Darwinbots Forum

General => Biology => Topic started by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 12:09:33 PM

Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 12:09:33 PM
In discussions about specialization it has often been mentioned that certain species spcialize in eating certain types of food and can't switch to others.  One of the examples was shark, which cannot suddenly learn to eat grass if meat becomes unavailable.

Cows eat only grass, wolves eat only meat, some bacteria survive only on certain and very rare chemical compounds, which can be found next to active volcanoes.  But ability to digest and extract energy from different things cannot be likened to distributing some "points" between different categories.  It cannot be stated that cows gave all their "feeding points" to grass and there was nothing left to give to meat.  In fact, cows could have meat-digesting enzymes.  But why bother?  They don't hunt anyway.  Take a bear - it can eat almost anything - meat, fish, berries, mushrooms, eggs, garbage.  Is bear worse in digesting meat than a wolf?  No.  Is it worse in digesting mushrooms than a squirrel?  No.

The real specialization does not come in form of enzymes - it comes in form of different behaviours and different strategies to find food.  If you can find food in abundance - the enzymes will come.  Here is an example with humans.  Originally the enzymes that digest milk were only present in babies - to digest mother's milk.  Adult humans could not digest milk.  Then they learned to grow cows and obtain milk from them.  As a result, a mutation appeared that allowed adults to digest milk.  Now it is present in majority of population and only some unfortunate people don't have it.  Availability of food lead to appearance of enzymes.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Zelos on March 10, 2005, 12:21:58 PM
cows eat meat, they have seen a cow kill a rabit and eat it, honestly. and shvarz, I think it will be that later
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 01:09:04 PM
"They" must have been on crack :)
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Zelos on March 10, 2005, 01:42:27 PM
nope, they just hadnt all the proteins they needed, but they are in meat, so they eat meat to get it
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 10, 2005, 04:41:39 PM
Cows will eat anything.

Scrap Iron, other cows (mad cow disease) etc.  They aren't the smartest animals around.

Meat is relatively easy for all animals to digest, but plants are very difficult.  They require alot of mechanical breakdown and redigestion upon redigestion.

How would you propose we model something like this in DB?

And at what level does multicellular strategies no longer work on unicellular levels?
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 10, 2005, 04:46:10 PM
What about all the enzimes and specialization stuff , people have been writing a lot of chemistry latly; Does't it already do that?
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 10, 2005, 05:19:22 PM
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'.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 05:31:52 PM
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.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 05:34:28 PM
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:
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 10, 2005, 05:39:06 PM
Shvartz we already are away from the "gene-function" approtch because mutation rates are not defined by dna. In another topic  (http://s9.invisionfree.com/DarwinBots_Forum/index.php?showtopic=146) I have proven (more or less) that mutation rates dont work at all.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 06:12:05 PM
I don't see any proof of that mutation rates don't work at all.  I certainly see them working in every single sim I run.  As for rates being defined in genes.  That is a small sidestep and I can overlook that, especially because you can set the rate to be very low and use .mrepro when necessary to get high rates.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 10, 2005, 06:19:54 PM
Thats because I manualy set the best mutation rate (witch I got from the best bot from the run before) to all the new bots in the new run. It simply does not work , the not mutating virsions of the bot win. (yet again) Maybe the mutation rates are case specific and do not apply as "the best mutation rates for all bots".
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 10, 2005, 06:25:53 PM
Quote
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.
More than three, I think we'll have close to 20 energy types in 3.0.  Some organic, some inorganic.  THen you can set what substances are available through the sim, so you can run general or very specific simulations.

The counter idea is pretty much what I'm thinking.

Each enzyme has something that counts how often it is used by things in the stomach.  If something is using alot of one enzyme, the bot will produce more of that enzyme automatically.

However, on top of this autotomic system the DNA can override any of the default actions.  So if you are smart enough to know that you'll be getting more of a certain substance soon, you can stimulate your stomach to produce more enzymes as if that substance were already in your stomach.

There are still a few issues to work out, but that's the basic system in a nutshell.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 06:39:36 PM
20 energy types?!?!  When are we getting this, again?  We wants it  :boing:  :boing: NOW :boing:  :boing:
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 10, 2005, 06:39:40 PM
Earlier, Shvarz said
Quote
Adult humans could not digest milk. Then they learned to grow cows and obtain milk from them. As a result, a mutation appeared that allowed adults to digest milk. Now it is present in majority of population and only some unfortunate people don't have it. Availability of food lead to appearance of enzymes.

This is what I have been saying. While it should be possible for some robots to eat most things, they should never be able to eat everything from the start.

New enzymes need to be available only by mutation.

I really don't like the idea that a robot could be able to produce ALL of the possible enzymes. That would put us right back where we are now. Everything would become a complete and utter omnivire.

