Goodness! Six pages of argument over something so simple to refute! Oy!!
Here, let me end this silliness once and for all.


Let's turn it into a simple logic problem. You have 2 urns: A and B which contain some numerical value within. There are two numerical values of (X) 10 and of (Y) 1 million, which you must connect to A and B in order to find out if A is greater than or less than B. You will do this by pulling a single numerical value (N) out of urn A.
IF N is greater than 10, THEN N falls outside the bounds of X, THEREFORE A must equal Y
ELSE IF N is less than 10, THEN N falls within the bounds of both X and Y, THEREFORE A = ?

if you suggest anything other than "inconclusive" you would be making an illogical statement. Regardless of probability or statistical likelihood, as long as A could be either X or Y, A cannot be either X or Y to the exclusion of the other. Without more information, there is no way around this. Sorry.


Nobody disputes that a small population is a population in danger. This does not mean you can take that population number, by itself, and suddenly start making predictions about extinction with it. The world doesn't work that way.