Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

AE Public Forum

Syndicate content
Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".
Updated: 4 days 21 hours ago

The Skeptical Zone

Sat, 2014-02-08 23:55
Post by midwifetoad
Gregory has a psychotic meltdown worthy of Kariosfocus:
Quote
“looking for “naturalism without scientism” that I’ve started and stopped four times now.”

Well good. I honestly hope you find it and start again. I’m well ahead of you and most other ‘USAmericans’ on this. I went East.

Did you see the Opening Ceremonies in Sochi, KN? So much you don’t know, or them. And it’s not my knowledge to possess to claim arrogantly, it’s theirs to humbly follow and learn from. Are you willing to do this? I know you want to, but will you, KN? You have doubts. Given.

“Trying to get clear about any of this stuff is extremely frustrating!”

Right, so call these dogs off my back cuz I got no more time for this filth and will disappear. Will you?

Yes, I read Pigliucci, White (you saw my review), and Wiseletier. And I teach it. Fascinating. But read Hutchinson and Artigas too; don’t shy from the theists.

“I won’t say that the term is entirely useless.”

Good, well fend off the scientistic hounds of TSZ then. But they don’t pay you much attention as a mere (ex-Reform atheist Jewish) philosopher, do they? You’re a mere ‘empirical’ pawn for them. sCiEnCe –> SciEnTiSm

You seem to fall down willingly at the ‘philosophy is dead’ trope. Stand up, KN. Get inspired. For Y-WH’s sake! Learn more than the Sophists did. Find truths and adventures in the neo-post-modern age. You need not be as weak or eclectically destructible as you appear. Why not awake, arise?

Then asks:
Quote Who guano’d this

http://theskepticalzone.com/wp....t-41076
Categories: AE Public BB

The Skeptical Zone

Sat, 2014-02-08 23:45
Post by socle
Gregory, growing closer to Jesus every day:
Quote You seem to give agent-hood status as a replacement psychological Solomon strategy without the Solomon. Ecclesiastes might help. It doesn’t bite. Open and read, Mr. 70 yr-old. Why not give a new flavour a try. Your generation was sucked of its soul, as most sociologists who study the phenomenon globally would agree. The only way out: try.
Categories: AE Public BB

Science Break

Sat, 2014-02-08 23:18
Post by Henry J
I meant known to people who've paid attention to discussions of the subject matter.

Henry
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Sat, 2014-02-08 19:48
Post by N.Wells
Sorry in advance for a long post, but Sal's latest BS merits it.

Sal has done another instance of his usual disgusting misrepresentation of stratigraphy, sedimentology, and structural geology.  He says, Quote “The first thing to realize is that few if any places on the Earth do we have the following column intact, in fact many of the “layers” are only layers in one’s imagination since they can be side by side or in some cases INVERTED!”
The earth has been active and changeable over a very long time, with bits of the crust going up and down like a very slow yo-yo, to the extent that we would not be surprised if nowhere ended up preserving a geologic column that had strata representing every geological period.  However, there are actually a few dozen such places, with precise numbers depending on how you define “period”, but with considerably more present if you include places where you can cross all the layers obliquely because the layers have been tilted, a in England.  In contrast, there are no places where you can find different “layers” side by side or inverted without clear evidence of an unconformity or faulting (e.g., strata filling a Paleocene valley that was cut into Cretaceous strata, hence putting Paleocene strata next to Cretaceous strata, or Precambrian strata clearly thrust up over Lower Paleozoic strata such as along the Lewis Overthrust in Glacier National Park, notwithstanding YEC misrepresentations to the contrary).  Strata do get overturned or thrust up onto younger strata, but this happens in areas such as deformed zones between colliding continents, where an asteroid blasted slabs of rock out of its impact crater, or where a slab of strata slid off a swelling volcano.

Sal says, Quote “So do we have something that ought to change Nye’s mind. Absolutely!.   Quote “Many people are surprised when they hear of these creatures being buried together and wonder why they never heard of it before. Below is one evolutionary paleontologist’s explanation.  