 :(  PY  :(
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 10, 2005, 06:42:44 PM
I am thinking the same way about it as PY.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 06:42:49 PM
No it will not.  Think about it.  If you have a system where gene=enzyme, then if you are not using the enzyme for survival, the gene is going to mutate into something useless and you won't even notice it.  Also, if you are spending energy to make enzymes that you don't need, then you are wasting energy - this will be selected against.  Evolution would sort it all out.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 10, 2005, 06:46:35 PM
"No it will not" and then he starts explaining what PY just proposed. Its the govt. or a skeptic man.

Quote: "then if you are not using the enzyme for survival, the gene is going to mutate into something useless and you won't even notice it."

Exactly what happens in Py's system


Quote: "Also, if you are spending energy to make enzymes that you don't need, then you are wasting energy - this will be selected against. Evolution would sort it all out.

Exactly what happens in Py's system
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 10, 2005, 06:48:48 PM
Bots, can't you read - PY said that all bots will be omnivorous.  I said NO, unused genes will be mutated and the bot will not be able to eat that stuff anymore.  THEREFORE, it will NOT be omnivorous.  Do I have to spell this out everytime?
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 10, 2005, 06:57:41 PM
The problem (as Py sees it I imagine, and to a lesser degree myself) is that there is no incentive to be anything but an omnivore.

I agree with everything you've said schvarz, but we should add some kind of incentive to selectively use enzymes.  Maybe the more you produce an enzyme the cheaper it is to produce.

That would be a rather passive method.

A more active method is to make enzymes cheaper to produce or work better the fewer types you have in your stomach.

Either would (I think) work.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 10, 2005, 07:23:41 PM
Num it will work fine in the system by Shvartz , better , we can try bouth systems just to prove that it will work fine in any, (Just save a backup copy of the Project)

Then we can see if PY+NUM system works better then SHVARTZ system.

I dont know so I am not taking sides.

Ok lets do an example picture of how Shvartz method and Num+Py method are the same:

lets say enzymes or whatever are A,B,C, and D

In nums method there are  1 of A 3 of B 2 of C 4 of D (too lazy to rewrite in %)

In Shvartz method its

Start
D '1
C '1<---
A '1  
D '2
B '1
C '2 <---
D '3
B '2
B '3 <--
D '4 <--
Stop

Math Time

3 = 3
4 = 4
2 = 2
1 = 1

cya later alegater  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 15, 2005, 11:31:56 AM
Quote
we should add some kind of incentive to selectively use enzymes


There would be:  using all enzymes requires upkeep, using only some requires less upkeep.

Quote
Maybe the more you produce an enzyme the cheaper it is to produce.
and
Quote
A more active method is to make enzymes cheaper to produce


seem the same to me.  But both are reasonable.

Quote
work better the fewer types you have in your stomach


This I don't like.  Does not make much sense.  It should be the other way around - the more different enzymes you have, the easier it it is to digest stuff made from several kinds of compounds.  Imagine dissasembling a car using only philips screwdriver (even if you have a hundred of them) - not an easy task :)
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 15, 2005, 12:03:47 PM
Okay, this is really driving me nuts!  I keep seeing different posibilities that make different methods work better than others.

Can anyone find a link on why some animals are omnivores and some specialize.  I know generally why, but I don't understand the mechanics of it.  If an herbivore finds a dead animal, why doesn't it eat it?  Try to find resources for unicellular organisms, because on the macroscopic scale things like teeth make a huge difference.

I'll follow whatever resources we can find.  Post the links.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 15, 2005, 12:13:23 PM
I still prefer all this stuff to be completely invisible to the robot and to the DNA.

I don't like the idea of having to actively produce specific enzymes as this implies that all robots are capable of making all of the available enzymes.

I like the system that Num suggested way back.

It uses a series of "bits" in a particular pattern to designate enzyme production systems that are on or off in a particular robot. If a bit is on then the robot can digest that kind of food, if not then it can't.
The bits can be set in the start of the DNA file just like custom variables for engineered bots but will mutate to different forms with successive generations.

Multiple bits set for a particular food type will double or triple specialize for greater efficiency but at the cost of losing other bits for different food types.

Using this system, existing robots (withouyt this bit pattern) will be automatically adjusted by the program. A fighting bot will become a specialized carnivore while any robot with the autotroph box checked will become a specialist veggie, able to take energy from waste (nitrates from the e-grid) and sunlight.

No DNA commands to store enzymes.
No genes to keep track of.

ALL behind the scenes and only effected by engineering design or mutation.

Simple, Easy to use, uncomplicated, Doesn't mess up old bots!

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 15, 2005, 01:18:40 PM
Hmm, I did a bit of research in this question.  Here are a couple of links to papers that deal with this stuff, but they are pretty tough for non-biologists:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...bmedid=15289609 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15289609)
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlere...bmedid=15150419 (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=15150419)

Basically we were both correct.  There seems to be two major hypothesis on how specialization develops, and there are cases supporting each of them.

Hypothesis one (Shvarz): Specialization through mutation accumulation.  Organism can have as many genes as they want and improve them as much as they want, but those genes that are rarely used will accumulate bad mutations and disappear.

Hypothesis two (Nums and PY): Specialization through pleiotropic fitness costs.  If organism gets better at doing something, this automatically leads to it being unable to do something else.

