The method involves gathering the primary contenders, so called apex predators, the regional champions, and then playing them against each other to see who is ultimate warrior, the most dominant form of life in the sea.
The precursor to each match up involves gathering the current scientific data about these finalists to determine their strengths and weaknesses
Then each match up is customised although it usually involves
Finding out what the primary weapons and attacks are
Finding the primary means of defense if any
Finding out if there is are any escape tactics that can be employed
Finding out if these attack, defense or escape strategies can be successfully employed in the particular match up
Finding out if there are any key strengths or weakness such as the mammal's tooth weakness which can effect the match up.
OK, this starts to look like a methodology but you still have some huge gaps to consider. What will be your methodology for OBJECTIVELY rating each of your contenders against these criteria? What will be you methodology for ranking these criteria against each other? How will you ensure riogour in the collection of your initial data? What represents an adequate sample size? What formulae will you be using in your simulation (given that you're basing this on Deadliest Warrior I assume you will be performing a simulation)to see which criterion score trumps which other criterion score? You should not even begin to collect data until you've answered all those points because, if you do, you run the risk of designing your experiment to produce the desired outcome... which is exactly what you did?

And even then you have to understand you will not be proving who is the top predator. You will merely be proving who is the top predator according to your simulation. Simulation is like masturbation. It's convenient and fun but it's no substitue for the real thing... and often has an alarmingly different outcome.


Hmmm not so sure, they try to get as many scientific measurements as they can sometimes at great expense prior to making their determinations meaning I am not so sure you can write it off so flippantly.
Really?! Really?!!! If you honestly look at that program and think it comes close to a scientific aproach then I also recommend you check out Brainiacs. You should probably steer clear of Mythbusters because it might be a bit heavy going. Sorry I'm being sarcastic (I'm allowed to, I'm British, it's what we do) but these programs really aren't science, anymore that the search for Bigfoot or GhostHunters are. They're entertainment. Quite good entertainment, certainly, and I do quite enjoy them, but entertainment and nothing more.

Do you mean entropy as a measure of disorder or chaos or something else?
Again I was really just being flippant there but I meant a measure of chaos, or rather the negative of order. Physics says that everything constantly moves from a state of low entropy to a state of high entropy whenever possible. If you think about it that pretty much describes the life span of our universe, moving from an ordered, high energy singularity to a the cold dead and utterly disordered emptiness of an empty universe of infinite volume. There's a school of thought that says the whole of time is really just our perception of the universe moving along the inevitable axis of increasing entropy. That's the over-simplified, potted version but if you're willing to accept the premise that entropy always increases and time is the product of that function then: "entropy always wins"