Why Auto-Evo is Dead

What if we use El noumo's normal distribution evolution methods?
His Posts

~sciocont wrote:

What if we use El noumo's normal distribution evolution methods?
His Posts

*Facepalm*
Read before you post ~scio.

~sciocont wrote:

What if we use El noumo's normal distribution evolution methods?
His Posts

This

Bashinerox wrote:

A probability distribution is a form of statistics.

It is used for estimation


That post basically states how to estimate the distribution of given sets of already well-defined populations.

We don't have well-defined populations.

Unrelated statistics isn't going to help us here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_distribution

For instance, the probability distribution of a coin thrown infinity times is aproximately:

heads: 1/2

tails: 1/2

Also, there seems to be some major confusion on just what constitutes Darwinian evolution, and its difference to lamarkian evolution.

For purposes of simulation on a computer, the two are exactly the same, with the mere difference that darwinian evolution is random (or cross-bred) at the genetic level, whereas lamarkian evolution is directly guided.

For instance

Quote :

I can't see any reason why Lamarckian Evolution would be easier than Darwinian, it seems like the other way round. As for the Horribly evolved Organisms, as I said earlier, it can probably be compensated for.

Quote :

What do you mean when you say "Simple Environment"?

Using any Lamarckian system will require a large amount of code dedicated to a recognition system.

The latter post especially, is just wrong, and misunderstands the concept of programming altogether. Which is dissapointing, as it comes from a so-called coder.

BOTH systems need a "recognition" system, or more correctly, discreetly defined environment variables to determine efficiency in the case of darwinian model, or progress, in the case of lamarkian model.

A lamarkian model measures progress of a creature from its birth to its child's conception, and a darwinian model measures the creature's survavability to pass on it's genes

You don't escape defining all possible incomes and outcomes, no matter which way you skin the cat.

That means listing everything that can possibly affect a creature or population including, but not limited to:

Spoiler:

As i said, this applies to both systems. Regardless of weither you direct mutation, the environment still needs to test against conditions. Otherwise, what causes a creature to die?

And while i'm on this topic,

The more environment variables you apply, the more possible it is to make a realistic evolution model, but at the same time, the more complex everything gets.

It all needs to be balanced, tweaked, to stop something from blowing up.

Has anyone played an MMO?
Just about every single MMO has a broken currency system. people barter for things at like 10,000,000,000,000,000 credits. And economy is alot simpler than EVOLUTION..

You cant just come up with a bunch of variables and link them together willy nilly. It all needs to be balanced properly, or nothing works.

When you're talking trillions of variables involved in real evolution, you're takling alot of freaking tweaking. (which is why we will never have something like The Matrix. We simply cannot create such a system, even given unlimited computing power. And no, we cannot have an AI create it for us, because we cannot create such an AI for the very same reason. But back on topic.)

Even down do thousands or even hundreds of variables things get out of hand.

So it's not just a matter of coming up with such a system, it's getting it to work. defining everything in a way that will work.

Not to mention the performance hit everytime you introduce something new to sample, especially when it is sampled per-creature as in a darwinian evolution model which usually involves some genetic sequence crossing.

Speaking of which, having enough creatures to make a believeable environment means that we cannot use a full rigid-body dynamics system seen in programs such as framsticks, simulating possibly thousands of creatures each with part numbers ranging upwards of tens or twenties. that's ~15,000 seperate items to calculate, not to mention the whole rest of the game. And tweaking such a system is a nightmare.

So, "realistic physics" is out of the question. Which cuts a big chunk out of environment tests to perform on creatures. which means we are limited to less "accurate" creature performance criterion.

Trust me, i've thought about this alot, I'm not simply saying "This seems hard guys" without truly understanding the underlying problem. It's because i DO understand exactly what this involves that I am saying that it's insane.

I have an auto-evo idea that's based on posts I read:
Darwinian ftw!
Idiocy aside, this can be very simple. All we need is a breeding engine, and we are good to go. The children will have slight differences from parents, and ones with bad mutations will die, killed by other creatures, since the other creatures will have evolved better. The only disadvantage is a funnily great memory requirement to store all the varieties.
EDIT: Also, no 100kb algorithm required for evolution alone. Happy? True, we will need a way to code the random changes, but my idea is far simpler than those already proposed, and it could be very good if implemented correctly.