So, there is no clear answer.  Both seem to be happening.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 15, 2005, 01:40:16 PM
Thanks Schvarz, I'll plow through them later when I have some time.  It's good to know we're both right.  Everyone gets a pat on the back!

My hypothesis is really a subset of yours, so I think we can do both at the same time, and see what develops.

Maybe we can even write up a paper in a few months on our experiments in DB with:

Pleiotropic and Mutational Accumulational Effects on Artificial Life Forms in Darwinbots - A Case Study

:P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 15, 2005, 02:15:22 PM
Okay, I've had a brainstorm.  Something you said, Schvarz.  Can't remember exactly what it was.

Okay, before I had an idea of having a fixed limit on the number of bits an enzyme could have.  32 was what I had.

Imagine that there is no limit.  The enzymes can get as big as they want.  Larger enzymes are more likely to get multiple functionality (if you don't understand why, go back to the other posts I had explaining my bit enzyme system.  I'm afraid I can't find the post right off the top of my head).

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.

How does that sound?  I think that works marvelously.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 15, 2005, 03:16:56 PM
Okay, found this article (http://www.brucelipton.com/fractal.php) on the computational power of cells.

Which has me thinking...  What if we allow more enzymes or mechanics as the surface are of the bot increases?

Any mechanic that needs to, in some way, access the outside of the bot has to take up physical space on the outside of the cell.  We could define the amount of space a mechanic takes up.

Read the article to see where I"m coming from.  I think this could be an interesting area.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 15, 2005, 04:44:32 PM
No, that guy is a looney.  He ignores one huge difference between biological computers and hardware computers - cells don't take information in bits.  In biological computers it is almost never 0 or 1.  Instead, they are more like quantum computers, but even more vague and parallel-processing.  They give values that range between 0 and 1 and depend upon other values.  Size rarely matters.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 15, 2005, 04:59:50 PM
:pray:

If you say so.

:P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 15, 2005, 05:38:57 PM
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.

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
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 15, 2005, 05:54:49 PM
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.

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.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 15, 2005, 06:19:06 PM
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.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 15, 2005, 08:29:56 PM
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.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 12:13:04 AM
Okay, first of all, there are is some hereditary information that is passed without DNA.  This is referred to as epigenetic inheritance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 16, 2005, 11:04:52 AM
What if you want to design a bot?  Or you evolved a bot and want to know what exactly it developed?  I'm with bots on this.

The way I would do this is to choose an arbitrary number of possible enzymes that we want to have, say 32, then just take necessary functions and assign them to the some enzymes.  Say enzyme 1 allows photosynthesis, enzyme 2 allows use of waste and so on.  For now not all enzymes would have functions, but we'll assign these when necessary.  The quality of enzyme would be described in a number from 0 to 9.  Then all enzyme section of genome would be a string of 32 numbers:
42847093028743028474....  so on.

We'll need a fancy mutation for this string.  For one thing, getting from 0 to 1 should be VERY rare (after all, we are talking about creation of a totally new enzyme).  Then, most mutations should change the numbers only by 1, but with some frequency we should allow big mutations too.  Finally, we need to incorporate my "mutation accumulation" hypothesis, which relies on the fact that most mutations are bad.  So, mutations should be scewed to change values down more often than up.  That's how I would do that.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 11:28:49 AM
Give me a minute and I'll write up exactly what I'm proposing into a text document.  I think you'll see the simplistic beauty of what I'm thinking.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 16, 2005, 12:30:07 PM
one more thing, If you just going to " tack onto the end" the Enzymes. Why not do so for mutation rates as well? (Now in 2.35 after I see the robot I like: I have to open its mutation rates , press printscreen and save the mutation rates in a seporate black'n'white bmp; Then when I create a new simulation I have to manualy enter the mutation rates from the bitmap , ITS ANNOYING AS HELL < HELP )
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 16, 2005, 12:33:31 PM
I and Shvartz bouth agree that we must be able to see and edit everything about the robot manualy (I like the "see" part more , love to see what a computer thinks up) So If you write a document Num , please share it with all of us , not only with Shvartz.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 12:34:34 PM
The document is up over at the suggestions forum.

Or you can click on me (http://s9.invisionfree.com/DarwinBots_Forum/index.php?showtopic=187&view=findpost&p=281811)

Bots, we could do that, it wouldn't be too hard at all.  I guess the thinking before was that mutations are a product of the environment and not the bot itself.  Silly thinking... :P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 16, 2005, 12:37:28 PM
thx Num
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 16, 2005, 12:53:10 PM
Yes I kind of like the idea that the mutation rates could be tacked onto the end (or the start) of the DNA files.

I also like what Shvarz is saying. It seems very similar to the idea that I outlined above. The main difference being that I envisioned keeping the specializarion points at exactly the same level (gain one here. lose one there)

I'm gonna have a read of Num's idea now.

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 16, 2005, 01:04:02 PM
Bots, could you explain what you mean by mutation rates?

