9 ms·

Climb Mount Improbable: Evolvable Critters in JavaScript

84 points by darwinwhy 6y ago

MaxBarraclough 6y ago
For me it seemed to get stuck showing You've bred more than 50 children. Zoom out to see how far you've come. It failed to notice when I then zoomed out. I'm using Firefox, I wonder if that matters.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  Not a Firefox issue. The same happened to me in Chrome.
  - yongjik 6y ago
    If you click 50 more times you get another message. If you click a few hundreds(?) more you get the third message... after that I lost interest. Looks like there's no objectives or hidden goals in this "game", the objective is just to keep clicking aimlessly. Kinda fitting the theme...
taliesinb 6y ago
Beautifully done! Blind Watchmaker had a big impact on me as a kid. After I had read it, I programmed my own take on the biomorphs program and sent a copy of my program to Richard Dawkins. His research assistant Yan Wong replied with a very complimentary email. I wish I still had the email. I've been playing with evolutionary algorithms ever since, such as https://taliesin.ai/projects/science/floatworld/ https://taliesin.ai/projects/science/floatworld/
- simonebrunozzi 6y ago
  > I wish I still had the email. Ask him. Maybe there's a small chance he will have it, but it's worth trying. This will be a nice memory for you for the rest of your life. Trust me. Worth a shot.
- amflare 6y ago
  I've been looking to get into evolutionary algorithms and micro-worlds similar to floatworld. Do you have any advice on good resources to start with?
  - taliesinb 6y ago
    At the bottom of the page I linked are some resources. But you can take a look at the most recent alife conferences like... ALife and GECCO to see what people are up to these days.
gwern 6y ago
Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12024217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12024217 (original site has linkrot)
- darwinwhy 6y ago
  Did you own the domain and redirect it to Dawkins' publisher's website?
  - gwern 6y ago
    No, they did that. A pity, because even the original AWS S3 bucket is still up.
    - ottersarecool 6y ago
      I was involved in the making of this but unfortunately have no control over their use of the domain. I have Penguin's permission to publish a new version of it however, though I haven't had the time to really look into it further. I'm glad a copy was saved!
      - gwern 6y ago
        You're welcome. I am happy to host it indefinitely for you, and update it if you want to fix any of the bug reports like scrolling or issues with too many samples.
yters 6y ago
Currently reading Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins repeatedly says the most important thing about evolution is that it is unguided. Then he proceeds to demonstrate how evolution works with a guided computer simulation. I think I'm missing something.
- rictic 6y ago
  Evolution is guided by whatever selection process is present. For most species that's the environment they find themselves in. For some, like cows, corn, bananas, etc their human domesticators play a major role.
  - yters 6y ago
    the question is "how does evolution work so well to create the appearance of design?" dawkins answer is unguided mutation and natural selection. so, a guided computer simulation fails to demonstrate his point. darwin does the same bait and switch in his origin of species, presenting animal breeding as an example of the power of natural selection
    - reidjs 6y ago
      Unguided in the sense there's not an omnipresent being that decides who lives and who dies, but environmental pressures that select for certain features over others. You're right that this is a better example of 'artificial selection' like in race horses & dogs.
      - yters 6y ago
        that seems to beg the question then if we only get good simulated results with guidance, then that implies we get good biological results due to some sort of directedness it seems dawkins example undermines his argument
        vaidhy 6y ago
        You are making two different points here. Natural selection is guidance, but guidance without any will or preconceived notion of good and bad. In this super simple simulated experience, you provide the guidance and depending on your guidance, you can get what fits your world. The second point is around form following function and you are inverting cause and effect. So, under natural selection, certain functions are selected for, and as form follows functions, those forms procreate and proliferate. In this simple simulated world, you choose directly for form (there is no function to choose for) and forms that are pleasing to you will procreate and proliferate. If you like whorls and I like straight lines, our created worlds will be populated by different creatures. Finally, guidance does not mean direction. A boolean guidance (live or die) does not provide direction.
andrewla 6y ago
Dawkins was a huge influence on me as a youth, but his recent musings [1] have made me realize that he does not really have more than a shallow understanding of evolution. This in turn has made me reluctant to revisit the books (Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker) that influenced me so much, for fear that I'll see more of the same shallow thought that equates evolution with selective breeding. In this link the problem I see is that he is too focused on the mechanic of change. The trick of evolution is not random mutations, etc., but has to do with statistical properties of large population groups. A population that is of sufficient size will have variation within the constraints of the fitness function. How those variations are achieved is not really even that important except as regards the rate of evolution, rather than the effect of it. But the fitness function is extremely complex; it's not just changing a few parameters. A population of land-dwellers is largely indifferent to the ability to float; so some creatures can float better, others float worse, but it doesn't matter. But at some point the floaters get good enough at floating that they can actually swim, and now there's a whole new fitness landscape to explore. And the fitness function can change over time. The most important thing is variation -- that's the "anti-fragile" hook that makes life so tenacious. [1] https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512 https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/122894368695366451... -- "It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology."
- champagneben 6y ago
  Why do you think his "musings" are wrong? Seems like something very obvious to me, but I'm a complete lay person in this regard.
  - jaquers 6y ago
    Also, I don't see him comparing eugenics to evolution. He's went on to say, 'just because it's morally wrong, doesn't mean it's not possible', which was the point he was making.
    - 6y ago
it 6y ago
I find Dawkins's approach to all this incredibly implausible. Think about it. How does a population of creatures split into multiple different reproductively incompatible species via chance mutations? A much more believable mechanism for speciation would be something repeatable like genes being spliced in by a virus, or a new symbiosis like what Lynn Margulis describes in her book Symbiotic Planet. Edit: Nice demo though. And maybe it could be fun to do one based on viruses or symbioses.
- batmanthehorse 6y ago
  It happens when populations are isolated from each other for a long time. It's a fact.
  - it 6y ago
    Sure, but that doesn't imply that the means by which it happens is what Dawkins says.
    - it 6y ago
      Hey downvoters, I invite you to express your disagreement with actual arguments.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- jmcgough 6y ago
  Most genetic modification by viruses is deleterious, as are most random genetic mutations. Part of endosymbiotic theory is pretty well accepted now (I remember being told in school that mitochondria may have come from prokaryotic cells), but it's a bit optimistic to think that symbiosis causes all speciation. It's very conceivable that most speciation is caused through many generations of reproduction, environmental stressors and separation.
  - 6y ago
marvindanig 6y ago
Beautiful all right, but why do this?: * { box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-select: none; -moz-user-select: none; -ms-user-select: none; user-select: none; } No text on the site is selectable but this is a terrible thing to do. Not cool at all.
- Scaevolus 6y ago
  That's commonly done for interactive experiences or games where fast clicking selecting text or elements would be aggravating.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
shaunxcode 6y ago
This is really nice. However it would be cool if the original macintosh source/app could be handed off to internet archive so you could play with it in an emulator in browser. The screenshot of the original got me excited!
- ottersarecool 6y ago
  The original code can be found here: https://github.com/Aronnax9000/WatchmakerSuite/tree/master/docs/Dawkins https://github.com/Aronnax9000/WatchmakerSuite/tree/master/d...
dfee 6y ago
It was difficult, but I was able to evolve a line. It didn’t let me go further, unfortunately. Would’ve been cool to evolve a point.
joelthelion 6y ago
This old windows screensaver is one of the best illustrations of artificial life and evolution I've ever seen: http://www.ultimatesavers.com/index.asp?ID=1381 http://www.ultimatesavers.com/index.asp?ID=1381 The source is here, it seems : https://github.com/jondo/primlife https://github.com/jondo/primlife. But I don't know if it runs on modern OSes. Edit: it seems to run fine with Wine!
- Buttons840 6y ago
  Finally! I found that screensaver. I've been meaning to recreate it as a learning exercise. I once observed a mass extinction on this screensaver. A very aggressive carnivore (meaning it survived by eating other organisms in the sim), reproduced like crazy, used up all the resources and the died out itself. I only ever observed this once, despite watching the screensaver quite a bit.

84 points by darwinwhy 6y ago

For me it seemed to get stuck showing You've bred more than 50 children. Zoom out to see how far you've come. It failed to notice when I then zoomed out. I'm using Firefox, I wonder if that matters.

josephcsible 6y ago
Not a Firefox issue. The same happened to me in Chrome.
- yongjik 6y ago
  If you click 50 more times you get another message. If you click a few hundreds(?) more you get the third message... after that I lost interest. Looks like there's no objectives or hidden goals in this "game", the objective is just to keep clicking aimlessly. Kinda fitting the theme...

taliesinb 6y ago

Beautifully done! Blind Watchmaker had a big impact on me as a kid. After I had read it, I programmed my own take on the biomorphs program and sent a copy of my program to Richard Dawkins. His research assistant Yan Wong replied with a very complimentary email. I wish I still had the email. I've been playing with evolutionary algorithms ever since, such as https://taliesin.ai/projects/science/floatworld/ https://taliesin.ai/projects/science/floatworld/

simonebrunozzi 6y ago
> I wish I still had the email. Ask him. Maybe there's a small chance he will have it, but it's worth trying. This will be a nice memory for you for the rest of your life. Trust me. Worth a shot.
amflare 6y ago
I've been looking to get into evolutionary algorithms and micro-worlds similar to floatworld. Do you have any advice on good resources to start with?
- taliesinb 6y ago
  At the bottom of the page I linked are some resources. But you can take a look at the most recent alife conferences like... ALife and GECCO to see what people are up to these days.

gwern 6y ago

Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12024217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12024217 (original site has linkrot)

darwinwhy 6y ago
Did you own the domain and redirect it to Dawkins' publisher's website?
- gwern 6y ago
  No, they did that. A pity, because even the original AWS S3 bucket is still up.
  - ottersarecool 6y ago
    I was involved in the making of this but unfortunately have no control over their use of the domain. I have Penguin's permission to publish a new version of it however, though I haven't had the time to really look into it further. I'm glad a copy was saved!
    - gwern 6y ago
      You're welcome. I am happy to host it indefinitely for you, and update it if you want to fix any of the bug reports like scrolling or issues with too many samples.

yters 6y ago

Currently reading Blind Watchmaker. Dawkins repeatedly says the most important thing about evolution is that it is unguided. Then he proceeds to demonstrate how evolution works with a guided computer simulation. I think I'm missing something.

rictic 6y ago
Evolution is guided by whatever selection process is present. For most species that's the environment they find themselves in. For some, like cows, corn, bananas, etc their human domesticators play a major role.
- yters 6y ago
  the question is "how does evolution work so well to create the appearance of design?" dawkins answer is unguided mutation and natural selection. so, a guided computer simulation fails to demonstrate his point. darwin does the same bait and switch in his origin of species, presenting animal breeding as an example of the power of natural selection
  - reidjs 6y ago
    Unguided in the sense there's not an omnipresent being that decides who lives and who dies, but environmental pressures that select for certain features over others. You're right that this is a better example of 'artificial selection' like in race horses & dogs.
    - yters 6y ago
      that seems to beg the question then if we only get good simulated results with guidance, then that implies we get good biological results due to some sort of directedness it seems dawkins example undermines his argument
      - vaidhy 6y ago
        You are making two different points here. Natural selection is guidance, but guidance without any will or preconceived notion of good and bad. In this super simple simulated experience, you provide the guidance and depending on your guidance, you can get what fits your world. The second point is around form following function and you are inverting cause and effect. So, under natural selection, certain functions are selected for, and as form follows functions, those forms procreate and proliferate. In this simple simulated world, you choose directly for form (there is no function to choose for) and forms that are pleasing to you will procreate and proliferate. If you like whorls and I like straight lines, our created worlds will be populated by different creatures. Finally, guidance does not mean direction. A boolean guidance (live or die) does not provide direction.