Darkgamma wrote:

I have an auto-evo idea that's based on posts I read:
Darwinian ftw!
Idiocy aside, this can be very simple. All we need is a breeding engine, and we are good to go. The children will have slight differences from parents, and ones with bad mutations will die, killed by other creatures, since the other creatures will have evolved better. The only disadvantage is a funnily great memory requirement to store all the varieties.
EDIT: Also, no 100kb algorithm required for evolution alone. Happy? True, we will need a way to code the random changes, but my idea is far simpler than those already proposed, and it could be very good if implemented correctly.

Did i not just explain exactly what is wrong with these very posts?

Are you a troll?

READ ALL POSTS BEFORE SUBMITTING A REPLY

Bashinerox wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:

I have an auto-evo idea that's based on posts I read:
Darwinian ftw!
Idiocy aside, this can be very simple. All we need is a breeding engine, and we are good to go. The children will have slight differences from parents, and ones with bad mutations will die, killed by other creatures, since the other creatures will have evolved better. The only disadvantage is a funnily great memory requirement to store all the varieties.
EDIT: Also, no 100kb algorithm required for evolution alone. Happy? True, we will need a way to code the random changes, but my idea is far simpler than those already proposed, and it could be very good if implemented correctly.

Did i not just explain exactly what is wrong with these very posts?

Are you a troll?

READ ALL POSTS BEFORE SUBMITTING A REPLY

I had read every single post, and have been reading this thread for the last four days.
If you have a better auto-evo idea, please, post it.

Darkgamma wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:

I have an auto-evo idea that's based on posts I read:
Darwinian ftw!
Idiocy aside, this can be very simple. All we need is a breeding engine, and we are good to go. The children will have slight differences from parents, and ones with bad mutations will die, killed by other creatures, since the other creatures will have evolved better. The only disadvantage is a funnily great memory requirement to store all the varieties.
EDIT: Also, no 100kb algorithm required for evolution alone. Happy? True, we will need a way to code the random changes, but my idea is far simpler than those already proposed, and it could be very good if implemented correctly.

Did i not just explain exactly what is wrong with these very posts?

Are you a troll?

READ ALL POSTS BEFORE SUBMITTING A REPLY

I had read every single post, and have been reading this thread for the last four days.
If you have a better auto-evo idea, please, post it.

You have got to be kidding me.

Bashinerox wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:

I have an auto-evo idea that's based on posts I read:
Darwinian ftw!
Idiocy aside, this can be very simple. All we need is a breeding engine, and we are good to go. The children will have slight differences from parents, and ones with bad mutations will die, killed by other creatures, since the other creatures will have evolved better. The only disadvantage is a funnily great memory requirement to store all the varieties.
EDIT: Also, no 100kb algorithm required for evolution alone. Happy? True, we will need a way to code the random changes, but my idea is far simpler than those already proposed, and it could be very good if implemented correctly.

Did i not just explain exactly what is wrong with these very posts?

Are you a troll?

READ ALL POSTS BEFORE SUBMITTING A REPLY

I had read every single post, and have been reading this thread for the last four days.
If you have a better auto-evo idea, please, post it.

You have got to be kidding me.

Yes, every single post : P
Is it so hard to believe?

Darkgamma wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:

Bashinerox wrote:

Darkgamma wrote:

I have an auto-evo idea that's based on posts I read:
Darwinian ftw!
Idiocy aside, this can be very simple. All we need is a breeding engine, and we are good to go. The children will have slight differences from parents, and ones with bad mutations will die, killed by other creatures, since the other creatures will have evolved better. The only disadvantage is a funnily great memory requirement to store all the varieties.
EDIT: Also, no 100kb algorithm required for evolution alone. Happy? True, we will need a way to code the random changes, but my idea is far simpler than those already proposed, and it could be very good if implemented correctly.

Did i not just explain exactly what is wrong with these very posts?

Are you a troll?

