|Wesley R. Elsberry
Joined: May 2002
I guess Sanford et al would argue that this problem isn't a big issue, since there's never a case in which there are loads (e.g. 90%) of beneficial mutations.
No, the problem is quantitative and not qualitative. If the program doesn't handle the 90% case correctly, it isn't handling the 0.001% case correctly, either. And we know that v1.2.1 did not handle it correctly. If you are going around claiming to have produced an "accurate" simulation, you are on the hook for that.
The 90% case just makes the error blatantly obvious.
Speaking of hypocrisy, how careful is Sanford in not making sweeping generalizations about biologists having gotten things wrong?
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker