Stop chaos 

In nature the mutation not seems to be random; and the theory of Darwin
evolution is not exaustive (expecially for human)

The mutation are addressed to a specified direction that help the species to
optimize the life respect the ambient.

In Framsticks you can use this simply rules :

If a neuron is inactive for all life ,then it'have more possibilty to dead
in the next generation
If a neuron is active :
1) his output go in other neuron
2) new neuron are generated similar
3) other neuron output go in this neuron.

Similar for the sticks :

1) The sticks dead if it haven't no sensitivity (no neuron)
or
2) The stick dead if it's useless ( ex :velocity near zero ).

The major rule is "Deux ex machina of mutation is not CAOS but genotype
itself "

Maciej Komosinski's picture

> In nature the mutation not seems to be random; and the theory of Darwin
> evolution is not exaustive (expecially for human)
> The mutation are addressed to a specified direction that help the species to
> optimize the life respect the ambient.

Do you have any evidence for that?

> In nature the mutation not seems to be random; and the theory of Darwin
> evolution is not exaustive (expecially for human)
> The mutation are addressed to a specified direction that help the species
to
> optimize the life respect the ambient.

Sorry
Errata Corrige : Not "respect" but "as regards as"

The evidence is that Nature don't create a new arm (Stick) random, in random
position and then delete it if it's not useful.
The modification is due to utilization. If i don't need new arm it not will
be created.
I don't know about strange creature in evolution that are dead because not
competitive.(ex. because they have a arm on the head).
Like in a brain if a neuron is not stimulate for a long time it don't create
new connection.
For example the creation of cortical map of motor control is not well
defined in newborns, but they become more sofisticated when the babies start
to move. The exitation of particular neuron and the way are activated
contribute to create some connection rather than other.
I think that was very important how the ambient stimuli the body, it the
only way for the body to create reasonable mutation.

Thank a lot for the patience.

Maciej Komosinski's picture

> The evidence is that Nature don't create a new arm (Stick) random, in random
> position and then delete it if it's not useful.
> The modification is due to utilization. If i don't need new arm it not will
> be created.

How the Nature knows that you will not need the arm?

> I don't know about strange creature in evolution that are dead because not
> competitive.(ex. because they have a arm on the head).

I know about children born with no limbs or with doubled limbs/organs.
What about them?

> Like in a brain if a neuron is not stimulate for a long time it don't create
> new connection.

That happens during your life, not in your genome.

> I think that was very important how the ambient stimuli the body, it the
> only way for the body to create reasonable mutation.

Do you think that your life affects your genome?

MacKo

I think that in some way part of genoma can be "activate" or not according
to external stimuli.
Is not the nature, but the species behaviour that decide what is necessary.
The world is one, also the physic is one, for all species, but the external
stimuli can change if the behaviour is different, thus little change in
behavior can generate new species.
The behaviour of any species is typical for them.
A feed-back is necessary for not create a lot of wrong mutation.

This are only supposition and I haven't nothing to supporte them.

" Darwins's theory is usefull for scientists for not believe in god,
i don't believe in god , but it's difficult to believe in Darwin's
evolution..."

Sigh, my friend.
What you meant to be "natural mutation" , such as deleting
unuseful neurons, is the result of some certain kind of evolution(from
completely radom mutation). Very simple creatures in the nature don't
have such ability. And, the natural creatures' behaviour of deleting
unuseful components, is only because these components waste energy.
There's still parts without neuron connction existing on the real
creatures, such as teeth, bones, hair and nails, or even shells. can
they be considered to be unuseful?
However, one of your opinion is right: creatures should have
ability to delete its certain part in some method. Here's one idea:
can a stick be chosen to be "alive"(so that it can act like a muscle,
connect to neurons and use energy) or "dead" (for supporting the body
or for defence, only use energy when it's being made, after that, use
no energy)?

On Thu, 3 Aug 2000 15:14:36 +0200, "Jacono Marco"
wrote:

>I think that in some way part of genoma can be "activate" or not according
>to external stimuli.
>Is not the nature, but the species behaviour that decide what is necessary.
>The world is one, also the physic is one, for all species, but the external
>stimuli can change if the behaviour is different, thus little change in
>behavior can generate new species.
>The behaviour of any species is typical for them.
>A feed-back is necessary for not create a lot of wrong mutation.
>
>This are only supposition and I haven't nothing to supporte them.
>
>
>" Darwins's theory is usefull for scientists for not believe in god,
> i don't believe in god , but it's difficult to believe in Darwin's
>evolution..."
>
>
>
>
>

Maciej Komosinski's picture

> However, one of your opinion is right: creatures should have
> ability to delete its certain part in some method. Here's one idea:
> can a stick be chosen to be "alive"(so that it can act like a muscle,
> connect to neurons and use energy) or "dead" (for supporting the body
> or for defence, only use energy when it's being made, after that, use
> no energy)?

There is such possibility, more or less. I understand what you mean.

MacKo

>
>There is such possibility, more or less. I understand what you mean.
You mean the result of "stamina + assimilation + ingestion +
musclespeed = 1"?

Maciej Komosinski's picture

> >There is such possibility, more or less. I understand what you mean.
> You mean the result of "stamina + assimilation + ingestion +
> musclespeed = 1"?

I meant that there is possibility of stick differentiation and
differentiation of their specialization. A stick with no muscle
does not consume energy for muscle static and dynamic movement,
so it is a kind of what you suggested ("dead" sticks for supporting
the body or for defence). They consume "idle metabolism" energy,
but that can be adjusted according to your wishes.

You can configure the system so that the organism consumes
energy only for movement, for example, and not for the life.

MacKo

>I meant that there is possibility of stick differentiation and
>differentiation of their specialization. A stick with no muscle
>...........

I was just too lazy to write so long....
Thanks for your patience..........:~D

"Jacono Marco" wrote
>
> A feed-back is necessary for not create a lot of wrong mutation.

Mutation is random. Chance is what makes something good appear, most stuff
is pretty useless.

> This are only supposition and I haven't nothing to supporte them.

It can´t be supported.

Christian Rauh

What is a wrong mutation?

A mutation is a mutation. What makes it right or wrong is the "feed-back"
from the resultant creatures increased or decreased reprodutive success.

Ander

"Jacono Marco" wrote in message
news:8mc67n$bmh$1@net.frams.poznan.pl...
> I think that in some way part of genoma can be "activate" or not according
> to external stimuli.
> Is not the nature, but the species behaviour that decide what is
necessary.
> The world is one, also the physic is one, for all species, but the
external
> stimuli can change if the behaviour is different, thus little change in
> behavior can generate new species.
> The behaviour of any species is typical for them.
> A feed-back is necessary for not create a lot of wrong mutation.
>
> This are only supposition and I haven't nothing to supporte them.
>
>
> " Darwins's theory is usefull for scientists for not believe in god,
> i don't believe in god , but it's difficult to believe in Darwin's
> evolution..."
>
>
>
>
>
>