andrewla 6y ago

Dawkins was a huge influence on me as a youth, but his recent musings [1] have made me realize that he does not really have more than a shallow understanding of evolution. This in turn has made me reluctant to revisit the books (Selfish Gene and Blind Watchmaker) that influenced me so much, for fear that I'll see more of the same shallow thought that equates evolution with selective breeding. In this link the problem I see is that he is too focused on the mechanic of change. The trick of evolution is not random mutations, etc., but has to do with statistical properties of large population groups. A population that is of sufficient size will have variation within the constraints of the fitness function. How those variations are achieved is not really even that important except as regards the rate of evolution, rather than the effect of it. But the fitness function is extremely complex; it's not just changing a few parameters. A population of land-dwellers is largely indifferent to the ability to float; so some creatures can float better, others float worse, but it doesn't matter. But at some point the floaters get good enough at floating that they can actually swim, and now there's a whole new fitness landscape to explore. And the fitness function can change over time. The most important thing is variation -- that's the "anti-fragile" hook that makes life so tenacious. [1] https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/1228943686953664512 https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/122894368695366451... -- "It’s one thing to deplore eugenics on ideological, political, moral grounds. It’s quite another to conclude that it wouldn’t work in practice. Of course it would. It works for cows, horses, pigs, dogs & roses. Why on earth wouldn’t it work for humans? Facts ignore ideology."

champagneben 6y ago
Why do you think his "musings" are wrong? Seems like something very obvious to me, but I'm a complete lay person in this regard.
- jaquers 6y ago
  Also, I don't see him comparing eugenics to evolution. He's went on to say, 'just because it's morally wrong, doesn't mean it's not possible', which was the point he was making.
  - 6y ago

it 6y ago

I find Dawkins's approach to all this incredibly implausible. Think about it. How does a population of creatures split into multiple different reproductively incompatible species via chance mutations? A much more believable mechanism for speciation would be something repeatable like genes being spliced in by a virus, or a new symbiosis like what Lynn Margulis describes in her book Symbiotic Planet. Edit: Nice demo though. And maybe it could be fun to do one based on viruses or symbioses.

batmanthehorse 6y ago
It happens when populations are isolated from each other for a long time. It's a fact.
- it 6y ago
  Sure, but that doesn't imply that the means by which it happens is what Dawkins says.
  - it 6y ago
    Hey downvoters, I invite you to express your disagreement with actual arguments.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
jmcgough 6y ago
Most genetic modification by viruses is deleterious, as are most random genetic mutations. Part of endosymbiotic theory is pretty well accepted now (I remember being told in school that mitochondria may have come from prokaryotic cells), but it's a bit optimistic to think that symbiosis causes all speciation. It's very conceivable that most speciation is caused through many generations of reproduction, environmental stressors and separation.
- 6y ago

marvindanig 6y ago

Beautiful all right, but why do this?: * { box-sizing: border-box; -webkit-tap-highlight-color: transparent; -webkit-user-select: none; -moz-user-select: none; -ms-user-select: none; user-select: none; } No text on the site is selectable but this is a terrible thing to do. Not cool at all.

Scaevolus 6y ago
That's commonly done for interactive experiences or games where fast clicking selecting text or elements would be aggravating.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

shaunxcode 6y ago

This is really nice. However it would be cool if the original macintosh source/app could be handed off to internet archive so you could play with it in an emulator in browser. The screenshot of the original got me excited!

ottersarecool 6y ago
The original code can be found here: https://github.com/Aronnax9000/WatchmakerSuite/tree/master/docs/Dawkins https://github.com/Aronnax9000/WatchmakerSuite/tree/master/d...

dfee 6y ago

It was difficult, but I was able to evolve a line. It didn’t let me go further, unfortunately. Would’ve been cool to evolve a point.

joelthelion 6y ago

This old windows screensaver is one of the best illustrations of artificial life and evolution I've ever seen: http://www.ultimatesavers.com/index.asp?ID=1381 http://www.ultimatesavers.com/index.asp?ID=1381 The source is here, it seems : https://github.com/jondo/primlife https://github.com/jondo/primlife. But I don't know if it runs on modern OSes. Edit: it seems to run fine with Wine!

Buttons840 6y ago
Finally! I found that screensaver. I've been meaning to recreate it as a learning exercise. I once observed a mass extinction on this screensaver. A very aggressive carnivore (meaning it survived by eating other organisms in the sim), reproduced like crazy, used up all the resources and the died out itself. I only ever observed this once, despite watching the screensaver quite a bit.