100 thoughts on “Simulating Natural Selection

  1. If you're about to leave a comment saying that faster creatures aren't actually less efficient, read this first. I presented that part a bit strangely.

    At 2:14, I say moving quickly is less efficient, giving the example of a creature moving a unit distance in half the time, using twice the energy. Then, at 4:53, I show a formula for the energy cost per unit time, which depends on the square of the creature's speed.

    I gave distance per time, energy per time, and distance per energy at separate parts of the video, and that was confusing.

    So here's a more explicit summary.
    If we double a creature's speed…
    – its distance per time is doubled (the definition of speed)
    – its energy per time is quadrupled (because it depends on the square of speed)
    – its distance per energy is halved: (2x distance per time) / (4x energy per unit time)

    That last bullet is the "efficiency" from the video. With its starting energy for a day, a 2x-speed creature can only travel half the distance.

  2. Please make an AI Fish Tank. All options for simulated screensaver type fish tanks are very unnatural and repetitive. Thanks.

  3. The most alarming part of the simulation is that the rate of reduction in food availability determines if the population collapses or not. Lets see how fast our crops will fail as the arctic ice melts.

  4. What happens when some unexpected problem occurs, like earthquakes and all. Do the blobs help each other out for the interim to survive?

    Also, it will be good to see what happens if we introduce the concept of gender and start with equal sex ratio and then observe if with time the ratio becomes unequal drastically.

  5. So anyone got theories on what could make an environment for slow blobs to be a viable growth?

    My best one is that if the days were set as a time, rather than "everyone make it to a food and back or run out of distance", and the slower blobs could survive more days than faster ones.

  6. this is genuinely a classroom worthy video, i love that you actually say when your hypotheses or just straight-up guess is wrong.

  7. the end makes sense, if you can sense food AND get to it fast you have a very very high survival rate and will live on or reproduce

  8. Yes except money has completely negated all "natural" selection on earth. So I dint see the validity of this. The wealthy survive not the strong

  9. I feel like there should be more traits. Like Gluttony, where they need 2 food to pass on and 3 or 4 food to reproduce but they are much slower. Or maybe like a Starvation trait, where half a food is needed and only one food for reproduction, but they way less energy.

  10. "That's the thing about natural selection, it doesn't care what i or anyone else thinks is best, it just does what it does." – God when he looks at human race.

  11. A very interesting way to understand why the humans became the ''fittest'' over the generations is a little thing i realized. A trait called ''enviroment manipulation'', enviroment changes greatly what the ''fittest'' creatures are, but what if you are the one changing it to your will? Yep you guessed it. You thrive as the ''fittest''.
    I dont know, just felt like putting this in here. And loved the video by the way.
    Have a nice day

  12. Imagine food source just got depleted and population increases, thats what is happening right now, natural selection.

  13. When you say "Selection is not for the good of the species" you seem to implicitly assume "good for the species" means maximizing specimen, which doesn't have to be true (and IMO isn't true). It is also somewhat inaccurate to even speak of "a species" when the population consists of specimen that have evolved to be different from each other. What then is the definition of a species? All specimen with exactly the same attributes?

  14. This should be a video game. Like Mario 128, but with better graphics, more interaction, tons more options of interaction(basically a mix between a worldblox-like sim and a Pet sim), and most importantly, science… and adorable little bean blobs eating peas.

  15. The first simulation where all three traits were varying seems like it only ran across the span of… what… 5 days?
    That's disappointing because the results are then absolutely irrelevant 🙁

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Back To Top