Quote:

And maybe it's descendency will too.

Of course the point is moot here, since we're talking about ants, and workers are
infertile.

Quote:

Original post by Timkin Complex behaviours like hunting are learned and for most species, this learning is initiated through "play" as a youngster.

Yeap. There is a very nice article about playing here on gamedev.

Anyway, I'm not sure if lions, for example, are taught by the adults on how to hunt.

Cats, as other example, know how to hunt a bird without having to be taught how to do it. The chasing play they do, comes up instinctically, nobody teaches that to them. I think that's also true for lions.

Quote:

Original post by Timkin Of course, that's just my view point... and it could be wrong! ;)

You know, I'm posting this exactly with the hope of being proven wrong. I wouldn't like to waste my time thinking about things that aren't right. :)

I think we agree quite a lot in our points of view anyway.

[Edited by - owl on November 24, 2005 8:44:55 PM]

Quote:

Original post by LeGreg Quote: And maybe it's descendency will too. Of course the point is moot here, since we're talking about ants, and workers are infertile.

That seems to be true! So, HTF do they evolve? Do they? :)

Quote:

Original post by owl Quote: Original post by LeGreg Quote: And maybe it's descendency will too. Of course the point is moot here, since we're talking about ants, and workers are infertile. That seems to be true. So, HTF do they evolve? Do they?

I dont believe too much in natural selection, but assuming it is true:
An ant queen that gets a mutation that make her produce better workers will have more chance of seeing her nest survives long enough for her to pass that gene into daughters that will make other nests with superior workers and spread that good gene.

Thus sterile ant workers can evolve from mutation of their queen. I would go as far as thinking that since genetic material comes from a very small percentage of the population, a good mutation can spread faster than with your average "everyone can spread their juice" mammal.

That would be an interesting experience with GA... Queens vs Couple evolution deathmatch.

Quote:

Original post by Steadtler Quote: Original post by owl Quote: Original post by LeGreg Quote: And maybe it's descendency will too. Of course the point is moot here, since we're talking about ants, and workers are infertile. That seems to be true. So, HTF do they evolve? Do they? I dont believe too much in natural selection, but assuming it is true: An ant queen that gets a mutation that make her produce better workers will have more chance of seeing her nest survives long enough for her to pass that gene into daughters that will make other nests with superior workers and spread that good gene. Thus sterile ant workers can evolve from mutation of their queen. I would go as far as thinking that since genetic material comes from a very small percentage of the population, a good mutation can spread faster than with your average "everyone can spread their juice" mammal.

But workers have special behaviors and characteristics. Are their behaviors product of "random" mutations on a creature (the queen) that do not behave like them? I find that hard to sustain logically and mathematically. Given an infinite number of posibilities for a mutation to be beneficial or detrimental, on a finite number of ants, there are big changes of having a long period of detrimental mutations that would doom the species.

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous Poster Evolution does not work by recording the experiences and choices of individuals. Rather the biology of the individual affects what choices it will make....

Fair enough. Now, why does the biology of the individual changes in the first place?

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous PosterThe genetics can also be affected by mutations...

Read my post above. If mutation were the only factor of evolution then life should have ended long time ago. What else causes species to evolve?

Quote:

Original post by Anonymous PosterThe genetics can also be Wild animals that instinctively know how to hunt will survive better...

We agree. But how do they know how to hunt instinctively? Or how to build a nest, a trap, or to bring a pray to their mate to gain it's sexual favors? Through "random" mutations?

Quote:

Original post by owl But workers have special behaviors and characteristics. Are their behaviors product of "random" mutations on a creature (the queen) that do not behave like them? I find that hard to sustain logically and mathematically. Given an infinite number of posibilities for a mutation to be beneficial or detrimental, on a finite number of ants, there are big changes of having a long period of detrimental mutations that would doom the species.

