[HN Gopher] Climb Mount Improbable: Evolvable Critters in JavaSc...
___________________________________________________________________
Climb Mount Improbable: Evolvable Critters in JavaScript
Author : darwinwhy
Score : 56 points
Date : 2020-05-27 17:50 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.gwern.net)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.gwern.net)
| it wrote:
| 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.
| jmcgough wrote:
| Most genetic modification by viruses is deleterious, as are
| most random genetic mutations.
| batmanthehorse wrote:
| It happens when populations are isolated from each other for a
| long time. It's a fact.
| it wrote:
| Sure, but that doesn't imply that the means by which it
| happens is what Dawkins says.
| it wrote:
| Hey downvoters, I invite you to express your disagreement
| with actual arguments.
| yters wrote:
| 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.
| taliesinb wrote:
| 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/
| amflare wrote:
| 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?
| gwern wrote:
| Previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12024217
| (original site has linkrot)
| darwinwhy wrote:
| Did you own the domain and redirect it to Dawkins' publisher's
| website?
| andrewla wrote:
| 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/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."
| Udik wrote:
| Dawkins has always stressed the divide between the way things
| are and the way they should be from a moral or ethical
| standpoint. Describing reality for what it is doesn't imply
| endorsing it: murder is a natural human act, cancer is a
| natural occurrence in our bodies, etc
|
| This seems to be exceptionally hard to grasp for a lot of
| people.
|
| Here is a little theory/ observation (sorry for the very broad
| strokes, just an idea): right-wing ideologies tend to justify
| ethical positions with contingent realities (for example
| "natural family" vs "marriage against nature"). Left-wing
| ideologies tend to deny reality when it goes against some
| perceived value (for example, the natural tendency to work for
| personal gain, when collective ownership for the common good is
| the value to be promoted).
| runarberg wrote:
| I find these comparisons between the supposed left and right
| wing ideologies silly at best. The right wing political
| spectrum is just as guilty (or even more so) of being "out of
| touch with reality" as the left. Just look at the climate
| disaster and the supposed right wing solutions to it (if they
| are even willing to admit its real).
|
| Now back to Dawkins, but he is often wrong on _both_ ethical
| and fundimental grounds. This tweet is an example of that
| (there is a sibling comment explaining the scientific reason
| for why he is wrong), as is almost always the case when
| Dawkins attacks religion. Furthermore, quite often the moral
| argument can't simply be detached from a statement. As an
| example look at the climate disaster again. It is morally
| wrong to pollute, but also stuff brakes badly if you pollute
| too much. You can't put the moral argument out side of the
| bracket and say: "I'm only arguing that increased carbon
| emission are good for the economy", then you are guilty of
| stacking the rules of the debate into your favor, and Dawkins
| does this all the time.
| Udik wrote:
| > there is a sibling comment explaining the scientific
| reason for why he is wrong
|
| If you're referring to andrewla's comments, I don't agree,
| his 'scientific' argument is that 'variety is the fuel of
| evolution'. Which is a pretty vague statement. Any
| selective pressure is acting on existing variety to squeeze
| it. Evolution needs variety precisely to select traits-
| that is, kill off parts of that variety. Dawkins'
| consideration still holds true: we practiced eugenics on
| dogs for millennia, and they did evolve in a direction that
| was desirable to us. Technically, it works.
|
| > The right wing political spectrum is just as guilty (or
| even more so) of being "out of touch with reality" as the
| left.
|
| Regarding climate change, I do think that (while the right
| is certainly in denial) the left is projecting on the issue
| of climate change a vast series of _ethical_ issues that it
| conflates with the reality of climate change. The issues of
| poverty and inequality, of capitalism vs collective good,
| etc. And I think that the right 's denial might be in part
| a reaction to this confusion between a scientific fact and
| the way it was framed by the left. Why I don't see climate
| rallies asking for the construction of hundreds of new
| nuclear plants? That would help in solving climate change
| much more than everything we did so far.
| champagneben wrote:
| 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.
| yters wrote:
| If evolution is successful because it is unguided, then by
| guiding evolution we negate what got us here in the first
| place.
|
| On the other hand, if evolution is successful because it is
| guided by a supreme mind, then our physical properties are
| only a small facet of what makes us who we are. Thus, a
| eugenics breeding program is unlikely to make a big
| difference. And, if we do selectively breed a bunch of
| attractive, athletic, high IQ individuals, then that could
| lead to a moral disaster.