READ ALL POSTS BEFORE SUBMITTING A REPLY

I had read every single post, and have been reading this thread for the last four days.
If you have a better auto-evo idea, please, post it.

You have got to be kidding me.

Yes, every single post : P
Is it so hard to believe?

Yes, because he just explained why that's too complex.
What if we could cut down on thenumber of mutations and the variables in the environment? Say each time a creature reproduces that you don't see, it produces three types of offspring that directly tweak one variable- one stays the same, one lowers the variable, one heightens the variable, and the computer randomly chooses between the three which one will survive? We could even cycle what type of variable is tweaked in between generations. This way, each species will have one variable change every generation, unless the computer decides to "split" a generation so that more species could evolve. That would only rely on code for determining
A:which sections of share code can be modified (which doesn't even have to work very well, really)
B:dice roll (which one will survive)
C: cycles of modification and splitting

I know it's still pretty complex due to the sheer number of creatures, but we could also cycle what's getting evolved. We could retire a species from evolution for a while, then make it go through a rapid series of generations with mutations, simulating punctuated equilibrium.

Okay, can I make a suggestion?

Everything that happens on screen should not be part of auto-evo, with the exception of the induvidual you control. All induvidual creatures will have no effect on their survival. Their purpose is gameplay, not auto-evo. We are not calculating a number of organisms. We are calculating likelyhood of survival. The game may keep track of how many survive and how many die, and concider these in the equation, but this is not the defining factor of survival, and weird as that sounds. If auto-evo only kicks in with each jump forward made, and only uses the gameplay sessions as data-collection beforehand, this should cut down on calculations and simplify the whole mess, right? Or am I being stupid again?

Also, Darkgamma: Really? He just explains in detail why Darwinian is impossible and you just blurt that out? Even if that's your honest opinion, did you really expect that to go over well?

~sciocont wrote:

What if we could cut down on thenumber of mutations and the variables in the environment? Say each time a creature reproduces that you don't see, it produces three types of offspring that directly tweak one variable- one stays the same, one lowers the variable, one heightens the variable, and the computer randomly chooses between the three which one will survive? We could even cycle what type of variable is tweaked in between generations. This way, each species will have one variable change every generation, unless the computer decides to "split" a generation so that more species could evolve. That would only rely on code for determining
A:which sections of share code can be modified (which doesn't even have to work very well, really)
B:dice roll (which one will survive)
C: cycles of modification and splitting

I know it's still pretty complex due to the sheer number of creatures, but we could also cycle what's getting evolved. We could retire a species from evolution for a while, then make it go through a rapid series of generations with mutations, simulating punctuated equilibrium.

Sorry for the double post.

So, I actually really like this model. However, as I said in my previous post, don't count the induviduals, count the species.

Also, that gave me an idea. Would it be easier to have a seperate auto-evo for the player, so as to react more intimately with player actions?

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

What if we could cut down on thenumber of mutations and the variables in the environment? Say each time a creature reproduces that you don't see, it produces three types of offspring that directly tweak one variable- one stays the same, one lowers the variable, one heightens the variable, and the computer randomly chooses between the three which one will survive? We could even cycle what type of variable is tweaked in between generations. This way, each species will have one variable change every generation, unless the computer decides to "split" a generation so that more species could evolve. That would only rely on code for determining
A:which sections of share code can be modified (which doesn't even have to work very well, really)
B:dice roll (which one will survive)
C: cycles of modification and splitting

I know it's still pretty complex due to the sheer number of creatures, but we could also cycle what's getting evolved. We could retire a species from evolution for a while, then make it go through a rapid series of generations with mutations, simulating punctuated equilibrium.

Sorry for the double post.

So, I actually really like this model. However, as I said in my previous post, don't count the induviduals, count the species.

Also, that gave me an idea. Would it be easier to have a seperate auto-evo for the player, so as to react more intimately with player actions?

Yeah, I think I did point out that this model was to run in the background.
actually, I can simplify this even more by having the diceroll go first, then modifying the code. It only makes sense. I think the player's evolution should be handled by either direct edits or a direction editor of sorts.

