAS random, and
if
> <there are 170 different breeds, then the potentional number of
combinations
> <between all these breeds is 7.3 x 10^306.
> <
> <Please don't say you don't know what a "factorial" is.
>>> I do. It's that little button on your calculator you constantly
> mis-apply.
>> The number of unique pairs of 170 objects is
> (170 * 169) / 2, or about 14,000. You're only off by
> three hundred orders of magnitude or so, which is not all
> that unusual.
The correct number of combinations is the factorial of 170. Nobody said
anything about "unique pairs of 170 objects", did they? We were discussing
the total number of combinations that could exist if there weren't solid
statistical boundaries between different breeds.
>> All of which is irrelevant, because "breed" is a purely human
> construct, just like "good" poker hands and "bad" poker hands.
> When two breeds mate, they do not produce a new breed, unless
> the AKC says they did. They produce mutts, and no one keeps
> track of the "breeds" of mutt.
Humans have almost nothing to do with the different breeds of foxes or
wolves or tigers or lions or birds or turtles, yet exactly the same
statistical boundaries are present, aren't they? If even ONE of these
thousands of species could just jump from one species to another, then the
world would be flooded with all the necessary intermediate combinations,
wouldn't it?
If the cross-breed between two different breeds of wolves were viable, then
there would be more of these cross-breeds than there are original breeds.
Same with dogs. The cross-breeds don't die out because of human
intervention. They die out for reasons similar to why the offspring of a
horse and a donkey [read: a mule] die out: they can't reproduce themselves.
The rate at which niggers [80% Negroid and 20% Caucasoid] murder each other
in the US may be a good example of how cross-breeds manage to eliminate
themselves. Even with all the crime we hear about in Rwanda, the murder
rate of the pure Negroids there is still one sixtieth the rate at which
American nigger males are currently killing each other off. No society can
survive when it's killing off each other at 350 per 100,000 niggers. If
such a rate were sustainable, over the current life expectancy of American
niggers, one quarter of them would be murdered.
John Knight