| jaquers wrote:
| 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.
| andrewla wrote:
| I agree, that's how I read his statement. But that
| statement is wrong. It is not possible. Eugenics is an
| incorrect theory. The idea that it is correct but morally
| repugnant is a terrifyingly ignorant stance (though
| commonly held).
|
| See my reply to the sibling comment -- briefly, variety is
| the driver of evolution, not selection. The more you
| constrain variety, the worse off the population is from an
| evolutionary perspective. Any attempt is net negative, a
| large-scale attempt would be disastrous, regardless of the
| moral or ethical implications.
| andrewla wrote:
| The trick of it is that you can certainly practice selective
| breeding on humans. If you want taller humans, you can breed
| taller humans. Unethical, etc., but would work.
|
| That is not what eugenics is. Dawkins might just have
| misunderstood what eugenics was as an applied science, but it
| would be egregious in itself if so.
|
| Eugenics is the idea that we can "improve" the human stock
| through selective breeding, especially by excluding
| "undesirables". Any attempt to do this (unless you are
| omniscient) actually has the opposite effect -- variety is
| the fuel of evolution, not selection. Attempts to limit
| variability do things like create monocultures and other very
| dangerous and fragile systems. Acceptable risk for
| agriculture because our use cases are narrow (dangerous but
| mitigated by the fact that different strains are kept active
| for different purposes for most food stock), but for humans
| it would be a disaster.
|
| It's a mistake to think that ethics is the only thing that
| prevents us from engaging in large-scale eugenics -- it's
| just an application of a misunderstanding of the underlying
| science; like trying to create a Maxwell's Daemon for your
| perpetual motion machine.
| btilly wrote:
| Making this concrete, eugenics is based on the idea that
| breeding for the characteristics that we think are
| desirable will lead to better humans. However the
| characteristics that we think are desirable are often more
| connected with prejudice than anything desirable. And in
| the process of breeding for any one characteristic we often
| accidentally pull in others we don't like so much.
|
| Lest this seem like merely a theoretical point, read https:
| //dogbehaviorscience.wordpress.com/2012/09/29/100-year...
| to see how this has played out in dog breeds.
|
| Eugenics would clearly accomplish something. It is unlikely
| that that something would be desirable.
| sgillen wrote:
| Couldn't you bake in variety as one of the desirable
| characteristics to pass on to the next generation? And also
| from that tweet it's not even clear that Dawkins would
| disagree with you.. it seems like you are disagreeing with
| the common criteria for good that people will come up with
| rather than if eugenics itself would work. You even say
| yourself that if you were omniscient that eugenics could
| work...
|
| Like I do understand what you are saying, but it seems
| weird to me to take this one tweet you disagree with and
| conclude that Dawkins has only a shallow understanding of
| evolution, especially when it seems like you only disagree
| on the nuances of a definition.
| andrewla wrote:
| I gave the tweet as an example of a more general trend.
| The linked demonstration shows a similar shallowness (the
| focus on mechanism) which is what brought it to mind.
|
| On the other point, I don't even understand what it means
| to breed for the trait of "variety". It's a collective,
| not an individual trait. If you allow individuals to
| practice eugenics by selecting their mates through mutual
| assent then that works, but that's not eugenics.
| sgillen wrote:
| Fair enough..
|
| I was thinking of a hypothetical eugenic society, where
| they could let (force?) everyone to breed every X years.
| Then they could try to optimize that entire batch of
| mates to optimize whatever traits they chose plus some
| measure of variety in the gene pool. Would that satisfy
| your definition of eugenics?
| czzr wrote:
| So you agree that selective breeding is possible for
| humans? I think that's all he is saying, in response to
| people who might incorrectly recoil from the idea that
| practices that work on animals also work on humans.
|
| Your other points about selective breeding being fragile
| and most likely a long term disaster are true, but I think
| they're second order points.
|
| It's also a big jump to assume that Dawkins is unaware of
| the downsides of selective breeding, so your interpretation
| of his tweet seems somewhat uncharitable.
| andrewla wrote:
| He uses the word "eugenics".
| MaxBarraclough wrote:
| 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 wrote:
| Not a Firefox issue. The same happened to me in Chrome.
| shaunxcode wrote:
| 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!
| dfee wrote:
| 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.
| marvindanig wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-05-27 23:01 UTC)