You guys are thinking evolution is so weak.Alast wrote:That's simply not how natural selection works. No matter how much you want it.
If you smart with a smart swimmer in an environment favoring smart over dumb swimmers you will never see the smart swimmer successfully mutating into a dumb one because the smart one is more efficient here.
Vice versa on an environment favoring dumb swimmers.
I'd too love seeing smart organisms evolve from dumb ones. We've tried that pretty hard in the past. "Nature" just doesn't provide it on such small scale.
I do have a recipe which allows dumb cells to easily turn into smart ones, the only flaw being that it is close to impossible to get a programmed senseocyte simply because they pop up without programming, which is basically a keratinocyte in a substrate without predators. Automatic random programmation on popup is reasonable, but to get to the point, here is the recipe:
-Simple dumb buyocytic swimmer
-Rapid mutation causes a new cell to appear on the organism, a senseocyte. It produces S1 when it sees the wall.
-The buyocyte was forced to be programmed randomly due to radiation being turned on, just like snap values.
This didn't mean it was any different from regular buyocytes. It just had the ability to react to S1 by 8x from a, while their passive -3 b remained.
This was completely random, not the slightest amount of favouring of a specific kind of cell. It just didn't have tons of 0 scores in many cell modes from the start that would originally not even alter the behaviour or efficiency of the cell.
This organism having the ability to oscillate without a neurocyte by bouncing near the wall, is quite a bit more efficient than regular ones.
An even simpler example of such randomised programmation of a newly appeared cell is the age buyocyte. A buyocyte which has the ability to reverse its flow after 20 hours of going up. Much more efficient, all it takes is for programmation to tick itself on cell creation, and on cell mutation.