Spirituality
15 Sep 05
15 Sep 05
Evolution: The supposed change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
What are its requirements? Is it statistically possible?
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm sorry, what precisely are you asking? Presumably, evolution requires all sorts of things (e.g., a source of genetic mutation, preservation of at least some genetic mutations in offspring, various selection pressures, etc.). Of course evolution is statistically possible, after all, anything that in fact occurs has a probability of 1.
Evolution: The supposed change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
What are its requirements? Is it statistically possible?
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrI'm sorry, what precisely are you asking? Presumably, evolution requires all sorts of things (e.g., a source of genetic mutation, preservation of at least some genetic mutations in offspring, various selection pressures, etc.).
I'm sorry, what precisely are you asking? Presumably, evolution requires all sorts of things (e.g., a source of genetic mutation, preservation of at least some genetic mutations in offspring, various selection pressures, etc.). Of course evolution is statistically possible, after all, anything that in fact occurs has a probability of 1.
Yes, exactly the requirements I'm looking for.
Of course evolution is statistically possible, after all, anything that in fact occurs has a probability of 1.
Is it statistically possible for evolution (with all the requirement) to form a new species.
15 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseWhen you use the term 'species', are you employing the Biological Species Concept. Or, rather, are you using 'species' to refer to some nebulous notion of a natural kind?
I'm sorry, what precisely are you asking? Presumably, evolution requires all sorts of things (e.g., a source of genetic mutation, preservation of at least some genetic mutations in offspring, various selection pressures, etc.).
Yes, exactly the requirements I'm looking for.
Of course evolution is statistically possible, after all, anythi
Is it statistically possible for evolution (with all the requirement) to form a new species.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseO.K. Then, 'yes', speciation is statistically possible. That is, the probability of speciation having happend is greater than 0. Of course, any process that is nomologically possible will have a probability greater than 0.
Species in the Biological sense is good for me.
15 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by bbarrOkay. Isn't there a point above 0 where something is statistically considered unreasonable. Lke it is statistically possible that I might win the lottery with one ticket, but unreasonable that I would win it 20 times running.
O.K. Then, 'yes', speciation is statistically possible. That is, the probability of speciation having happend is greater than 0. Of course, any process that is nomologically possible will have a probability greater than 0.
15 Sep 05
3 edits
Originally posted by HalitoseOnly in a relative or Bayesian sense. That is, in the face of two possible explanatory stochastic processes which could have produced the observed outcome, under one of which the event occurs with probability .99, while it occurs with probability .01 under the other, in the absence of further information, it is unreasonable to conclude that the latter produced it while rejecting that the former produced it.
Okay. Isn't there a point above 0 where something is statistically considered unreasonable.
In an absolute sense, what is unreasonable is to find that a statistically unlikely but possible event cannot or did not happen. If such a finding were reasonable, then possibility would be a useless notion.
15 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by HalitoseYes, as Herr Doctor points out above. There are notorious problems with setting Bayesian prior probabilities, however. Anyway, how would you go about demarcating the logical space of probabilities germane to the question of evolution? You need to do this before you can draw any inferences concerning the likelihood that evolution has resulted in speciation.
Okay. Isn't there a point above 0 where something is statistically considered unreasonable. Lke it is statistically possible that I might win the lottery with one ticket, but unreasonable that I would win it 20 times running.
EDIT: Telerion is an authority on these matters. Hopefully he will contribute to this discussion...
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWouldn't one chance in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion be considered impossible?
Only in a relative or Bayesian sense. That is, in the face of two possible explanatory stochastic processes which could have produced the observed outcome, under one of which the event occurs with probability .99, while it occurs with probability .01 under the other, in the absence of further information, it is unreasonable to conclude that the latt ...[text shortened]... did not happen. If such a finding were reasonable, then possibility would be a useless notion.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseNo. 0 chances in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion would be considered impossible. That's just what impossible means in such discrete problems.
Wouldn't one chance in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion be considered impossible?
In the same way that (ten thousand trillion trillion trillion minus one) chances out of ten thousand trillion trillion trillion is not considered to be a certainty.
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by HalitoseThis question doesn't make any sense. Given a lottery with those odds, there will still be a winner. Prior to the lottery drawing, the proposition that any particular player will win will be massively improbable, but since there will be a winner of the lottery, the proposition that no particular player will win is false.
Wouldn't one chance in ten thousand trillion trillion trillion be considered impossible?
15 Sep 05
Originally posted by bbarrOkay. Here's my proposed framework in order to calculate the odds of mutation creating a new species.
Yes, as Herr Doctor points out above. There are notorious problems with setting Bayesian prior probabilities, however. Anyway, how would you go about demarcating the logical space of probabilities germane to the question of evolution? You need to do this before you can draw any inferences concerning the likelihood that evolution has resulted in speciation. ...[text shortened]... Telerion is an authority on these matters. Hopefully he will contribute to this discussion...
1. What is the chance of getting a mutation.
2. What fraction of the mutations have a selective advantage.
3. How many replications there are in each step of the chain of selection.
4. How many of those steps there have to be to achieve a new species.