Code center > Suggestions

Sexual Reproduction

<< < (8/9) > >>

Numsgil:
Bots' DNA is somewhat phenotype in nature, which is what I'm getting at.  There isn't as strong a segregation between phenotype and genotype in Darwinbots as there is in real life.

shvarz:
Only as far as senses go.  The reaction to stimuli is storing values into memory location and there the phenotype is clearly separated from genotype.  Or am I missing something?

Numsgil:
Bot DNA is inherantly linear, with memory locations directly effecting the bot's behavior.

Real DNA is inherantly parallel, with all sorts of processes going on at once.  Proteins made in the DNA also stick around even after the transcription of that protein has stopped.

Real phenotypes are a result of all those proteins and their dosages interacting.

Bot phenotypes are the result of the values in memory at the end of a cycle.  There are no long term effects and the last store has far more power than the first store in deciding the action of the bot (even with additive stores).

I'm just not sure you can parallel the Bots' DNA and real DNA and use a solution that relies on parallelity that developed on a parallel DNA strand (real life).

Also, I'm not sure if you saw this post, I think I wrote it while you were replying.  Clicky.

shvarz:

--- Quote ---There are no long term effects and the last store has far more power than the first store in deciding the action of the bot
--- End quote ---

That's a good point, but I don't think this blurs the line between phenotype and genotype.  It only makes the phenotype to change so much faster.


--- Quote ---Bot DNA is inherantly linear, with memory locations directly effecting the bot's behavior.
--- End quote ---

Yes, and right now any gene that goes last is by definition dominant.  The additive store would be a step in the right direction then, because by default the genes are going to cooperate, not compete.  Only with the trickery they will become dominant and only those that go last.  I don't see it as a big problem, after all if bots choose to do this, then there is a need for the gene to grab all the power and that's OK.  Because of that we don't have "decide which one gets to go first and which one gets to go last."  By default it would not matter.

I want to point out that the additive store is already available through the same trickery.  So you could argue that if bots need it, then they can evolve it.  Yet I think that making the additive store to be default is the step in the right direction.


--- Quote ---I'm just not sure you can parallel the Bots' DNA and real DNA and use a solution that relies on parallelity that developed on a parallel DNA strand (real life).
--- End quote ---

With this I agree completely.  We need to make a list of what we think the goals of introducing a more detailed rules for "dominance" are and then go from there and pick the most sensible solution for those goals.

Numsgil:
That's probably a good idea.  My goal with introducing dominance and multi-ploidy is to allow large stretches of potentially functional DNA to remain in the population without being expressed.

A major drawback to most ALife sexual reproduction, in my eyes, is the use of haploid genomes only.  Creatures 3 is a good example of this.  It serves its purpose, but reverses the order of several actions.

In real life DNA during meiosis crosses over with itself inside the parent.  In ALife haploid sexual reproduction, the two parents' DNA crosses over against each other.

Assuming that it doesn't matter (which is obviously the decision made by many alife designers, and while I don't agree it's obviously good enough for most purposes) I think in DB the answer would be to use the current haploid DNA strand, perform the cross overs, and give each sex partner one of the two new DNA strand to decide what to do with it (should I make this into a baby or not).

Of course, doing this means that you can only simulate macroscopic sex.  Fusing two cells becomes a little more difficult, since you must pick one of the two new strands to use for the genome.  I guess you could just choose randomly.

The main advantage of diploidness I see is that it makes sexual reproduction in DB closely analogous to real life.  We wouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page