the Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational belief-part - talk.origins

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion the Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational belief-part
Path: pr3ni2437pbb.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!usenet.stanford.edu!darwin.ediacara.org!there.is.no.cabal
From: chris thompson <chris.linthomp...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: the Theory of Evolution is a mathematically irrational belief-part
Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 12:00:22 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 123
Sender: n...@darwin.ediacara.org
Approved: robo...@ediacara.org
Message-ID: <1208e5fc-349a-40dd-969c-569e6b02c209@f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>
References: <lOednTmdXvIL_C3S4p2dnAA@giganews.com> <5915006.405.1336964252866.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynev2> <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>
NNTP-Posting-Host: darwin
Mime-Version: 1.0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 19:18:07 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: f30g2000vbz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=198.83.125.205; posting-account=FTt_9AkAAADT2O-_OEEbnJknHHccRAaY
User-Agent: G2/1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On May 15, 2:39 pm, 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.
>
> A particular biological issue arises when the population reproduces
> faster than you can count.

Even for small populations that reproduce slowly.

You reminded me of an undergraduate lab (Wildlife Management
Techniques) in which the professor told us ahead of time he was going
to flash a photo of a flock of birds in flight, and our task was to
estimate their numbers. Well, the photo he showed was Whooping Cranes
(probably the most closely counted species in the world- maybe
California Condors are first but you get it). The class estimates were
wildly disparate, and very few came close to the actual number. And
that's with looking at an enlarged photograph for about 10 seconds-
far longer than a flock of migrating birds would be right overhead.

Chris
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