Quote
Now in 2.35 after I see the robot I like: I have to open its mutation rates , press printscreen and save the mutation rates in a seporate black'n'white bmp; Then when I create a new simulation I have to manualy enter the mutation rates from the bitmap


This confuses me so much, I don't even know where to start ask questions.  What are you talking about here?
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 16, 2005, 01:07:40 PM
It is just that the only way to find a robot's mutation rates after it has been mutating a while is to go to the mutations control panel and read them off.

Bots is printing this panel (as a bitmap) then using the saved robot file in another sim with the same mutation rates that it had before.

Each robot has a different set of rates (in case you didn't know that)

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 16, 2005, 02:05:19 PM
You guys are killing me...  Each robot has different mutation rates?  Where did that come from?  How do you go to mutation control panel?  Where is it? WTF????????? :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:  :banghead:
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 02:15:33 PM
(http://img167.exs.cx/img167/8317/panel6bz.jpg)

Click on that button called mutation rates.  Your changes only affect the current bot.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 16, 2005, 02:22:45 PM
You surely mean "current species of bots"?  Not individual bots?
Jeez.....  you scared me  there for a minute :blueblob:

These rates are not that important and one thing they don't reflect is fitness of your bot, that is for sure.  It is silly to copy them just because you got a good bot by using these particular settings.  It is just as silly as using a particular set of dice simply because you've thrown them eleven times and got 1,2,3,4,5,6,5,4,3,2,1
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 16, 2005, 02:26:19 PM
silly shvartz all silly , my life so sillly (ehm)

Shvartz in the simulation each bot develops its own individual mutation rates. Run a simulation for a while , then click on a robot and see its mutation rates , they will be probebly different from another robot in the simulation.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 16, 2005, 02:28:21 PM
Each Species has its own unique mutation system , more so , some part of the dna might mutate with one rate , the other part with a different rate. But thats just real life.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 02:31:50 PM
There's something in the mutations panel called 'rate of change of mutations rate'.  I'm not sure, I haven't looked at the code for it, but I think this changes the rates for the individual.

And yes, the mutations panel at the options screen effects the species, not the individuals.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 16, 2005, 02:42:57 PM
Num, [you]all rates[/you] are set the same for the whole species in the biggining of the simulation, and then change specificaly for each individual during the simulation.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 16, 2005, 02:58:14 PM
Quote
You guys are killing me... Each robot has different mutation rates? Where did that come from? How do you go to mutation control panel? Where is it? WTF?????????

Yes! You did hear me right! Now read my lips carefully.
Each individual robot has its very own set of mutation rates.


Quote
Num, all rates are set the same for the whole species in the biggining of the simulation, and then change specificaly for each individual during the simulation.

Bots has got it right here.

Initially, the rates effect the entire species but each robot mutates as an individual including the rate of change of mutations.
After a few generations, each and every bot has a totally different set of mutation rates than all the others.
They are stored in an array known as "mutarray" as a subset of each robot's personal characteristics.

As Bots has figured out, the only way to access this is to right click a robot and select "mutation rates" from the list. This will give you a readout of the individual mutation rates of the robot which are completely impossible to save to any file (other than a complete sim save) so the only way to record them is to grab the screen and print it from an art program or import it as a picture into Word or something equally labor intensive.

It would be a really good plan to have this information tagged to the end of the DNA text file so that when you save the DNA of a mutated robot, it will come through as part of it.

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 02:58:38 PM
Yes Bots, but the posibility for change are defined (I think) by the 'rate of change of mutations rate'.

Which is what I was getting at.

(This was answered even better by PY above).
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 16, 2005, 03:01:06 PM
No that is just the possibility that the mutation rate of a specific parameter will change in that particular robot, NOT the species.

Try running a sim with mutation set high (something like 100 or lower) for a few minutes then pause it and right click a few bots. They will all (most anyway) have different rates in the DNA mutations panel.

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 03:03:44 PM
To be honest I've never even tried right clicking on robots to see their mutations rates.  You learn something new every day :P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 16, 2005, 03:10:28 PM
Even I discover new stuff about DarwinBots that I was unaware of now and then.

Carlo sure made this little program of ours complex.

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 16, 2005, 03:36:10 PM
The only qustion now is were is shvartz? and how will he react to this?
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 16, 2005, 03:46:57 PM
Well there is the million dollar question.

At least he isn't in Hawaii any more. perhaps he has som real work to do. A bit like I have in a few minutes time.

 :(  PY  :(
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 03:51:01 PM
Haha, that 'real' work.  Just an illusion of the evil Anti-Bot God.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 16, 2005, 04:15:53 PM
Jeez....  I am in severe need of "shooting myself in the head" emoticon.....
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 16, 2005, 04:20:21 PM
This actually makes many of the Bots' previous posts much more normal.  Before I thought that he was on crack  :lol:
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 16, 2005, 04:31:04 PM
... I only take legal drugs shvartz...
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 16, 2005, 05:18:20 PM
You can't get very high on Advil

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Numsgil on March 16, 2005, 05:27:32 PM
Not that any of us have tried :rolleyes:  :wacko:
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: AZPaul on March 19, 2005, 01:07:03 PM
I'll get in on this.

