Random mutations & genetics

[Jacra]

Since I have a background in this field I'm intrigued by the premise of the game but would like to know how realistic it indeed is. Most of the time people misunderstand natural evolution greatly and I'm curious if I can recommend it to teach better or not. So my question is: Does this work by random mutations on a genetic like level? With most being silent (non-coding stretches, redundant bases, imprinting based silencing)? And roughly 4-5 deadly mutations per creature but those commonly silent as in reality? Allowing outbursts of very unexpected results a few generations down the line or death?
Or is this indeed a game of directed evolution, selection based on player-chosen changes? Which would feed "intelligent design" ideas.

[Ryan James]

it can have dodgy mutantions that dont last as a species or sometimes not even begin as one also you can choose to mess around with there dna or let them change themselves over time

[TinkerHat]

i would assume the game is pretty simaller to realistic evolution as thus far, creatures evolve to there world and it really cant match anything i try making in the lab in the games in game engineering area, so i would assume the mutations that do happen work, of course half the games everything dies

[Quasar]

The genetics side of things is not quite as complex as that, I'm afraid. The genomes are haploid, and represented as a series of numerical values. Mutation is applied numerically, via a random number generator, rather than by adding, changing or removing codons.

Some genes are not expressed (limb genes won't be expressed if the limb isn't, etc), but otherwise the genomes have a very high signal to noise ratio in comparison to real life DNA. This is primarily to make gene comparisons easier on the CPU.

So that's the bad news. The good news is, this is absolutely *not* a game of directed evolution.

The player has no means by which to trigger specific mutations: they need to happen randomly before they can be influenced by selection pressures. I do not code those selection pressures, either: I code a world in which creatures struggle to survive and reproduce. The actual forces that drive evolution, such as natural selection, are completely emergent.

[Jacra]

Very interesting, thanks!

[smjjames]

You can use the nursery to prod evolution in a certain direction, but the mutations still have to happen randomly.

[Jacra]

Will there be creatures which are not bi-lateral? That exists on earth, just not common and did not make it out of the oceans mostly (sea sponges, star fish, hydra etc).

[smjjames]

Also some of the Edicaran biota. No idea how Quasar would go about implementing radial creatures or otherwise non-bilateral creatures though.

[SkaarSmashKikou]

Originally posted by smjjames:

Also some of the Edicaran biota. No idea how Quasar would go about implementing radial creatures or otherwise non-bilateral creatures though.

That could be great to view, especially on a long-term game....but I higly guess that the radial creatures could be way more complex to code. But, still, it was Quasar who made the choices (so far, so good) , so who know.

[Quasar]

Non-bilateral symmetry has been a "no" for a while, but I've recently been reconsidering that answer thanks to aquatic creatures being a thing and limbs no longer having to reach the ground to be useful.

I've also been wanting to make other upgrades to the body structure, and radial body plans would be a neat addition to that feature. Plus, I can see a feasible way it could be implemented. So let's say it's a far more tentative "no" than it's been before, possibly even a "maybe".

[SkaarSmashKikou]

Originally posted by Quasar:

Non-bilateral symmetry has been a "no" for a while, but I've recently been reconsidering that answer thanks to aquatic creatures being a thing and limbs no longer having to reach the ground to be useful.

I've also been wanting to make other upgrades to the body structure, and radial body plans would be a neat addition to that feature. Plus, I can see a feasible way it could be implemented. So let's say it's a far more tentative "no" than it's been before, possibly even a "maybe".

A "maybe" (even as it still an maybe) is already way more enthusiastic to hear, than an absolute no. The Ediacaran was an very interesting period of Earth, and having the chance to view such an world evolving could be really something.

I don't know if you have already read them, but, here, three recent papers on the Ediacaran fauna, for you (and, for others fans who could be interested, and read this thread):

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/brv.12379
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08120099.2018.1472666?journalCode=taje20
https://evolutionnews.org/2018/09/why-dickinsonia-was-most-probably-not-an-ediacaran-animal/