My computer simulation of evolution

[MarkE]

Several good (better!) examples on the internet, but an interesting exercise which gives a feel for:
- competition and extinction (sometimes in waves)
- adaptation within limits (in this case, within limits of program)
- different body shapes and motion evolve with different energy costs set

1. Bugs without energy cost based body size & motion: https://youtu.be/oEHHVbcns40?si=d1jwwlxVsn9HlE8A

2. Bugs with energy cost based body size & motion: https://youtu.be/GozinRa0NWo?si=OwJydbVpiRlO3TEs

3. Crazy crabs: https://youtu.be/AoF33UZ8_Yc?si=6N73koJQPkXM9LGl

This version is simple bugs and static food source only. In future I may try interacting bugs etc. Written in C++ with Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2022.

Enjoy.

[MarkE]

4. Run overnight, X-wings/space invaders (1440p HD): https://youtu.be/oIEotFSIN_E?si=nkC03HV9XD0fXz8a

Highlights the pleasing effect of bilateral symmetry.

[MarkE]

Simulations like this I think demonstrate microevolution...EN definition:

"Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant or animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Galápagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation." https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/

A fundamental contention in the evolution debate is, if microevolution, why not macroevolution?

The difference between the two? The argument is "genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information" vs "genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information", respectively.

Programming a genetic algorithm and watching even simple forms and behaviours "evolve" can give the appearance de novo creation of novelty and information. However:

"As much as many ALifers detest emphasizing their research’s applications, the quest to create artificial life could have practical payoffs, too. Artificial intelligence may be considered ALife’s more glamorous cousin in that researchers in both fields are enamored by a concept called open-ended evolution. This is the capacity for a system to create essentially endless complexity, to be a sort of “novelty generator.” The only system known [alleged] to exhibit this is Earth’s biosphere—an ongoing, multibillion-year evolutionary explosion of biodiversity that ultimately traces back to simple, single-celled ancestral organisms. If—or when—the field of ALife manages to replicate life’s inexhaustible “creativity” in some virtual model, presumably those same principles could give rise to truly inventive machines."

"Currently, in AI, “you can build these monstrous deep-learning systems, but at some point, these systems can’t learn anymore,” says Steen Rasmussen, an ALife researcher and physicist at the University of Southern Denmark. “What does it take for a system to continue to learn? Nobody knows.”"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/life-evolves-can-attempts-to-create-artificial-life-evolve-too/

[jillery]

On Wed, 11 Oct 2023 05:17:16 -0700 (PDT), MarkE <me22...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sunday, October 8, 2023 at 6:01:02?PM UTC+11, MarkE wrote:

>> On Saturday, October 7, 2023 at 10:26:01?PM UTC+11, MarkE wrote:
>> > Several good (better!) examples on the internet, but an interesting exercise which gives a feel for:
>> > - competition and extinction (sometimes in waves)
>> > - adaptation within limits (in this case, within limits of program)
>> > - different body shapes and motion evolve with different energy costs set
>> >
>> > 1. Bugs without energy cost based body size & motion: https://youtu.be/oEHHVbcns40?si=d1jwwlxVsn9HlE8A
>> >
>> > 2. Bugs with energy cost based body size & motion: https://youtu.be/GozinRa0NWo?si=OwJydbVpiRlO3TEs
>> >
>> > 3. Crazy crabs: https://youtu.be/AoF33UZ8_Yc?si=6N73koJQPkXM9LGl
>> >
>> > This version is simple bugs and static food source only. In future I may try interacting bugs etc. Written in C++ with Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2022.
>> >
>> > Enjoy.
>> 4. Run overnight, X-wings/space invaders (1440p HD): https://youtu.be/oIEotFSIN_E?si=nkC03HV9XD0fXz8a
>>
>> Highlights the pleasing effect of bilateral symmetry.
>
>Simulations like this I think demonstrate microevolution...EN definition:
>
>"Microevolution (variation) takes place through genetic drift, natural selection, mutations, insertions/deletions, gene transfer, and chromosomal crossover, all of which produce countless observed variations in plant or animal populations throughout history. Examples include variations of the peppered moth, Galápagos finch beaks, new strains of flu viruses, antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and variations in stickleback armour. Each year, thousands of papers are published dealing with examples of microevolution/variation." https://evolutionnews.org/2015/07/microevolution/
>
>A fundamental contention in the evolution debate is, if microevolution, why not macroevolution?
>
>The difference between the two? The argument is "genetic variation that requires no statistically significant increase in functional information" vs "genetic change that requires a statistically significant increase in functional information", respectively.