~sciocont wrote:

Yeah, I think I did point out that this model was to run in the background.
actually, I can simplify this even more by having the diceroll go first, then modifying the code. It only makes sense. I think the player's evolution should be handled by either direct edits or a direction editor of sorts.

I'm not sure I like that idea, the player only using direct edits/direction editor I mean, but if all organisms are using the same code stucture, I'll roll with it on the assumption that player evolution will be added in a later prototype.

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

Yeah, I think I did point out that this model was to run in the background.
actually, I can simplify this even more by having the diceroll go first, then modifying the code. It only makes sense. I think the player's evolution should be handled by either direct edits or a direction editor of sorts.

I'm not sure I like that idea, the player only using direct edits/direction editor I mean, but if all organisms are using the same code stucture, I'll roll with it on the assumption that player evolution will be added in a later prototype.

I think that's the best way to assure the player a good chance of becoming intelligent, which is the only real "goal" we have.

~sciocont wrote:

I think that's the best way to assure the player a good chance of becoming intelligent, which is the only real "goal" we have.

Again, I'm fine with it so long as player action based evolution is something we add later. I think it will be easier to design than non-player species (NPS? NPR?<--Lol)auto-evo, but it shoulf be further down on our list given the fact that we actually have an alternative, while the auto-evo under discussion here has no possible substitute.

What about tapping on the collective knowledge of the community to do the fuzzy logic of evolution?

Implement an unnatural selection method (eg, pick-a-mutant-to-be-your-mate or even very limited creature editing at each generation) and store a snapshot of each creature's evolutionary step.
This would be shared as a whole bundle instead of scattered iterations like spore's fail pollination
system did. Perhaps give the players a way of branching these evolutionary sequences into whole trees which would contain dozens of snapshots like the tree of life.

Then use the interpretative stats which I mentioned on my working model brainstorm to determine which creature fits on which enviroment to populate the planets. Instead of having to run an algorythm to create new mutants it'd just move on to the next suitable snapshot as time passes.

You people honestly do not take me seriously, nor have you read what I had suggested. May I rephrase:
We do not need a reckognition system for Darwinian. When a child is born, the game randomly modifies, "mutates" some of its values, and when the child grows up and gets eaten/killed (or doesn't, if it dies during childhood), it doesn't pass on its genes, while its brother with better mutations would survive and pass on his genes. Of course, it will only happen in the vicinity of the player, so no simulation of such evolution on the far side of the continent. We will probably need a reckognition system for the type of enviroment, not individual elements, to place premade creatures into it. So, no furry creatures in the sea.
Please, stop labeling me a troll and an ignorant fool, and read what I had written, carefully. If it's nonsence, state that politely, like a classical human.

Djohaal wrote:

What about tapping on the collective knowledge of the community to do the fuzzy logic of evolution?

We don't have the servers to do that (i.e. share so many creations automatically), and creatures would not evolve(or appear to), but merely warp in the system you just described.

Darkgamma wrote:

You people honestly do not take me seriously, nor have you read what I had suggested. May I rephrase:
We do not need a reckognition system for Darwinian. When a child is born, the game randomly modifies, "mutates" some of its values, and when the child grows up and gets eaten/killed (or doesn't, if it dies during childhood), it doesn't pass on its genes, while its brother with better mutations would survive and pass on his genes. Of course, it will only happen in the vicinity of the player, so no simulation of such evolution on the far side of the continent. We will probably need a reckognition system for the type of enviroment, not individual elements, to place premade creatures into it. So, no furry creatures in the sea.
Please, stop labeling me a troll and an ignorant fool, and read what I had written, carefully. If it's nonsence, state that politely, like a classical human.

Listen.

We need a system that will allow apparent evolution for all species on the player's world. We cannot use darwinian. It has been done in many simulations. In all cases, the results are almost identical because there are only so many variables we can program into a game. In most cases, locomotion involves a basic hopping or random flailing. Creatures don't evolve in ways that are pleasing. One simulation had the fitness setting being having a high center of gravity. Most organisms put through the test did not maintain a high center of gravity for an extended period, but found ways to flop over so their center of gravity was still reasonably high.