Quote
Initially, the rates effect the entire species but each robot mutates as an individual including the rate of change of mutations.
After a few generations, each and every bot has a totally different set of mutation rates than all the others.
They are stored in an array known as "mutarray" as a subset of each robot's personal characteristics.

Why would you want to do this?  Mutation rates are determined, for the most part, by environment and affect all populations and species in the same way. Only in those rare instances where a mutation has occurred in the "proofread/repair" cascade of the genome (either in the DNA itself or in the Mitocondrial RNA that make the cascade protiens) will you find a significant mutation "rate" change for the offspring of that individual, if it lives long enough to procreate.  In reality, the mutated allele difference between me and my parents is not significantly different from the the mutated allele difference between me and my son.  It is the sexual shuffel of whole genes that give the more significant differences. Excess radiation, mutagenic chemicals (dioxin, DDT), viral insertion etc. are the major vectors of mutation "rate" change and are environmental. Transcription error, gene slicing/splicing are internal vectors of mutation but do not show significant rates of change in their occurance from species to species let alone from individual to individual within a species.  All in all the mutation rate for my sister's daughter does not differ significanly from my son's rate (except for environmental vectors).

I want to control the rate of mutation for the whole environment. By species is fine since that allows me to set a very low rate for my test Bots (allowing sexual selection to alter the population) while leaving others to mutate as a control. I do not want the internals of the hidden program changing rates on it's own. This is not real.

Ranting can feel so good.  Thanks for the ear.

-P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: AZPaul on March 19, 2005, 02:08:14 PM
To continue.

I've read some things in this thread that disturb me (re: enzymes and digestion). Please do not go off on some lamarkian tangent. Disuse or use of specific capabilities in the genome do not affect the offspring's acquiring those capabilities.  The abundance or scarcity of a food source will not affect the genome passed on to my offspring.

If the gene for the digestive enzyme is present then the food will be digested. If not, it won't, no matter how abundant the food source is generation to generation.
If a mutation (determined at random) just happens to bring in the new enzyme then the individual and it's offspring can digest the new food. If such a mutation does not occurr the new food is useless to the individual and it's offspring for all generations to come.  The presence of a new food does not, and in simulation should not, cause the mutation to happen. If it happens it happens, if not then it won't.

And I guess I don't understand the controversy over the level of the enzyme present. In real living cells the enzyme (if coded for) is present. The level of the enzyme is (usually) moderated through a complex series of proteins (another protein cascade). If the level of enzyme is too low (as determined by the protein sequences coded from the DNA) then the cascade results in more enzyme being produced.  If the level is too high then the cascade eases and less (or none) of the enzyme is produced. The basal levels of enzymes are determined in the DNA and are not affected by the long term presence or absence of the foodstuff within the individual nor will it affect the basal level of the enzyme as coded for in the DNA I pass on to Junior.  Just because I eat more Food-A does not cause any increase in my base level of digestive enzyme-A. Quite the opposite. It decreases the level of enzyme-A causing the controlling protein cascade to kick into gear. And unless there is a beneficial mutation (determined at random, not determined by any environmental attribute) the basal level will not change from generation to generation.

Any thoughts of some lamarkian effects on the mutations or operations of DB/DNA Bots in simulation need to be excised out, summarily executed, creamated and the ashes scattered over a dung heap to be forever forgotten.

OK. Enough fun. I got some real work to do.

Again, thanks y'all for letting me rattle on.

-P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 02:15:59 PM
I feel like  :pokey: <----- this guy

I am having a nervius brake down here:  :unsure:

P.S.

Yes Yes , AZPaul is right, next we will tackel the qustion of "Lets get rid of all mutation all Completely.

BTW

If you remove the separate mutation rates for each robot I will officially stop using the new versions of the program.

How about this idea AZPaul, I wana know how mutch you hate it:

When you save a mutated robot Dna file, you will save its own seporate mutation rates as well, so I dont have to do bloody screen shots , and save bitmap pictures of each bloody Dna rates


Now lets conclude this (pure ununderstandable stupidity)

Quote
[you]I want to control the rate of mutation for the whole environment.[/you] By species is fine since that allows me to set a very low rate for my test Bots (allowing sexual selection to alter the population) while leaving others to mutate as a control. I do not want the internals of the hidden program changing rates on it's own. [you]This is not real.[/you]

He has no idea what real is , I wont explain because everyone on this board thinks I am Un-comprehend-able when I write.

The only thing the inv. gives us is radiation. Each little object on the planet reacts to this radiation the way it wants.

Its not the other way arround: The radiation is the god of all ,and it tells all weather it should mutate a second head , or a third foot.

