Received: by 10.205.122.65 with SMTP id gf1mr608161bkc.2.1337200124540;
        Wed, 16 May 2012 13:28:44 -0700 (PDT)
Path: e27ni635bkw.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed.news.ucla.edu!usenet.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: the Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational belief-part
Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 16:34:32 -0400
Organization: EddieAcreRan.Org
Lines: 182
Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <of38r7he75okvdqbsnmebbligu0601puan@4ax.com>
References: <JeOdna1T0qFUiCzSRVn_vwA@giganews.com> <3ac2r7pbkacikhcfpvddlceps90b19tpnf@4ax.com> <14321010.852.1337023714909.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynja8> <rso2r71ij5f21jjaafdcuimdd9roun57s1@4ax.com> <ed34r7dsnrrlt47ekvlbept402j3jkeudf@4ax.com> <tgf4r75251iocrvpho8nm746ovtdd6mbjo@4ax.com> <4d75r7tu79tafs5bmekf3ahfog7f3ur478@4ax.com> <ee85r7hr49mc1e1f01rn5ctvbv1heeb9vc@4ax.com> <p7g6r7hib356a81durcifs7dr9q5lfo9pb@4ax.com> <dr87r71r6n0di65kgnts3e03qc72qp4p5n@4ax.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: darwin.ediacara.org 1337201053 42008 128.100.83.246 (16 May 2012 20:44:13 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@darwin.ediacara.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 May 2012 20:44:13 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Auth-Sender: U2FsdGVkX1/mlxwwoICtXtg0PL1dpEDbbU5Y+XNGAAw=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:iojuR/QCsm13OUpX4UpKHN3FbE4=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 16 May 2012 09:03:56 -0400, Richard Norman
<r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 16 May 2012 02:13:17 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:39:16 -0400, Richard Norman
>><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 14:18:22 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 07:31:05 -0400, Richard Norman
>>>><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 04:05:50 -0400, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 15:59:14 -0400, Richard Norman
>>>>>><r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Mon, 14 May 2012 12:28:34 -0700 (PDT), hersheyh
>>>>>>><hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>On Monday, May 14, 2012 12:26:35 PM UTC-4, jillery wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 14 May 2012 07:25:12 -0700, John Harshman
>>>>>>>>> <jharsh...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> >hersheyh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 9:36:22 PM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>> hersheyh wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>> On Sunday, May 13, 2012 3:15:51 PM UTC-4, g...@risky-biz.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>> On May 13, 1:30 pm, Charles Brenner <cbren...@berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> That is, in the aftermath of the
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> separation of course both subpopulations continue to pump out
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> fixations. But for quite a long time -- the first N or so generations
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> -- the fixations that each subpopulation pumps out will be ones that
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> were already in the pipeline. They are therefore the same fixations
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> for each subpopulation and hence are not differences between human and
>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> chimp.
>>>>>>>>> >>>> IMHO, I disagree.  Most of the time a new species arises by a smallish founding population,
>>>>>>>>> >>> Do you have evidence for that?
>>>>>>>>> >> 
>>>>>>>>> >> Hard for me to see how it could be otherwise, but you may have some ideas.
>>>>>>>>> >> Other than chronospeciation where one "species" turns into another simply by 
>>>>>>>>> >> differences accumulated over time to the point where it is regarded as a new
>>>>>>>>> >> "species", new species tend to form in subpopulations isolated by geography, 
>>>>>>>>> >> niche, or behavior from a main population.  So, smallish relative to the core
>>>>>>>>> >> population is what I meant. Like the different subspecies of Albert's squirrel
>>>>>>>>> >> that have become isolated on "islands" of higher altitude Ponderosa pines 
>>>>>>>>> >> after the last ice age.  [The Kaibab and Woodhouse subspecies lie on
>>>>>>>>> >> opposite sides of the Grand Canyon because of this.]
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >Which of them is the "main population"? New species tend to form when 
>>>>>>>>> >one population gets split into two. Why assume that one of those 
>>>>>>>>> >fragments "the main one" is much larger than the other?
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >> Certainly smallish size would be true for most founding "island" (real or ecological)
>>>>>>>>> >> speciation events, including those in which island "formation" led to reproductive
>>>>>>>>> >> isolation by closing the reproductive channels between populations.
>>>>>>>>> >
>>>>>>>>> >True. But that's because islands are small. Do all, or even most, 
>>>>>>>>> >barriers separate a large area from a small one?
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I apologize for butting in, but when undirected processes separate
>>>>>>>>> areas into two parts, I expect one part to be smaller than the other
>>>>>>>>> part almost all the time.  What am I missing?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Actually when two parts are separated out from a whole, I expect
>>>>>>>>both parts to be smaller than the whole.  ;-)  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>But biology can be different.  Two species' additive population size, 
>>>>>>>>each specialized to slightly different niches, can be larger than the 
>>>>>>>>founding species could achieve alone.  
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>It can also be the case that the speciation process produces fewer
>>>>>>>>individuals (as would happen if they were separated on
>>>>>>>>shrinking "islands".  Population size does not necessarily correlate with
>>>>>>>>speciation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It is commonplace for a division of an infinite set to produce two
>>>>>>>pieces each identical in size to the original.  I will grant, though,
>>>>>>>that most observed biological populations are somewhat shy of aleph
>>>>>>>naught in size.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That is a mathematical truth, but as you say, not a biological
>>>>>>reality.  Unless your suggesting that some infinitely large
>>>>>>populations have been observed.
>>>>>
>>>>>Since I have observed only a limited number of populations, I was
>>>>>cautious in my wording.  In my usage, "most" means "well over 50%". If
>>>>>you suggest that the actual number might be 100%, well that is
>>>>>certainly well over 50%.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I applaud your effort to be cautious.  You did write "observed
>>>>biological populations", yet I infer from your reply that you have not
>>>>actually observed any infinitley large populations.  Perhaps you meant
>>>>to write "all biological populations", observed or otherwise?  
>>>
>>>Extrapolating from "observed populations" to "all populations" would
>>>be going out rather too far on a limb.  I would even be cautious about
>>>"all known populations" without having more data.  There is a universe
>>>of populations out there yet to be counted and, for the larger ones,
>>>you end up with the well known unsolvable halting problem.  
>>
>>
>>Then perhaps you meant to write that all observed biological
>>populations are not infinite.  But unless you mean that at least one
>>infinite biological population has been observed, ISTM that your
>>statement about observed biological populations is inaccurate.
>>
>>
>>>A particular biological issue arises when the population reproduces
>>>faster than you can count.
>>
>>
>>So has anybody observed any biological populations that reproduce
>>faster than can be counted?  Perhaps the real issue is with the
>>counting method and not the population.
>
>Hardly any biological population is actually counted.  There are
>techniques to estimate size.  Bacterial populations certainly
>reproduce faster than can be counted.  The issue is not where the
>problem lies -- something that cannot be measured cannot be discussed
>scientifically in quantitative terms.  If the measurement is
>necessarily only an estimate, then there must be checks and tests to
>indicate error bars on the resulting value. (Of course the error bars
>are themselves estimates!)