Darwinian will not produce interesting results for the majority of our player base. It will produce simplistic, ugly, annoying organisms. We need a system that looks like evolution, without producing the same cowflops that actual evolution sims do. And one that doesn't take days of calculating to create noticable changes when mutating every generation, as most evo-sims do.

Now, onto another issue. Physics: I want them. Or at least something like them. Obviously we won't have an engine as complex as would be nessicary for total realism, but I want something basic. Something to show why, say, bipedal locomotion, especially the humanoid kind, is so ineffecient. Something to show agility in organisms vs. clumbsiness. Is this possible?

Darkgamma wrote:

You people honestly do not take me seriously, nor have you read what I had suggested. May I rephrase:
We do not need a reckognition system for Darwinian. When a child is born, the game randomly modifies, "mutates" some of its values, and when the child grows up and gets eaten/killed (or doesn't, if it dies during childhood), it doesn't pass on its genes, while its brother with better mutations would survive and pass on his genes. Of course, it will only happen in the vicinity of the player, so no simulation of such evolution on the far side of the continent. We will probably need a reckognition system for the type of enviroment, not individual elements, to place premade creatures into it. So, no furry creatures in the sea.
Please, stop labeling me a troll and an ignorant fool, and read what I had written, carefully. If it's nonsence, state that politely, like a classical human.

Classical you say?

Please to be referring to the second page of this here website by which i specifically stated that vague descriptions, without intention of elaboration to the finest of details, are not a helpful means of contributing to this thread. Quoted thusly in ironic response to one owns post:

Bashinerox wrote:

In great detail.
Everything needs to be mapped out, not just

"well it should do this and this"

And i don't mean respond to that with

"well it should do this and this and this and this and this"


HOW does it do "this and this and this and this and this"?

Furthermore, please refer to the post stating that one cannot produce a program without discreetly stating anything and everything.

for example. If we have a model that doesn't calculate anything at all,

all creatures have the same position
all creatures have the same health
all creatures have the same everything

lets just say that all that happens to the creature is one randomly dies.

That means that the game is a black screen with text on it saying:

Code:

A creature died.
A creature died.
A creature was born.
A creature died.

If we don't reference specific variables, using specific mathematical constucts, our program doesn't do anything.


And before you say "Don't take me so literally"

I'm sorry but the computer takes me literally. I can't just talk vaguely to it and expect shit to happen.

Furthermore,

DarkGamma wrote:

All we need is a breeding engine, and we are good to go.

What breeding engine?
Please elaborate.

DarkGamma wrote:

...and it could be very good if implemented correctly.

That's exactly what we need. An implementation.


Not yet another idea for a darwinian implentation, but an implementation.

If you think that your slightly reworded idea for an implementation works awesomely, feel free to write an implementation for it.

Djohaal wrote:

What about tapping on the collective knowledge of the community to do the fuzzy logic of evolution?

Implement an unnatural selection method (eg, pick-a-mutant-to-be-your-mate or even very limited creature editing at each generation) and store a snapshot of each creature's evolutionary step.
This would be shared as a whole bundle instead of scattered iterations like spore's fail pollination
system did. Perhaps give the players a way of branching these evolutionary sequences into whole trees which would contain dozens of snapshots like the tree of life.

Then use the interpretative stats which I mentioned on my working model brainstorm to determine which creature fits on which enviroment to populate the planets. Instead of having to run an algorythm to create new mutants it'd just move on to the next suitable snapshot as time passes.

Crowdsourcing, you say? Hmmm... I like crowdsourcing, and it has proved to be very useful in business (Local Motors, a car company that crowdsources all of its designs), science (earlier this year, scientists were able to model a protein very accurately by letting people play a game in which they were able to manipulate a model of the protein to wrap it up) and other things. The problem with crowdsourcing for something like this is that we'll definitely have trolls, but that's okay because that will add diversity. The other thing is that we need an actual crowd. That means a lot of outreach work.

Also, Bashi, did you see my suggestion? I'd just like to know what you think of it, it seems pretty straightforward to me, but you're the expert. (I realize I haven't said the "how", but I'm waiting for some feedback before I extrapolate.