Quote      “We find mammals in almost all of our [dinosaur dig] sites. These were not noticed years ago … . We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossils that we are trying to give away to some researcher. It’s not that they are not important, it’s just that you only live once and I specialized in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs.”

   Consider how many more tens of thousands of fossil mammals in ‘dinosaur rock’ are likely being similarly ignored in other parts of the world, with the likelihood of finding even more representatives of the same kinds as modern-day mammals.”

So is there a possibility anomalies are edited out and instead a practice of false reporting (perhaps innocently done) has been perpetuated. They probably think something like: “We found a mammal, that’s clearly contamination because we know mammals aren’t in that era”. So thus we never hear official reports of the anomalies because the anomalies are regarded as contaminants since according to the false narrative, certain creatures didn’t live in certain eras."

So, what we have here is misrepresentations piled on misunderstandings piled on outright lies mixed with attempted slight of hand and nasty insinuations.  The clear implication is that mammals in dinosaurian strata are somehow embarrassing and get pushed under the carpet.  As someone who once got to be part of a paper in Nature because of half a mammal tooth in a dinosaurian deposit (because it fulfilled expectations, not because it refuted them), I’ve got to say that Sal is completely delusional here.

Mammals are inferred to have evolved in the Jurassic, so of course they are expected to be present in Jurassic and Cretaceous strata.  They are however very rare and belong to very primitive groups of mammals.  They also tend to have been overlooked, because people searching in dinosaur strata have mostly been dinosaur paleontogists who have been looking for large fossils, the sort of thing you can spot from horseback or while walking around upright.  Mesozoic mammal fossils (typically small jaws and very tiny teeth) tend to be hard to see with a microscope, let alone while prospecting in the field, even if you are crawling, or digging very carefully, so few discoveries were made until searching methods were changed.  With dry and wet sieving and bulk processing of concentrate back at the lab, sites that have yielded dinosaur bones tend also to have yielded bones of frogs, small lizards and mammals, which makes sense because if conditions were right for preserving one fossil they were probably good for preserving several more.  That being said, you may have to process a ton or two of dirt to get a mammal tooth or two.

What we don’t have in the Mesozoic are fossils of modern types of placental mammals.  Also, Cenozoic placental mammals all occur in their own very marked and exception-free sequences in Cenozoic strata

Sal then cites a particularly revolting Dutch creationist video that perverts large areas of sedimentology and stratigraphy in devious ways.  It is a somewhat more sophisticated version of the ignorant YEC tripe that Sal usually deals in.  We have known for a couple of centuries that deposition can vary from extremely slow to astonishingly fast (although our knowledge of both extremes has expanded considerably), so instances of fast sedimentation do not disprove instances of slow deposition elsewhere.  We know that thick fast deposits tend to be characteristically different from slow deposits (although not infrequently we lack the clues that can tell them apart), and that they occur in characteristically different settings.  Mudflows, landslides, impactites, floods, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions all have a high potential for very rapid deposition.  They tend to do things like bury soils and whatever is living immobile on the surface that is about to be buried.  Allluvial fans, areas around volcanoes, deltas, rivers, and areas below fault scarps and the like all lend themselves to instances of rapid deposition.  Lake floors free from river influx and deltas and abyssal plains in deep oceans experience fairly slow deposition.   Although many fossil deposits clearly record catastrophic floods, many others do not (not all floods are gigantic, and not all fossil deposits involve water, let alone moving water).  The Dutch video really needs book-length refutation, but does not merit it.  Any sed/strat text will show why the video makes a sham of its misrepresentation of time-transgressive stratigraphy (rock units that cross time planes).  For example, when a delta fills in a lake or builds out into the sea, you get a “delta layer” (really a delta package) that is older at the back end than at the front end because it built out laterally over time.  (Likewise, the upwind end of a snow drift is usually older than the downwind end, because the pile has grown downwind over time.)  However, this in no way overthrows standard ideas about stratigraphy: go back to Dunbar and Rogers (a classic text from 1957) for a clear explanation of how this happens, why it is expected, and how to tell if you are dealing with an instance of it, albeit at a fairly coarse scale.  The video also puts a lot of stock into ecologic and hydrologic sorting of fossils.  Both occur, of course, but trying to explain the whole geological column and biostratigraphy this way is just delusional.  Note that insects that were buried in amber occur in geological strata according to their evolutionary order, NOT according to the shapes and sizes of the chunks of amber that contain them: how did that happen?  The earliest grass fossils occur much higher in the fossil record than the earliest fir trees: is this because fir trees cover lowlands and grass only grows on mountain tops?  Likewise, water lilies first occur later than the first tree ferns: is this because water lilies can outrun tree ferns?  Without exception, all reefs of scleractinian corals occur in strata younger than those with all reefs of tabulate and rugose corals: given that reefs vary from less than car-sized to more than city-sized, what is there about scleractinian coral reefs that allows them to get sorted separately and deposited later, and how did so many (or for that matter, any) happen to get transported and deposited right-side-up, balanced on little tiny triangular points exactly matching their growth position?   YEC geology is bullshit from one end to the other, and Sal is completely full of it.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Sat, 2014-02-08 18:21
Post by N.Wells
UD scored an own-goal a few days ago, in the post entitled “Bat family 36 million years older than thought” (presumably 'than scientists had thought :) ), with the implication that scientists and the modern theory of evolution are wrong again.

