General > Biology
Sharks and grass
PurpleYouko:
--- Quote ---However! (and this is the second new part) Larger enzymes take more time and/or energy and resources to transcribe. As before enzymes are continually wearing out and needing to be replaced.
--- End quote ---
This still seems over complicated to me.
Just have a bunch of different specialization bits (enzymes if you like) that can be turned on or off. Possibly at different bit levels like you said.
Just keep it simple. You really don't need to model this at the molecular level. All we need are rules that allow for a form of specialization.
I see an enzyme as a switch which can possibly have several states (10 maybe as an example)
You have a bank of these switches (maybe 10 again but it depends on how many different paths the robots can feed by) but you can only spend x amount of specialization points on all of them combined. Imagine that x = 20. That leave a bank of 10, 10-state switches with a maximum amount of 20 total points.
If you bang up photosynthesis to 10 and then Nitrate (waste) metabolism to 5, you only have 5 more points to use elsewhere. Perhaps you might want to put those onto Sulfer metabolism so that you can survive near a smoker.
Successive generations could potentially lose the photosynthesis in favor of Sulfer and so become smoker specialists while others may move toward sunlight and lose the Sulfer specialization in favor of something else.
Thisnk of it as enzymes if you like but it is really just rules for how the bot is able to interact with the e-grid environment.
I really don't see the need to try and actually model real enzymes. It just seems pointless.
This method still leave a lot of specialization in the hands of the genes too.
Simple, easy, no hassle.
:D PY :D
Numsgil:
--- Quote ---You have a bank of these switches (maybe 10 again but it depends on how many different paths the robots can feed by) but you can only spend x amount of specialization points on all of them combined. Imagine that x = 20. That leave a bank of 10, 10-state switches with a maximum amount of 20 total points.
If you bang up photosynthesis to 10 and then Nitrate (waste) metabolism to 5, you only have 5 more points to use elsewhere. Perhaps you might want to put those onto Sulfer metabolism so that you can survive near a smoker.
--- End quote ---
Not to be critical, but everyone who's weighed in has shown distaste for this kind of system.
Do we want the simplicity to be all the way through, or just what's visible to the bots?
In my head, the large degree of complexity is in how the program interprets the enzymes. From the DNA's point of view, the system I'm thinking of would be very simple. Still as simple as a collection of numbers tagged on the end of the genome.
I'm all for modeling complexity. As the program becomes more and more figured out, new and interesting complexities are found in the interaction of simple parts. Many things I've added have given rise to interesting and novel interactions with existing parts.
shvarz:
I would not say complete distaste. I don't like the absoluteness of the "point system". I would modify the system so that the numbers in enzymes mean relative efficiency.
You can assign each enzyme as many points as you like, from 0 to 9 (0 meaning no enzyme at all, 9 meaning very good enzyme). Then you average all values and express them relative to the average. Things that come out around 1 should be your default efficiencies, barely workable (so that older bots still work), whatver is above 1 - become more efficient, below 1 - less efficient. This system actually incorporates your "pleiotropic fitness cost" theory much more than my "mutation accumulation" theory. But I am OK with it.
On top of these efficiencies we can also add counters - to increase/decrease efficiency even further.
Botsareus:
This fact still bugs me. Fact: Everything in biolagical life is passed on to offspring using DNA. They dont pass on binary data or anything like that.
More so:
How do you suppose we save a robot that evolved some kind of new enzime. Currently all robots are saved in .txt files [you]witch only have dna in them and some comments[/you]
Stuff like "hash" does not make sense to me and I delete it from the files anyway.
The buttom line:
I am not Neo from The Matrix I dont understand Binary code. (Maybe when I will learn assembly ill give it a shot) So dont make saved robot files hard to understand please.
Numsgil:
Okay, first of all, there are is some hereditary information that is passed without DNA. This is referred to as epigenetic inheritance.
Second, the hash function validates the mutations of your robot. Anything with '# at the start of the line helps to ensure that your bot really mutated and you didn't just make up mutations and pass them off as real.
Third, enzymes wouldn't be stored in binary. It would be stored in the much more compact form of hexedecimal. Last: yes, they'll just be tacked onto the end.
cond
start
stop
end
ENZYMES:
687A9D
1A567B
end
you get the idea. The idea is that you don't know what enzymes do. They're just numbers to you. I wanted people to run mutation sims looking for new, better enzymes.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version