Response to How Evolution Really Works

This is a video response to How Evolution Really Works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeTssvexa9s

After seeing CDK007's nifty little program, I was inspired to make my own. However, in my program, there is more than just shades of gray. This time, there are three different genes, one for Red, one for Green, and one for Blue. These values make up each organism's RGB color code.

Each gene randomly drifts slightly and individually, with a small chance for severe mutation.

Also, this program lets you choose from one of seven different landscapes, so you can see how your organisms adapt to different environments.

This evolution simulator contains variable speeds, so you can zip through the generations at 10x, or you can pause it to study any interesting phenomenon. It also keeps track of your current generation.

If you let it go for a little while longer, the results become nearly identical to the environment (but no species is perfect!) I just cut off short as not to make a long and boring video.

I made this in one day, though it took about eight hours. I might make some changes to the code in the future, specifically to the mutation algorithms, and to make the pause button change to say unpause, but these are minute details.

The program can be downloaded here:
(geocities closed down)

NOTE: I also feel that it's worth mentioning that, while CDK linked the code of his program, I never once checked it out. This entire program was created by me from scratch.

UPDATE: Version1.2 released. I found a pretty big flaw in my programing, looking at things from the code-side. The error resulted from my inability to count to five. The program was originally supposed to have five organisms eaten (25%) and five organisms randomly dying (25%), like in CDK's program. However, I was only calling my functions four times and setting my loop counters to four, so when the organisms mated, there were twelve of them left, not ten. Twelve organisms produce 24 organisms in the new generation, but my planet only has room for 20, so four of the "babies" were having their values saved over every time. Now, I wouldn't have been bothered by this, as offspring often die in nature, but it wasn't random because I hadn't planned for this while writing the program. Instead, the first four organisms to mate each generation would always have their "children" erased.

Anyway, I changed the program so that an extra organism is both eaten and another will die for random reasons. Now, only 50% of the organisms survive to mate, but their genes will always be passed on.

And before the criticism starts, the program runs almost exactly the same as it did, before. The extra predator drives evolution a little faster, but the random deaths snuff out beneficial mutations more often. I ran each version of the program through 100 generations, and the average RGB codes were only about five higher in the new version. However, because genetic drift is random, this amount of difference can occur through multiple runs of the same application.

So, to sum things up, the changes I made only make the program more "true." Oh, and the pause button looks nicer, nice ;)

UPDATE: Version1.3 released. Wow. I've had some major success with this release. I finally buckled down and decided to teach myself arrays, which let me cut out 54,500 of 55,000 lines of code. Also, this reduced the size of the program from 1.57mb to 52kb (roughly.) Mostly, this is going to allow me to edit my code much more easily. The first thing I did was fiddle with the mutation gene, like I had planned on, but then decided that I liked it better, before.

Anyway, this is probably going to be the last release of this exact simulator, but I have good news. I've enjoyed myself so much working on this project that I am going to significantly expand things. My next program will include both prey and predators, both competitively evolving to outwit the other species. Aside from developing camouflage, there will now be genes for eyesight, speed, size, and whatever else I can work in graphical representations for. I'm very excited about this new project, so stay tuned for a video update demonstrating it.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• evolution
• simulator
• program
• mutation
• darwin
• natural
• selection
• creation

[benthemiester]

People its a computer program, programed by humans to perform a certain function. You can even say the program was intelligently designed. Are u allowed to say that? ME THINKS ITS A STRAW MAN, but very assuming.

[JunoRulz]

@benthemiester To clarify, this program WAS intelligently designed..

[JunoRulz]

Man, are you people still debating this crap? I guess it is a pretty sweet program but my DS game is soooo much more awesome.

[mstachife]

Love and caring are caused by chemicals and part of the brain. . where do you think they come from? And the latest scientific theory on the evolution of woman is the "Theory of Evolution", you should look it up.

[bojoben]

The claim about Darwin doubting his ideas is a lie that has no evidence to support it. There is no such thing as an evolutionist.The 'ist' part implies a religion, or for the need of blind belief like a religion, while the theory of evolution is based on observable evidence, quite the opposite of blind faith. Why do you act like you know something about evolution when you clearly know jack shit about it, and feel qualified to refute the vast majority of educated professional scientists? Think.

[iliveon]

WE MEN HAVE NIPPLES EVOLUTION IS PROVEN

[dltanner99]

Alternative view of evolution see video book trailer

[glorp896]

@copilot10  fair enough

[glorp896]

@EricZombie

i really think this dichotomy of random chance and divine intervention is wanting... it is hard to see any other contrast or developing idea but i really hate dualities and the dumbed down nature of them (nature pun intended)

[glorp896]

@mstachife its amazing how weak love really is, just introduce more powerful satanic biochemistry like meth, crack and heroin and soon discover how much moms and dads really care... i've wondered if love (brain chemistry) can overcome these VERY POWERFUL pleasure creators, usually only when they burn out and have maxed out their "pleasure benefit" and then crash, then they look to their family for love and help - amazing...

[glorp896]

@EricZombie i balk at this statement, i'll run it by a utube genius, DJNROSS

[glorp896]

@Eric

"Isn't there something special, perhaps even divine, about the human soul?" interviewer Isaacson asks Gates

"I don't have any evidence on that," answers Gates.

He later states, "Just in terms of allocation of time resources, religion is not very efficient. There's a lot more I could be doing on a Sunday morning."

- LOL, there is other stuff, but that alone is a classic hilarious Gates response... the rest is much as i said, a kind of "balancing the answer to appease the theists"

[glorp896]

@EricZombie gates has been on atheist lists, but he is quite sly in his responses, overly diplomatic and wimpy if i am to be honest about it... in reading his responses to these kinds of questions, as a person looking through the atheist lens of interpretations, i'd definitely say he is an atheist, or maybe he wimps out and calls himself an agnostic within inner circles? just a speculation on my part... do you think their might be infinite universes?, whatever infinite really means...

[glorp896]

@EricZombie

damn eric, where the hell you been? i friended you so long ago... and good to see some intelligence on utube...

of course organic chemistry and THE SELFISH GENE (dawkins) don't operate like the flipping of coins and basic mathematical models of chance... memetics outlines this in some almost spooky weird way at times, but if you want to believe life is just as random and nondirected a form of materialism as inanimate objects i guess you really have the backing from the evidence

[EricZombie]

@benthemiester Gates?  As in Bill Gates? He's a non-believer in superstitious bullshit. So, if you're claiming his admiration for the complexity of life is a boost for irreducible complexity, you're mistaken.

Reality isn't front loaded. Intricacy does not equal intelligently designed. A program meant to simulate natural laws, in no way supposes that the natural laws require a law giver.

Your attack on science shows your ignorance of it. Research Abiogenesis your own damn self.