General > Biology

Sharks and grass

<< < (2/17) > >>

Botsareus:
What about all the enzimes and specialization stuff , people have been writing a lot of chemistry latly; Does't it already do that?

Numsgil:
That would get my vote, but schvarz likes to cause trouble :pokey: :lol:

The final system probably won't be anything like 'contriubte points to carb digeston'.  It will be 'manufacture enzyme 23 because something in your stomach is using alot of enzyme 23'.

shvarz:
Think of enzymes and biochemistry as an investment.  If you are a big player (a cow), then the investment in enzymes is small change for you, but might give you a pretty good return.  You invest as much as you can and try to diversify.  But if you consistently don't get your money's worth, then even small change is better be kept for yourself.  So if a cow does not eat much meat, keeping meat-digesting enzymes is just not worth it - they will be lost during evolution.

On the other hand, if you invest in several companies and one of them suddenly starts giving better returns, then it might be a good idea to invest a little bit more into that company.  Not put everything in there, just adjust it a little.  This does not require evolution, just redistribution of resources.  It is called enzyme upregulation.

For small players, bacteria, the situation is a bit different.  They don't have that much money, so their investment stratregy is different - they invest in whatever is "hot" right now.  And quite often they put almost all their money in one company.  Give bacteria lactose, they will switch to using lactose, give it glucose, they will re-adjust and eat only glucose.

Now to Nums question, how we model it.  Same as I said before - have genes for digesting each food type (we should get three in v.3, right?).  Use counters to up-regulate those that are used more frequently.  Not a perfect solution, I can probably point out some weak points myself, but a step forward nevertheless.

shvarz:
I would love to get multiple enzymes and multiple food types!  But that would mean moving away from "gene-function" approach and that saddens me  :(

And yes, I do love causing troubles, you all should be greatful for that :boing:

Botsareus:
Shvartz we already are away from the "gene-function" approtch because mutation rates are not defined by dna. In another topic I have proven (more or less) that mutation rates dont work at all.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page