Quote
Why would you want to do this? [you]Mutation rates are determined, for the most part, by environment and affect all populations and species in the same way. [/you]Only in those rare instances where a mutation has occurred in the "proofread/repair" cascade of the genome (either in the DNA itself or in the Mitocondrial RNA that make the cascade protiens) will you find a significant mutation "rate" change for the offspring of that individual, if it lives long enough to procreate. In reality, the mutated allele difference between me and my parents is not significantly different from the the mutated allele difference between me and my son. It is the sexual shuffel of whole genes that give the more significant differences. Excess radiation, mutagenic chemicals (dioxin, DDT), viral insertion etc. are the major vectors of mutation "rate" change and are environmental. [you]Transcription error, gene slicing/splicing are internal vectors of mutation but do not show significant rates of change in their occurance from species to species let alone from individual to individual within a species.[/you] All in all the mutation rate for my sister's daughter does not differ significanly from my son's rate (except for environmental vectors).

I dont know where the hell did he learn that B.S. but I think its not from making his own mutation simulators , thats for sure.

Quote
Transcription error, gene slicing/splicing are internal vectors of mutation but do not show significant rates of change in their occurance from species to species let alone from individual to individual within a species.

I don’t know , but we cant model any molecular level dna even with 2.15Ghz possessors , If you want to model real life join a biology school like Shvartz.

Quote
All in all the mutation rate for my sister's daughter does not differ significanly from my son's rate (except for environmental vectors).

Yea but what happens on level difference between bacteria and a person, I think you will find significant changes of how Dna mutates here.

Yea but who is going to listen to Bau this days , especially on a Saturday
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 02:19:22 PM
:shoot: DO NOT REMOVE THE SEPORATE MUTATION RATES FOR EACH ROBOT

 :shoot: IF YOU WANT TO IMPROVE ON THE GENERAL MUTATION RATES CONTROL, BUT I THINK THAT WILL MAKE THE PROGRAM TOO UNREALISTIC

SO mutch blubs dam it:

 :shoot:  :blueblob:  :blueblob:  :blueblob:
 :shoot:  :blueblob:  :blueblob:  :blueblob:
 :shoot:  :blueblob:  :blueblob:  :blueblob:
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 02:23:24 PM
Quote
The presence of a new food does not, and in simulation should not, cause the mutation to happen. If it happens it happens, if not then it won't.

But what if switching to a new food is more Efficient in a situation? Now you will say lets ban all the different situations, so everything is boarding plain and simple like it is now.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 02:29:28 PM
Quote
The basal levels of enzymes are determined in the DNA and are not affected by the long term presence or absence of the foodstuff within the individual nor will it affect the basal level of the enzyme as coded for in the DNA I pass on to Junior.

If that was true , we would of died out as bacteria when all the Methane  ran out in the atmosphere. But we did not , we evolved....
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 02:32:38 PM
Quote
Any thoughts of some lamarkian effects on the mutations or operations of DB/DNA Bots in simulation need to be excised out, summarily executed, creamated and the ashes scattered over a dung heap to be forever forgotten.

Are you saying that mutation is bad, and the whole Dna concept of math mixed with biology is bad.
That’s it PY I had enough of this crap, the thread can stay, but this posts need to go, go, go.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 02:35:09 PM
You know what from now on I will stop posting and just watch Db turn into another stuped mindless video game.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 02:40:27 PM
Anyone like a new Legislation for America, to ban Computer Geeks , Video Games , and go communist to make all Scientific research top secret?

Martin thats you? Some CR kid thats You? Are you doing this just to piss me off more?

Thats I am not posting here for a while.

AZPaul , Join shvartz , now we have two Agents

No , No , this kid is from Sony, Sony is afraid of competition.

PY , if I dont see this tread cleaned up or somthing , I will give up on DB, I still have 2.35 I can remake for myself, No one did any De-OS on me, good luck with that...
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: shvarz on March 19, 2005, 03:14:19 PM
AZ, don't mind Bots.  He's a local ...  super-active guy.

In general your comments are quite sound.

1. Individual mutation rates.  These are not, of course, determined by environment.  But they also don't differ that much between different individuals.  Mechanisms responsible for replication of DNA are very conserved and are unlikely to change in a single generation.  That's why I was confused when people told me that each bot has a different mutation rate.  But on the other hand, I don't mind if bots do have different mutation rates - the default rates were not set based on some logic, they were just arbitrarily picked.  So if they are too high, then then evolution may adjust them accordingly.  So it's not a big problem.  

2. Lamarkism.  Don't worry, we are not going there.  Most people on this board have a pretty reasonable understanding of how evolution works.  When enzymes will be implemented, the ability to create an enzyme will be determined by DNA.  The amount of enzyme will be determined semi-automatically based on the need in that enzyme.  The more you need - the more you make.  Whether it would be possible to adjust amount of enzyme from DNA is still debatable.  PY is strongly against it.  I am strongly for it.  And Nums is somewhere in between, I think.

The reason for automatic adjustment of enzyme amount is that such mechanisms exist in nature, especially in bacteria.  Bacteria often shut down enzyme production completely if the substrate for that enzyme is absent.  And start making that enzyme when substrate appears.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 03:56:38 PM
Quote
1. Individual mutation rates. These are not, of course, determined by environment. But they also don't differ that much between different individuals. Mechanisms responsible for replication of DNA are very conserved and are unlikely to change in a single generation. That's why I was confused when people told me that each bot has a different mutation rate. But on the other hand, I don't mind if bots do have different mutation rates - the default rates were not set based on some logic, they were just arbitrarily picked. So if they are too high, then then evolution may adjust them accordingly. So it's not a big problem.