The details show that the research actually fulfills a couple of predictions made by previous evolutionary studies.  Mzopodid bats are now restricted to two species in Madagascar, and Madagascar has almost no Paleocene to Pliocene vertebrate fossil record to speak of, and no fossils of Myzopodids were previously known (except possibly an early Pleistocene humerus from East Africa).  However, people who study myzopodids have long thought that myzopodids are among the most primitive of the Noctilionoidea superfamily of bats, which are themselves one of the earlier branches of the microchiropteran branch of bat evolution and which are now most common in South America.   So one prediction is that there should be some fairly ancient (mid-Cenozoic) fossils of myzopodids. The second is that a distribution of a goup of mammals in Madagascar and South America implies that the group got underway in the remnants of Gondwana as it was fragmenting (but before bats could not longer get to increasingly isolated landmasses like Madagascar and South America.)  This in turn implies that fossils of these guys could well turn up in Africa, Australia, and Antarctica.  Well, Gregg Gunnell et al. just turned up two species in Africa, in 37 million year old strata.  

Endemic Malagasy vertebrates (and large portions of the rest of Madagascar’s biota) show early Cenozoic African origins (lemuroid primates, tenrecid afrotherians, euplerid carnivorans, and nesomyine muroid rodents), so this is another instance in the same pattern.

Incidentally, “News” also asks, “What exactly does ‘primitive’ mean, by the way? In this context? Is it a term that should be retired?”  Primitive means split off early in the history of the parent group under discussion, retaining some distinctive characteristics of the group at that stage in its evolution, and lacking some later derived innovations.  This shouldn’t be a mystery to someone who pretends to even a mediocre level of understanding of the subject.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Fri, 2014-01-31 09:42
Post by Bob O'H
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 31 2014,02:29)I think this is wrong, but not in the usual amusing and ridiculous sense. Still, it's something I find interesting:

Querius:

      Quote If we have a flat universe, the value for PI is maximized. If the curvature of the universe is extreme, PI can be as small as exactly 2.0000, depending on the size of the circle.

Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?
I assume so - it's an easy mistake to make.

BTW, the ratio can be > π if one wants to be hyperbolic (which makes me wonder whether those extolling the virtues of Pringles are exaggerating).

Totally off-topic but this morning as I was walking into work a police van with a tannoy attached to the roof drew up outside the maths department and counted up to five. Was this some bizarre mathematical taunt?
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Fri, 2014-01-31 09:24
Post by BillB
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 30 2014,23:59)Here's something for KF, in his cave or not:

Quote “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

Carl Sagan
True, but the trouble with quotes like that is that ID'ists see it as entirely applicable to us. They see us as the ones who have been bamboozled and themselves as the ones who have escaped the charlatans power.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Fri, 2014-01-31 09:11
Post by CeilingCat
A couple of messages ago I referred to Mapou (and, by implication, some of the other UD posters) as a "dumb shit".  

I should not have used such language.  