I dont see what is the problem, logically or mathematically. First, that the queen (and princess, etc) does not behave like the workers is inconsequential: Only the queen (and the few males) can pass genetic information. Thus anything that doesnt come from each worker's experience or reflexion comes from the queen. The queen is not a worker, but she holds every gene needed to create a worker. Physical or behavioral, it does not matter.

Second, according to the evolution theory, a bad mutation would decrease the chances of survival of that particular nest of ants, thus would probably be eliminated through competition with the other nests and species.

What I am thinking, is that the "queen" model would accelerate that evolution. On the normal "couple" model, a beneficial mutation will take many, many generations to spread. On a "queen" model, it could spread to almost the entire colony in a few generation. Likely, a detrimental one will spread as fast and doom the nest fairly quickly. On an evolution point of view, it is like each nest is a single individual. Which is not that crazy, since they almost all share the same genetic code...

Quote:

Original post by Timkin Quote: Original post by etothex 41 6C 6C 20 79 6F 75 20 6E 65 65 64 20 69 6E 20 74 68 69 73 20 6C 69 66 65 20 69 73 20 69 67 6E 6F 72 61 6E 63 65 20 61 6E 64 20 63 6F 6E 66 69 64 65 6E 63 65 3B 20 74 68 65 6E 20 73 75 63 63 65 73 73 20 69 73 20 73 75 72 65 2E 49 27 6d 20 6f 62 76 69 6f 75 73 6c 79 20 6a 75 73 74 20 74 6f 6f 20 73 6d 61 72 74 20 66 6f 72 20 6d 79 20 6f 77 6e 20 67 6f 6f 64

50 65 72 68 61 70 73 20 79 6F 75 20 63 61 6E 20 68 65 6C 70 20 6D 65 20 67 65 74 20 6F 75 74 20 6F 66 20 74 68 65 20 62 6F 78 2E 00

Quote:

Original post by Thevenin Quote: Original post by Timkin Quote: Original post by etothex 41 6C 6C 20 79 6F 75 20 6E 65 65 64 20 69 6E 20 74 68 69 73 20 6C 69 66 65 20 69 73 20 69 67 6E 6F 72 61 6E 63 65 20 61 6E 64 20 63 6F 6E 66 69 64 65 6E 63 65 3B 20 74 68 65 6E 20 73 75 63 63 65 73 73 20 69 73 20 73 75 72 65 2E 49 27 6d 20 6f 62 76 69 6f 75 73 6c 79 20 6a 75 73 74 20 74 6f 6f 20 73 6d 61 72 74 20 66 6f 72 20 6d 79 20 6f 77 6e 20 67 6f 6f 64 50 65 72 68 61 70 73 20 79 6F 75 20 63 61 6E 20 68 65 6C 70 20 6D 65 20 67 65 74 20 6F 75 74 20 6F 66 20 74 68 65 20 62 6F 78 2E 00

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

Quote:

Original post by Steadtler I dont see what is the problem, logically or mathematically. First, that the queen (and princess, etc) does not behave like the workers is inconsequential: Only the queen (and the few males) can pass genetic information. Thus anything that doesnt come from each worker's experience or reflexion comes from the queen. The queen is not a worker, but she holds every gene needed to create a worker. Physical or behavioral, it does not matter.

The problem I was reffering to was mutation, not the queen.

How does the queen have genes to form workers, their different behaviors and adaptations to the enviroment to perform worker tasks if the queen never performed as a worker?

The only way I can think this is possible is that the queen, at some earlier point of evolution had to do worker tasks.

At the same time, workers would never be able to adapt themselves to the enviroment but just by the means of mutation (in the workers encoding of queen's DNA).

But as I said earlier, mutation is a tragedy in natural selection. The only reason why mutation works in GA is because the density of population is tricked to be constant, no matter how destructive mutations happen to be. In natural evolution, a negative mutation into vital parts of a creature are mortal for the entire species. And chances of that happening are high because the density of the population and the periods of time for adaptation are finite.