Thanks for being on my side for once Shvartz :P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 19, 2005, 07:18:36 PM
Hey AZPaul

If you don't want the mutation rates of the robots to change at all or you want to keep them completely under your control then that is just fine.

All you have to do is to set the mutation control "Mutate mutation rates" to zero and they won't change for individual robots.

In case you haven't caught up on the debate yet here is a summary

We all seem to be in general agreement that the enzyme system will be a bit pattern system containing any number of random enzymes. This pattern can be set from a section of the DNA file but it will mutate from generation to generation, enabling and disabling different enzymes.
The idea is that evolution will find the best ones to deal with the present environment through random mutation and selective processes of survival of the fittest. No Lamarckian sentiment here anywhere.

The main part of the debate is whether the DNA file should actually actively control production of the available enzymes or whether it should simply be assumed that the bot has enough enzymes to digest the food that it has eaten provided that
it is able to make that specific enzyme that is needed.

My vision of the whole system is a huge number of possible bit pattern enzymes that are enabled completely randomly by mutations. Many different enzymes may be able to act on a particular kind of food or gas but they will do so with different efficiencies based on their individual bit pattern. With this number of possible enzymes, the variability of the robots and their ability to specialize in different things by mutation will be awesome. I see no way that we could ever control all these enzymes directly from the DNA. We would need thousands of specific addresses for the DNA to control. Not even remotely feasible in my opinion.

Shvarz sees the enzyme production controlled directly from the DNA with conditions and commands. can't really think of a suitable mechanism by which to run this. (then again, to be fair, that would be partly because I haven't really tried to) I beleive this is unecessary and pointless.

 :D  PY  :D

PS  Don't worry Bots, the ability to mutate the mutation rates isn't going anywhere. If anybody doesn't like it then they can just disable it.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 07:23:47 PM
Py but do we agree on the "make...breack" system?

****
P.S.
****

Quote
PS Don't worry Bots, the ability to mutate the mutation rates isn't going anywhere.

Thank God , I was going crazy here...
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 19, 2005, 07:32:12 PM
Quote
Py but do we agree on the "make...breack" system?

Not sure yet. I think I can make it work but I don't understand the mechanisms 100% yet.
That idea is still being debated I think. We are slowly approaching some kind of agreement but we will just have to wait and see.

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 19, 2005, 07:35:01 PM
omfg , thats why I sayed to shvartz to summerize hes general idea and post it here:

http://s9.invisionfree.com/DarwinBots_Foru...p?showtopic=202 (http://s9.invisionfree.com/DarwinBots_Forum/index.php?showtopic=202)

Then we can further develope on it.
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: AZPaul on March 20, 2005, 05:35:42 AM
Well, two days here and I've already earned my first flame. Lucky me.

Quote
I feel like  <----- this guy

I am having a nervius brake down here

Get back on your meds.

Quote
Yes Yes , AZPaul is right, next we will tackel the qustion of "Lets get rid of all mutation all Completely.

I'll assume English is not your primary language and you mistook my reference to "rates" as meaning "all mutations" which is clearly incorrect.  "Rates" of mutation need to be in my control not the programmers.

In my simulations the "rate" of mutation of "values" is set much higher than the "rate" of whole new gene insertion. I don't need a programmer altering these values from deep within the bowels of the object code.  Now I find that each individual Bot has it's own set of mutation "rates" that I will need to make appropriate for my study.

Asside to PY and you other DB Gurus:

Are these individual "rates" the probabilities of mutation within that individual's own genome or are they the rates applied to acheive a mutated genome for Junior?

Back to the game:

Quote
How about this idea AZPaul, I wana know how mutch you hate it:

When you save a mutated robot Dna file, you will save its own seporate mutation rates as well, so I dont have to do bloody screen shots , and save bitmap pictures of each bloody Dna rates

Say what?  I see why you are considered uncomprehendable when you write. You're uncomprehendable.

Quote
Yea but what happens on level difference between bacteria and a person, I think you will find significant changes of how Dna mutates here.

You need to study more Gould, Kaiser and Dawkins. Genome mutation vectors are the same for [you]all[/you] life on this planet. And, barring environmental mutagens (which may exist in more or less abundance in a locality and include considerably more than your false god of radiation), the "rate" of such mutation of the genome between an E. coli cell and a cell in H. sapien is very similar. Do the research.

Quote
But what if switching to a new food is more Efficient in a situation? Now you will say lets ban all the different situations, so everything is boarding plain and simple like it is now.

That kind of over reaction is just foolish, isn't it. Are you really that big of a fool?

Quote form my post:

Quote
The basal levels of enzymes are determined in the DNA and are not affected by the long term presence or absence of the foodstuff within the individual nor will it affect the basal level of the enzyme as coded for in the DNA I pass on to Junior.