I apologize to all fertilizer everywhere.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Fri, 2014-01-31 09:06
Post by CeilingCat
I think so.  Ditto for the angles of a triangle not equaling 180 degrees.

Of course, when attempting a discussion with Mapou, you have to remember that he thinks Einstein needs correcting and motion is impossible.
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Fri, 2014-01-31 08:43
Post by Driver
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 31 2014,08:21) Quote (Driver @ Jan. 30 2014,15:12)We can't test whether the ghost of Henry the Eighth mentally encourages water to boil.
He's actually an ancestor  of mine (indirect obviously), as was his fifth wife (with whom I share a surname). And some of his other wives too, because, you know, European royalty was like that.
*is* like that.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Fri, 2014-01-31 08:29
Post by Driver
I think this is wrong, but not in the usual amusing and ridiculous sense. Still, it's something I find interesting:

Querius:

Quote If we have a flat universe, the value for PI is maximized. If the curvature of the universe is extreme, PI can be as small as exactly 2.0000, depending on the size of the circle.

Pi is not an empirically derived value, is it?

I think he means the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter is different if space cannot be described by Euclidean geometry. Yes?
Categories: AE Public BB

Joe G.'s Tardgasm

Fri, 2014-01-31 08:21
Post by didymos
Quote (Driver @ Jan. 30 2014,15:12)We can't test whether the ghost of Henry the Eighth mentally encourages water to boil.
He's actually an ancestor (indirect obviously), as was his fifth wife with whom I share a surname. And some of his other wives too, because, you know, European royalty was like that.
Categories: AE Public BB

BIO-Complexity

Fri, 2014-01-31 07:06
Post by Dr.GH
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 29 2014,14:37) Quote (DiEb @ Jan. 29 2014,12:19)Has anyone read BIO-Complexity's only "research article" for 2013:  Active Information in Metabiology? It was published last month...
That's the funniest thing I've seen in a while.

I don't recall ever seeing the phrase "fascinating intellectual romp" in a peer reviewed paper before.

Of course, when one's peers are morons...
Wow. The entire abstract is a word fest.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Fri, 2014-01-31 04:54
Post by socle
Quote (socle @ Jan. 30 2014,22:38)Hey Mapou,

What number system are you working in?  Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers.  And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"?  How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true?

Anyway, the hyperreal numbers refute your naive argument.  There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously.  Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD.
stupid me, strike the first paragraph...
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Fri, 2014-01-31 04:38
Post by socle
Hey Mapou,

What number system are you working in?  Obviously not the real numbers, since there are no infinite real numbers.  And what do you mean by "X is infinitely greater than Y"?  How you decide, given X and Y, whether that is true?

Anyway, the hyperreal numbers refute your naive argument.  There are 'infinitely small' and 'infinitely large' hyperreal numbers, and these terms are defined rigorously.  Kairosfocus has even referred to this set on UD.
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

Fri, 2014-01-31 03:55
Post by REC
Quote If Y is given as an infinitely small value, we can phrase the question thus:

X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?

If Y is infinitely small ~0, and X is one, then X is ~1 greater than Y.

Quote X is infinitely greater than Y, true or false?

The answer is a resounding YES

For fuck's sake....
Categories: AE Public BB

MHC/HLA immune genome mutation rates question

Thu, 2014-01-23 17:57
Post by qetzal
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Jan. 22 2014,16:00)Obviously, since the MHC is involved in distinguishing self from non-self, I had to artificially raise variation in it as the human population expanded, so that individuals would not all get confused as to who was who.

All the best,

God
Nice to see a creationist "explanation" with some detail for a change!
:D
Categories: AE Public BB

Evolutionary Computation

Thu, 2014-01-23 16:51
Post by BillB
Thanks for the detailed reply. I think I might try and find some time to familiarise myself with Avida ... I have, in the past, sketched out a framework for doing experiments like this myself but based on what you have written I think my system would not be possible to impliment in Avida.

I might go back over my early notes and see if there is anything sensible I can summarise here.

