> No I don't think you are missing anything, and I think this is exactly the
> point.
> I don't like the word evolution. It gives us the impression that we are
> somehow really clever and adapt to our surroundings.
> I prefer the term evolution through natural selection. This suggests we
> mutate randomly and nature / environment picks the winners and losers.
> The evidence of the game supports the latter theory rather than the first.
> On Monday, April 9, 2012 9:09:43 AM UTC+1, Rickert wrote:
>> In order to evolve, the animals have to go through a long period of
>> time, such as 5 million days. In the book, it is written that the
>> animals evolve because of the surrounding environment. Meanwhile, the
>> inheritance and mutation are determined by random function:
>> (defun reproduce (animal)
>> (let ((e (animal-energy animal)))
>> (when (>= e *reproduction-energy*)
>> (setf (animal-energy animal) (ash e -1))
>> (let ((animal-nu (copy-structure animal))
>> (genes (copy-list (animal-genes animal)))
>> (mutation (random 8)))
>> (setf (nth mutation genes) (max 1 (+ (nth mutation genes)
>> (random 3) -1)))
>> (setf (animal-genes animal-nu) genes)
>> (push animal-nu *animals*)))))
>> How can this randomness correlate with the evolution of the animals,
>> which involves the environment surrounding it? Genes generation and
>> mutation are completely random, and has nothing to do with the jungle
>> or the plants. Or am I missing something?