Your reaction:

Quote
If that was true , we would of died out as bacteria when all the Methane ran out in the atmosphere. But we did not , we evolved....

You really are an idiot.  Read carfully, boy, I'm only gonna write this once.

The change in the environment did not cause the mutation.  Understood?

The mutation occurred hundreds, if not thousands of generations prior to the environment change. Since the mutation was not harmful it quiesced in the genome. And the mutation in the genome was totally random, totally unpreditable and totally "undirected" by anything. It was a lucky, fortuitous event in reaction to absolutly nothing!  

It just so happened that this (now no longer mutation but a wide spread feature of many within the species) capability was expressed when the environment changed (which itself was a slow process taking millions of years). Only those individuals of a species that already had the useful ability (no longer mutation) survived. Millions upon millions of other individuals and millions upon millions of entire species that did not have this now inbred ability (did not win that round of the random genome mutation game) died. As in dead, extinct. "We" are only here because "we" hit the genetic mutation lotto (and a whole hell of a lot more than once).  Beneficial mutations are not made to suit the environment. Only those genomes that suit the environment live. All others die. Got it?

I have enough fun doing this with Creationists. I certainly did not expect such academic immaturity here.

Now call your doctor, get your prescriptions refilled and go lie down somewhere.

-P

(no that's not a pouty, tongue stickie-outie emoticon. It's a "P" as in "Paul")

Post modified for spelling errors - 20 Mar 10:30 am Phoenix time. -P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: PurpleYouko on March 20, 2005, 03:54:36 PM
AZPaul

Please try not to get too agitated about Botsareus.

I know he can be exasperating at times but he is quite a nice guy when you get to know him. He just has a tendency to over-react and forgets to put his brain in gear before engaging his mouth (keyboard)

He actually does understand a lot more about evolution than you might think, as can be found out by reading all the archives.

You think you are explaining something but he already knows it and actually (mostly at least) agrees with you. I don't know why he goes off like this now and then but that is just the way it is so don't go getting upset about it.

As you supposed, English is not his first language and I think a lot of misunderstandings arise there.

Quote
You really are an idiot. Read carfully, boy, I'm only gonna write this once.

The change in the environment did not cause the mutation. Understood?

I think everyone here understands that (At least I hope they do), but please refrain from direct insults. As you say we get enough of that on Creationist/evolutionist websites. I hang out on the EVC forum (http://evcforum.net/) quite a bit too.
I am sure Bots undetands this quite well.

As to your question
Quote
Asside to PY and you other DB Gurus:

Are these individual "rates" the probabilities of mutation within that individual's own genome or are they the rates applied to acheive a mutated genome for Junior?

The rates are applied only to reproduction. There is really no mechanism for mutations within the lifetime of any given robot, at the moment.

 :D  PY  :D
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: AZPaul on March 20, 2005, 04:31:15 PM
Quote
I think everyone here understands that (At least I hope they do), but please refrain from direct insults. As you say we get enough of that on Creationist/evolutionist websites. I hang out on the EVC forum quite a bit too.
I am sure Bots undetands this quite well.

My appologies to Bots, yourself and the rest of the board.

Love and kisses,

-P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: AZPaul on March 20, 2005, 05:01:44 PM
From PY:

Quote
If you don't want the mutation rates of the robots to change at all or you want to keep them completely under your control then that is just fine.

All you have to do is to set the mutation control "Mutate mutation rates" to zero and they won't change for individual robots.

After many simulations I'm beginning to see how to control the rates to within 1 standard deviation. I can live with this. Thanks

Quote
The main part of the debate is whether the DNA file should actually actively control production of the available enzymes or whether it should simply be assumed that the bot has enough enzymes to digest the food that it has eaten provided that it is able to make that specific enzyme that is needed.

Quote
I see no way that we could ever control all these enzymes directly from the DNA. We would need thousands of specific addresses for the DNA to control. Not even remotely feasible in my opinion.

One of the beauties of DB now is it allows verbose control for the major facets of NeoDarwinian evolution (if I can work around this sex anomoly) as it sorta almost really works without being overpoweringly complex to handle. If the DNA will control which enzymes are permitted then a simple  --  cond *.enzyme-A 100 < start 50 .mkenzyme-A store stop -- would be the control. If there are thousands of enzymes available this could become untenable. I'll let you and shvarz arm wrestle this one.  For my purposes either would be of no concern.

Quote
No Lamarckian sentiment here anywhere.

pheww...Thank you. And unlike my missive you spelled it correctly. Thank you again.

-P
Title: Sharks and grass
Post by: Botsareus on March 21, 2005, 01:43:27 PM
AZPaul , what exactly are you using DarwinBots for?
What are your purposes?

***
sry that I went off on you like that , its just that the way the mutation is set up is really critical to my work: I am trying to make a robot naturaly mutate from a very basic robot to a robot who can beat anyone in the legue tabels. I had some luck already, check out bot4g in the Bestiary.