So run your .exe, generate the data and prove to us that your model shows that n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures. The following does not qualify as a number of example outputs:
You silly lying fool, how many times are you going to repeat that statement instead of addressing the issue? Here is a list of posts where I explicitly either give you example runs or speak in detail about the workings of my program: #6401, #6516, #6568, and most importantly #6676. Since you have replied to each of those posts, I know you saw them. Thus your insistance that I haven not provided more information than the statement
I found a combination of parameters last night that led to over 100 pressures being faster than a single one, but I forgot what it was
is nothing more than rhetoric trash that is obvious to everyone.
My program does not show that
in reality n+1 selection pressures evolve more rapidly than n selection pressures. I have never claimed such a thing. I claimed that
in the context of the model I used n+1 selective pressures lead to a higher average amount of fixation.
How can you be so dense that you miss this point that has been made by both Adequate and myself time after time after time?
What our programs show is that adding sorting conditions does not slow down all sorting algorithms. We have both provided you with multiple sets of results. Take a look at www.jedi-arts.com/code/sims.txt for five sets of mine. When will you address this issue? Will you hide like a coward forever?
I’ve already done a parametric study of a peer reviewed and published model of random point mutations and natural selection.
Who cares? You can't use ev to research the effects of multiple selective pressures like you claim. Paul, the programmer of the simulation, has explained why in clear and easy to understand language. At best you can only look at 3 pressures at once, and they are not even independent pressures.
You need to do the parametric study for your own model.
I did. The results are at
www.jedi-arts.com/code/sims.txt. There are five examples, which is all my program requires to illustrate what it was intended to illustrate. All I need is a
single example anyway, but as it turns out, every run I make leads to the same conclusion.
The math is so simple even a drop-out like yourself should be able to handle it, Kleinman. When you only have one pressure, once its targets are fixed, nothing more can be done. If you add more, the amount they slow each other down is offset by the fact that you can work on fixing them all at once.
But you know all this already, and you know that your claim is wrong, so instead of addressing the issue here you will just dodge it.
You can then apply your logic to server software so that it runs faster the more users accessing the server.
THERE IS SUCH SOFTWARE YOU STUPID FOOL -- ITS CALLED DISTRIBUTED COMPUTING.
I can’t help if you are so steeped in evolutionist dogma that you can’t recognize what the ev model shows.
We know you can't. Someone that knew what they were talking about, on the other hand, would be able to help others see their point by explaining themselves.
Oh really, setting the weight factors to 10-1-1 instead of 10-0-0 completely refutes my claim? Why don’t you tell us what the other parameters you used when running these cases?
Using the default settings, it takes less than 20 generations to reach a perfect creature with 10-0-0. Using 10-1-1, it takes 316 generations. Ok. If your theory is true, then going to 10-10-10 will result in an "orders of magnitude" slowdown compared to 10-1-1. Except... with 10-10-10 it took 662 generations. That is merely double the time to convergence -- not quite "orders of magnitude" you genius.
And what is more... with 10-10-10 there is effectively three pressures where at 10-1-1 there was still effectively one -- a 300% increase. Yet it only took twice as long to converge, a 200% increase. So if we increased the number of pressures by 300% and convergence only took 200% longer...
THE RATE OF CONVERGENCE INCREASED.
We are not playing poker where you can bluff to win this debate, you have to produce the data and show how you obtained it.
Both Adequate and I have done so, in multiple posts. Your lies don't fool anyone.
I have done this with ev and what this data shows is that the number of selection pressures profoundly slow the evolutionary process. Real measurable examples of mutation and selection show the same thing.
Really? Then how do you account for the ev results I just showed you? Wait, let me guess.. something about the population size not being high enough, or the number of binding sites not being high enough.. whine whine. Here is a question -- do you have any data on 10-1-1 and 10-10-10 available? Surely you must have done runs using those two weight distributions...
