FW: He continues to ignore the fact that his program uses severe truncation selection, something that does not occur in nature yet he continues to claim his program simulates nature!
What would be a more realistic selection process?
ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a fair question. First, the process should account for the various costs in moving a mutation. For example, even if a mutant receives a beneficial mutation, there is no guarantee it will survive to the next generation. Genetic deaths can occur due to random death, i.e. a rock falling on your head, being a prude, suffering a lethal mutation, being a homozygote when the trait is heterozygote advantage, and other costs (Haldane estimated there was probably only a 10% reproductive excess available to move favorable traits.).
So after a Ã¢â‚¬Å“beneficialÃ¢â‚¬Â mutation is added, go through and account for the genetic deaths. Keep track of the genetic load while you go. Keep track of each organismÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fitness, so when you apply Ã¢â‚¬Å“selectionÃ¢â‚¬Â you do proper probability calculations and not automatically eliminate the most unfit. For example, if organism A is 51% fit compared to the rest of the population, and organism B is 49 % fit, there still is at least a 49% chance organism B could survive when selection is applied across the population to meet some the pre-programmed goal for that generation (i.e. the goal may be to keep the population at a constant size every generation; or the program can be set to allow the population to grow at 1% per generation, etc. The point is, organism B could easily survive to the next generation, unless you apply truncation selection and remove him just because he was on the wrong side of the curve, albeit barely).
YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll be hard-pressed to see an evolutionist ever program a model like this, because they know it is doomed to fail, unless they use fantasyland assumptions like Schneider did and crank up the beneficial mutation rate to 50% and apply truncation selection.