RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Evolutionary Computation, Stuff that drives AEs nuts< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 11
Joined: June 2009

(Permalink) Posted: June 16 2009,19:51   

Quote (Zachriel @ June 16 2009,19:38)
Is that with maximum beneficial effect equal to one versus default? Fraction favorable is set very high.

Consider this. If we use the defaults, then no beneficial mutation becomes fixed, which is contrary to fact. Even if you believe species are ultimately doomed to genetic meltdown, it still means the default parameters or the program itself has a problem.

The first run (JSW507) has a maximum beneficial effect of 0.01, while the second run (JSW508) is set to the default 0.001. There's only one order of magnitude between the two runs.

Sanford seems to be willing to give on the accuracy of the default parameters for the program . . . which is odd, in that those are the parameters he defends as biologically realistic in his papers. I think there are enough wrong parameters (and possibly a completely wrong coding paradigm) that any couple of parameters could be fixed and the population would still show fitness decline.

At the moment, I'm leaning toward the idea that the program is broken . . . but hopefully we can get Dr. Sanford on TWeb soon enough and have some clear back-n-forth.


  419 replies since Mar. 17 2009,11:00 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (14) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]