A thought occured after my last post - would it be possible to have the resource inflict a penalty when it is above a certain level? Think of it like a nutrient rich gradient coming from a hydrothermal vent - if you get too close to the source you literaly start to cook. There would be an optimal distance (A habitable zone?), and I would expect to see the resulting pattern of activity to appear as a ring rather than a point (referring to your plots above)
Categories: AE Public BB

Pssst ... look at the Birthday Calendar!

Thu, 2014-01-23 15:53
Post by Driver
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 23 2014,15:01)Yes, indeed. Happy birthday to you (and also to me, I turned 41 last Sunday)
And to you, and to them, and me (also 41, on Sunday)
Categories: AE Public BB

Evolutionary Computation

Thu, 2014-01-23 15:41
Post by Wesley R. Elsberry
Quote (BillB @ Jan. 23 2014,04:32)       Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Jan. 23 2014,09:17)While I did stress that the genomic content of the initial organism, and thus the Avidian population, could only acquire the new instructions via mutation, once an ancestral organism had one or more of those, they would be passed down to offspring with the usual frequency. And any effects they had on the organism could yield a difference in fitness, driving the usual selective processes. I think saying mutation was the only operative process goes too far. Not including the instructions in any way in the initial organism simply eliminates the possibility that I as experimenter set up a particular outcome by whatever arrangement of movement-relevant instructions might be set in that initial organism.

One question I was asked at SSCI in 2009 was why use Avida and not something like Echo. And while the efficient answer is that when one is at the Devolab, one is usually going to be using Avida, I did survey the available software at the time for applicability to the question I was looking at. The software systems allowing for agent movement all treated movement as a primitive property, often requiring some fixed movement strategy be defined for the agents a priori. I was interested in looking at what evolution could do given just the sort of capabilities underlying movement as seen in organisms like E. coli, but without specifying how those capabilities were used. And that kind of question was not what the other software packages could address.
Excellent stuff, and something I'm really interested in despite having no time to work on any more ...

I'm not intimately familiar with Avida but a few things jumped to mind whilst reading the description:
              Quote A facing is always toward another adjacent grid cell, so for an interior grid cell there are eight legal facings, five legal facings on an edge, and three at each corner grid cell.

I would say that there should be no illegal facings, just an inability to move when facing an edge – this would prevent a bias towards movement back to the centre – A bit like breeding E. coli in a jar: They cannot pass through the glass container but they could repeatedly bump against it until they die. By having illegal facings you are, in one sense, providing them with obstacle avoidance behaviour for free.


Avida giveth, and Avida taketh away. Facing is very basic to the software. Illegal facings, when exercised, terminate the program with an ugly "bus error" message.

On the other hand, the world geometry options are (or I should say "were", I haven't checked the latest code) grid, torus, and clique. I have no idea what clique does. Torus, though, wraps the edges of the world grid. Using torus would solve the illegal facing issue, since every cell would then be an interior cell. However, I also thought of torus as giving Avidians something for free, since on a relatively prime grid size I think movement on the diagonal will give the organism access to a lot of the grid, if not all of it.

    Quote (BillB @ Jan. 23 2014,04:32)
              Quote The "sense-diff-facing" instruction puts the difference in the amount of a specified resource between the current grid cell and the faced grid cell into one of the Avida registers.

What if this was expanded to be a “sense X,Y diff” instruction where X and Y can be any of the surrounding cells, or your own cell? The values for X and Y would be heritable. (And I don't know what you do about sensing the cell in front of you when facing the edge of the world)


As I recall it, access to adjoining cells is entirely defined by facing. It would be nice to have X,Y addressable during the run, but as I recall, it doesn't work that way.

I think this issue, among others, led a colleague of mine to give up on modifying the Avida grid system entirely, and instead implemented a separate arena-style system that was instantiated on a per-organism basis, what she referred to in the planning stages as "dream-a-grid". Many of the things that I am describing as constraints would not be in her codebase. (Her Avidians evolved such things as perfect maze-running, but she had a complex system of markers that when correctly sensed and acted upon would lead to that.) The tradeoff, though, is that her movement experiments were all about individual performances, and no interaction between members of the population would be possible. I'm thinking in terms of future experiments possibly having a larger role for competition.