Stipulating for argument's sake the above is an accurate paraphrase of
the argument, the relevant distinction depends on the meaning of
"functional information". ISTM adapting to different ecological
niches would necessarily require "a statistically significant increase
in functional information". Yet the history of life is replete with
examples of generalized founder populations radiating into multiple
and radically different niches by the simple expedient of evolving
larger and/or smaller, ex. African antelope. Does size qualify as
"statistically significant"?

>Programming a genetic algorithm and watching even simple forms and behaviours "evolve" can give the appearance de novo creation of novelty and information. However:
>
>"As much as many ALifers detest emphasizing their research’s applications, the quest to create artificial life could have practical payoffs, too. Artificial intelligence may be considered ALife’s more glamorous cousin in that researchers in both fields are enamored by a concept called open-ended evolution. This is the capacity for a system to create essentially endless complexity, to be a sort of “novelty generator.” The only system known [alleged] to exhibit this is Earth’s biosphere—an ongoing, multibillion-year evolutionary explosion of biodiversity that ultimately traces back to simple, single-celled ancestral organisms. If—or when—the field of ALife manages to replicate life’s inexhaustible “creativity” in some virtual model, presumably those same principles could give rise to truly inventive machines."
>
>"Currently, in AI, “you can build these monstrous deep-learning systems, but at some point, these systems can’t learn anymore,” says Steen Rasmussen, an ALife researcher and physicist at the University of Southern Denmark. “What does it take for a system to continue to learn? Nobody knows.”"
>
>https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/life-evolves-can-attempts-to-create-artificial-life-evolve-too/

Not sure why the article links AI with ALife. My understanding is
these two computer applications have almost nothing to do with each
other.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

[MarkE]

Yes, I'm not aware of a useable and agreed definition of "statistically significant".

Also, a niche difference might be large (by some measure), but the evolution required need not be "statistically significant". For example, if say a point mutation in a fox reduced its size to allow it to go down rabbit holes, it could access a "radically different niche" utilising a change that is, by any measure, not "statistically significant". Galápagos finch beaks are real-world example of this, hence their categorisation as microevolution.

> >Programming a genetic algorithm and watching even simple forms and behaviours "evolve" can give the appearance de novo creation of novelty and information. However:
> >
> >"As much as many ALifers detest emphasizing their research’s applications, the quest to create artificial life could have practical payoffs, too. Artificial intelligence may be considered ALife’s more glamorous cousin in that researchers in both fields are enamored by a concept called open-ended evolution. This is the capacity for a system to create essentially endless complexity, to be a sort of “novelty generator.” The only system known [alleged] to exhibit this is Earth’s biosphere—an ongoing, multibillion-year evolutionary explosion of biodiversity that ultimately traces back to simple, single-celled ancestral organisms. If—or when—the field of ALife manages to replicate life’s inexhaustible “creativity” in some virtual model, presumably those same principles could give rise to truly inventive machines."
> >
> >"Currently, in AI, “you can build these monstrous deep-learning systems, but at some point, these systems can’t learn anymore,” says Steen Rasmussen, an ALife researcher and physicist at the University of Southern Denmark. “What does it take for a system to continue to learn? Nobody knows.”"
> >
> >https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/life-evolves-can-attempts-to-create-artificial-life-evolve-too/
> Not sure why the article links AI with ALife. My understanding is
> these two computer applications have almost nothing to do with each
> other.

I think it's mentioned (somewhat randomly, agreed) as an example of another category of artificial learning that so far has also proven to be not open-ended. (AI "learns" to combine large data sets with trainable algorithms; ALife "learns" to survive in an environment using genetic algorithms.)

[MarkE]

PS A non-creationist source questioning micro-to-macro: https://www.panspermia.org/neodarw.htm#micromacro

"Macroevolutionary progress such as the evolution of photosynthesis, on the other hand, requires wholly new genes with lengthy new instruction sequences. Whereas a new gene can be activated by a single point mutation, as mentioned above, there is scant evidence that new genes can be composed by Darwinian random point mutations and recombination events. Examples supporting this composition method are very few and weak."

Panspermia advocates HGT as a source of "statistically significant increase in functional information". That leaves the question, where did these genes comes from? From https://www.panspermia.org/comparison.htm: “Origin of life? Undemonstrated. Source of life? The cosmos. Origin of genetic programs? Undemonstrated. Source of genetic programs? The cosmos.“