Tim Tyler wrote:
> Anon. <
[email protected]> wrote
> or quoted:
>
>>Tim Tyler wrote:
>>
>>>Anon. <
[email protected]> wrote or
>>>quoted:
>>>
>>>>Jim McGinn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
[email protected] (friend) wrote in
>>>>>message news:<
[email protected]>...
>
>
>>>>>>Pardon my ignorance, but I have only just discovered
>>>>>>this law.
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Many of the more popular myths of the current paradigm
>>>>>of evolutionary biology pivot off a kind of rhetorical
>>>>>trick. Specifically the trick involves employing a word
>>>>>that has more than one meaning in an argument (or
>>>>>special case) to achieve the illusion of scientific
>>>>>validity. This is *all* that's going on with the Hardy-
>>>>>Weinberg, socalled, Law. And you hit the nail on the
>>>>>head with respect to which word is the "pivot" with
>>>>>respect to how this rhetorical trick is manifested in
>>>>>Hardy-Weinberg: randomness.
>>>>
>>>>Wierd. The Hardy-Weinberg law is deterimistic: there is
>>>>no randomness in it.
>>>
>>>The Hardy-Weinberg law is normally stated in a form that
>>>refers to a large population where mating is random.
>>
>>The theorem was derived for an infinite population.
>>
>>
>>>E.g. see:
>>>
>>>
http://library.thinkquest.org/19926/java/tour/06.htm?t-
>>> qskip1=1
>>>
>>>Alas, this page expresses the law in terms of an infinite
>>>population :-(
>>>
>>>A disasterous error - IMO - since talking about gene
>>>frequencies in an infinite population is a sign of
>>>mathematical ignorance.
>>
>>No, it's a simplifying assumption. I think to accuse Hardy
>>in particular of mathematical ignorance deserves, well, a
>>non-mathematician's apology.
>
>
> I never said the problem was at Hardy's end.
>
In fairness, Hardy does suppose "that the numbers are fairly
large". But, as we know know, in a finite population, there
will be an excess of homozygotes (because of inbreeding), so
H-W isn't correct (but a reasonable approximation if the
population is large).
>
>>>Popularisers should make explicit the behaviour is what
>>>happens as the population size tends towards infinity -
>>>and not attempt to pass it off as an effect in an
>>>infinite population.
>>
>>But it is - in finite populations, you get an excess of
>>homozygotes, as any student of population genetics
>>should know.
>
>
> Any mention of gene frequencies in an infinite population
> is nonsense - as I stated originally.
>
> You can't talk about a fraction of an infinite population
> having a trait. You would get different results for that
> fraction depending on how you enumerated through the
> population.
>
I don't understand what you mean, but by that argument, you
can't even define a fraction or a probability.
> It's like claiming that half the integers are even.
>
Err, they are. There are just rather a lot of them.
> Such statements are total mathematical gibberish.
>
> What *can* be said is that the fraction of the set
> of integers from to N that are even tends to 0.5 -
> as N => oo.
>
So what happens when N is infinity?
> No serious mathematician can talk about fractions of
> infinite sets and expect to be taken seriously.
But they do. It's how probability is defined as a concept. I
have a colleague who even wrote mathematical papers about
fractions of uncountable sets.
Infinity is a difficult concept (I know - there are lots of
it I don't understand), so I think one should be cautious
about making any pronouncements on it unless one is sure
about what mathematics does and does not say on the subject.
Bob
--
Bob O'Hara Department of Mathematics and Statistics
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of
Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile:
+358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW:
http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/ Journal of Negative
Results - EEB: www.jnr-eeb.org