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

~sciocont wrote:

What if we could cut down on thenumber of mutations and the variables in the environment? Say each time a creature reproduces that you don't see (and not just one creature, this applies to a generation of a species, meaning all of the next generation get the same mutation(s)), it produces three types of offspring that directly tweak one variable- one stays the same, one lowers the variable, one heightens the variable, and the computer randomly chooses between the three which one will survive? We could even cycle what type of variable is tweaked in between generations. This way, each species will have one variable change every generation, unless the computer decides to "split" a generation so that more species could evolve. That would only rely on code for determining
A:which sections of share code can be modified (which doesn't even have to work very well, really)
B:dice roll (which one will survive)
C: cycles of modification and splitting

I know it's still pretty complex due to the sheer number of creatures, but we could also cycle what's getting evolved. We could retire a species from evolution for a while, then make it go through a rapid series of generations with mutations, simulating punctuated equilibrium.

Sorry for the double post.

So, I actually really like this model. However, as I said in my previous post, don't count the induviduals, count the species.

Also, that gave me an idea. Would it be easier to have a seperate auto-evo for the player, so as to react more intimately with player actions?

Yeah, I think I did point out that this model was to run in the background.
actually, I can simplify this even more by having the diceroll go first, then modifying the code. It only makes sense. I think the player's evolution should be handled by either direct edits or a direction editor of sorts.

Bashinerox wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Djohaal wrote:

The Uteen wrote:

Grrr..... Grrrrrrr.......... Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr............. Woof.

Organisms change randomly, they don't think 'Hey, I need to reach high fruit, my offspring need to be able to have longer necks, longer legs, climbing skills, or something else to reach that fruit. Wow, cool! All my offspring now have one of these abilities, and no other changes at all!'

These mutations in the genetic code are random! Random! Not suited! That's why there is so much diversity! Things change in many ways, some mutations are not beneficial, these ones die. Some are neither unbeneficial or beneficial, they just make the organism unique, these cause diversity. Some survive better, these cause their prey to undergo natural selection, not all mutations are beneficial, but those that are survive better.


So what is realistic?

Changing in ways that are beneficial, therefore offspring only survive better.
Changing randomly, then the better survive, the worse die.


So unnecessarily programming the game to be an evolutionarily helpful Big Brother is pointless if we want to simulate proper evolution!

Grrr.... Huff.... Huff.... Bag.... Sigh...

And doing the equivalent of going into the editor and randomly editing sounds good... But people probably wont want to see this visually... Just a loading screen/cutscene. But what if they continue to play as the parent when they have offspring? That will break the 'seamless gameplay' a bit... Let's just get auto-evo going, for now. We need a working code, then worry about this. Wait, what was I angry about earlier? Oh yeah.... Grr... Hang on, where did I leave that bag...

This discussion would flow better if you didn't roleplay while posting.

Also you fail to realize that coding natural selection is a task of immense complexity?

Er... Bad mutations die, stronger mutations live. That will happen anyway, you are more likely to survive if you have a beneficial mutation.

And how do you propose ew determine that?

Random permutations on a data structure is trivial.

Determining what those permutations have done is not.

"Evolution simulators" as they are called, are bundled with a physics engine, a nueral net and a small world that physically tests the agent's ability to survive. We cannot do that at the same time as running an entire game world. Not to mention that adaptability is only as complex as the environment. Most of these simulators will, as Djohaal said, bail out to the nearest "loophole" as a three joint agent is orders of magnitude more efficient than what would be known as a vertebrate.

If you don't provide a full physics-based simulation for the whole game world (which we can't do for performance reasons.)

Then you have to have some other way to account for efficiency,
The proceeding has already been stated as an idea, and funnily enough, been both said to be "lamarkian" and hailed as a good idea, depending on the wording:

You account for everything in the code.
If longer necks means more food from trees, you account for that. you hardcode that event into the engine. Along with everything else.

Which, funnily enough, is mathematically EQUIVALENT to directly "advancing" an organism in a known direction.

in fact, since we can at best perform a heuristic on the surrounding environment, all creatures within close proximity will evolve exactly the same.

