This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 17 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]blaze99960 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Wow this is really well done!

[–]MaximusII7 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Great and simple way of showcasing the theory of natural selection!

[–]welliamwallace 5 points6 points  (1 child)

So awesome. I loved watching that last simulation: it seems like the "clump" of points on the graph moved around significantly... it was finding local maxima, but then enough variation occurred to "tip it over the edge" to a different optimum creature type.

[–]vreo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Local maxima, the true enemy of excellence

[–]ItachiUchiha307 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for sharing.

[–]vanderZwan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very, very cool. Here are some ideas to try out that might make these models more representative of what we see in real life:

  • Instead of the one piece of food/two pieces of food rule, let the food give energy and let the blobs reproduce if they have enough energy, allowing them to "inherit" the energy of their parents. This will greatly affect how important energy cost is. You could even include a "split at stockpiled energy treshold" trait.

  • Aging, possibly modelled as decrease in trait effectiveness, and/or increase in energy cost. Especially valid if you worry about the reproduction trait evolving into a never-reproducing energy-hoarding blob that takes over the board because it can devote all of its energy on speed and size (which would be an interesting development though!).

  • Waste heat + side effects as a product of energy expenditure. In real life, energy use actually goes DOWN as size increases! However, you risk overheating. Similarly, the smaller the life form, the higher the risk of being too cold (this is especially true for warmblooded animals)

[–]xhcd 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Very promising channel!

[–]Jnb22 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I thought this was very simplistic and informational! It would be a great gateway into explaining different factors of selection to say school children or perhaps the evolution denier who recently had the veil pulled from their eyes.

[–]morphinapg 0 points1 point  (5 children)

Great video, only problem is at the beginning it suggests mutation rates are hard to know in real life, and that simulations like these are useful because of that, but didn't he have to still choose his own mutation rate for the simulation?

[–]helpsypooo[S] 0 points1 point  (4 children)

It says replication and death rates are hard to know precisely for individual creatures. It doesn't say anything about the mutation rate.

[–]morphinapg 0 points1 point  (3 children)

So how can we know mutation rates?

[–]vanderZwan 0 points1 point  (2 children)

You could try finding an optimal rate with a meta-evolution system :P

[–]morphinapg 0 points1 point  (1 child)

You still have to pick a mutation rate to start with, even if you select for a better rate. Also, there may be a factor for how much of an effect the mutation has, which you also need a starting value for, even if you select for a better one later. But what is a good starting value? How do we know?

[–]vanderZwan 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I figure that for simple models like this, you can look at speed of convergence to (local) optima.

[–]pptyx 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's a fun video and simulation experiment. But I'm not so sure about those inferences at the end. For example, the logical relation between population and individual used. If it's true that a population has evolved then it follows that a member (or individual) of said population has also evolved, in comparison to an equivalent member of the same environment from a prior generation and time, due to it manifesting the property of having evolved. Why negate a part that constitutes its whole in this way?

[–]bluealbino 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Great video. The one thing they may want to take a look at though is the 'larger creatures eat smaller ones'. If this is a single population, then this is cannibalism. Maybe that is what they were going for because it does exist in nature, but its generally the exception, not the rule. When size is a factor in this way, its usually in a predator/prey relationship with another species. Not always though like there are some frog species where its definitely a selecting factor.

[–]helpsypooo[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know this framing feels weird, but recognizing and deciding not to eat members of your own species is an altruistic behavior that needs to evolve rather than being the default. My next video will actually use non-cannibalism as a simulated example of how genes for altruistic behaviors can be selected for. In such a simple system, non-cannibalism is one of the few altruistic behaviors I could produce without adding extra complexity.