Most measurements are estimates with estimated error bars, explicit or
otherwise.  Outside of quantum physics, this is the first time I have
read anybody argue that imprecision necessarily implies unmeasurable
or uncountable.

Even if most biological populations are not actually counted, that
doesn't make them uncountable.  Of course then the counting method is
necessarily a part of determining uncountability in practice.  Unless
you're saying that bacterial populations are uncountable in principle.
Are you so saying?  If so, on what basis do you so say?


>Any discussion about particular numerical values for "all" vs "all
>known" or "all observed" populations that I can make is meaningless
>because I am do not know what those values are. However I can state
>with assurance that I am correct that "most observed biological
>populations  are somewhat shy of aleph naught in size."  


You conflate multiple issues.  Uncountable isn't the same as infinite,
and infinite doesn't apply to biological populations in practice.  And
you don't explain how your ignorance of their numerical values makes
any difference one way or the other.

If your statement, which you state with assurance, is isolated from
the context to which you applied it, then yes, it's technically
correct.  But you applied the concept of infinity to populations, in
order to describe the one case where a split into two parts still
leaves those parts infinitely large.  This is a property of infinity
by mathematical definition.  Unless you can identify a case of an
infinite (not necessarily uncountable) biological population, your
statement isn't relevant to the context to which you applied it, its
technical correctness notwithstanding.

From your reliance on this technical point, I infer you acknowledge
that your point about infinitely large populations, while technically
correct and even interesting, doesn't make any difference to the
context to which you applied it.


>To lurkers who may happen to notice this:  at least one of the two
>paragraphs above is serious.  The actual number of truly serious
>paragraphs is left to your discretion.


Perhaps the number of un-serious paragraphs multiply faster than can
be counted.