    Quote (BillB @ Jan. 23 2014,04:32)
Perhaps if you wanted to add an interesting twist you could turn that into something like "Z=F(X,Y)" where X and Y are as described above but the function F is a heritable operand (Add, Subtract Multiply Divide or Modulo) - you might even include bit shifting as a possible operand? Z=X<<Y or Z=X>>Y

The point would be to provide multiple pathways for this sensory apparatus to work - and for it to fail to work.

Expanding on this a bit more (if it is worth doing) you could allow for more distal sensing - maybe a Z=F((A,B)(X,Y)) instruction where A and B, and X and Y, are relative cell co-ordinates, perhaps capped to a maximum range of +/- 5. If you did this then I would be tempted to add a cost for longer range sensing (You need more energy to grow those longer whiskers!)


There was already code in Avida for distinguishing resources. This was based on a label system, where several bases in the genome get interpreted as a label, so what the organism gets when it processes a sensory instruction is heritable. All the sensory instruction does is put a value into an Avidian CPU register. What happens to it after that has to evolve, too.

Like I said above, I don't know that distant sensing has an obvious implementation pathway.

    Quote (BillB @ Jan. 23 2014,04:32)
              Quote The environment is defined with a positively rewarding resource, with a peak in the resource set off-center in the world grid.

Can you make this more complex and dynamic? Perhaps try something more akin to a simple hydrothermal vent model:

A source (of the resource) pops up at a random location and begins churning out the ‘resource’, creating a gradient. Eventually the source is exhausted and the gradient disappears. You can have a maximum of x sources in the world at any time and when the number of sources is less than x a new source has some probability of appearing at a new random location.


The current way I define a resource gradient is quite cumbersome. I have a Perl script that set up CELL declarations in the environment config for every cell in the grid. I do have code for a method to establish a resource gradient at runtime, but that's not yet tested. Yes, I'd like to have a moving resource at some point. I don't think it will be the first thing out the gate.

    Quote (BillB @ Jan. 23 2014,04:32)
It would also be nice to have a negative resource – something that causes harm but which is not simply a lack of positive resource – using the same hydrothermal vent model you could have a second resource whose intensity costs or harms an agent. This should result in a much more interesting and dynamic resource landscape for the agents to navigate.

I'm not sure if this should be a sense-able resource (something the agent can sense) of if it just causes harm without the agent realising -- Something I'm not clear on with Avida: can the agent sense its own 'energy' and as a result tell if it is being rewarded or harmed?


The "detrimental resource" is likely the first thing out the gate. There's some issues on how this gets implemented, but I think I see a way forward on that that won't impact what I've already done too much.

As far as the Avidians sensing whether they are doing well or not, I think the answer is "no". The system scheduler assigns cycles based on merit, so poorly performing Avidians are also slowly performing Avidians. As far as I know, permitting an Avidian to have access to some transformation of its own merit would require setting up an instruction to do just that. Plus, an absolute value for merit wouldn't be terribly useful. In the first hundred updates, a merit of 0.29 would be excellent, but then pretty miserable not so much further into the run. What would be useful to the Avidian is some relative number related to their ranking in the population. I don't know of any biological correlate to that, though.

    Quote (BillB @ Jan. 23 2014,04:32)
I am tempted to suggest actually defining a spectrum of resources (some good, some bad) but this would require many more methods for the agent to sense them (and makes for a much more complex research project). What I am thinking of here (and it is a vague thought without any of the important details) is to include potential routes by which an agent can gain an advantage by combining certain resources in certain ratios – it can create a more potent energy source than the ones it absorbs passively – This would, of course, be balanced by the potential for agents to combine resources into fatal concoctions.

Actually, the sensing system is already label-based, so multiplying the resources could be done without any particular hassle for the programmer. What it would do to the Avidians... that's an experiment.

The first experiment was pretty much a stab in the dark. We set up something that hadn't been tried, and we didn't know whether we were posing a challenge outside the scope of what could be evolved in Avida. Now that we know that Avidians can evolve movement strategies, including ones in an optimal class of strategies, we can raise the bar some.
Categories: AE Public BB