And, since we are performing a heuistic, creatures won't be fully suited to their environments visually anyway.

There are many, many factors which need to be taken into account, and I have only scratched the surface.


And for the last time, "Evolving according to an environment" DOESNT. MAKE. SENSE.

Computers aren't fuzzy logic.

You cannot just say "make this better"

make what better?
what, in fact, IS BETTER?

You have to define better. The computer hasn't got a fucking clue what better is. "Better" has no meaning to a computer.

WHAT!?!?

I didn't say the computer needs to know what the difference between a good and bad mutation is! I said good mutations live, bad ones die! The computer doesn't have to make this happen, it should happen by itself!





Right, let me put this to you all very simply. Follow me so far? Good.

Now, you have two organisms, one has completely randomly evolved a longer neck than the other. Completely random, it could just as easily gained bigger feet instead, or more fur.

The computer has nothing to do with choosing whether the neck is longer or shorter. It doesn't work out what is beneficial. This is RANDOM.

The computer just sees this as an alteration in the share code (or whatever equivalent we have now).

The organisms try to get fruit from a tree that is higher up. The one with the longer neck is more successful, because it can reach more.


Now, the one with longer neck gets more food than the other. Therefore, the nutrients from the food get used to make it more healthy, and it would generally have a longer lifespan - because it can evade predators easier, it has more energy, and it is more healthy overall.

That is the key - more food = more fitness. Both of those mean a generally longer life. Longer life = more offspring = more long neck DNA passed on.


So... The computer doesn't need to know anything. It could have given them more fur instead, that could have made them get hotter more easily. That would mean they need to cool down more, therefore, they shall be less successful evading predators and at finding food. They would die out.


So what exactly is the problem? Just make random variations in the share code. Simple predator & prey situations, naturally occurring competition for food, and the fact that longer lives = more offspring will do the rest.

Sorry if I seem very aggressive about this, it is just I appear to not be getting my point across.

Also, what did happen to share codes? I haven't heard a word about them in ages, and making a random change to the share code, not a complicated programming code, could simplify some of this stuff a bit.

And thus I conclude.

I'm taking care of that post, Bashi.

Quote :

I didn't say the computer needs to know what the difference between a good and bad mutation is! I said good mutations live, bad ones die! The computer doesn't have to make this happen, it should happen by itself!

YES, IT DOES. THE COMPUTER IS RUNNING THE SIOMULATION. YOU CANNOT HAVE A VIDEO GAME IN WHICH A COMPUTER DOES NOT RUN THINGS. THE GAME IS HAPPENING ON THE COMPUTER, THE COMPUTER MUST KNOW EVERYTHINTG THAT IS GOING ON AT ALL TIMES.

Quote :

The computer has nothing to do with choosing whether the neck is longer or shorter. It doesn't work out what is beneficial. This is RANDOM.

The computer HAS to know what happened to the creature, because the computer is what gave it the longer neck mutation in the first place.

Quote :

Now, the one with longer neck gets more food than the other. Therefore, the nutrients from the food get used to make it more healthy, and it would generally have a longer lifespan - because it can evade predators easier, it has more energy, and it is more healthy overall.

That is the key - more food = more fitness. Both of those mean a generally longer life. Longer life = more offspring = more long neck DNA passed on.


So... The computer doesn't need to know anything. It could have given them more fur instead, that could have made them get hotter more easily. That would mean they need to cool down more, therefore, they shall be less successful evading predators and at finding food. They would die out.

THE COMPUTER HAS TO SIMULATE ALL OF THIS FOR IT TO HAPPEN.
You can't just say "Oh somewhere one of this lizard's forty offspring is going to have six legs, which helps it move around. But the computer doesn't know that." This is a computer game. if the computer doesn't know it, it DOESN'T EXIST.

Uteen, come on. Let's all calm down and think about this logically. The bottom line is that we CANNOT REALISTICALLY SIMULATE ACTUAL EVOLUTION. End of story. Done. We need a simpler system that's going to LOOK LIKE EVOLUTION.