Modelling biases and biasing models: The role of 'hidden preferences' in the artificial co-evolution of symmetrical signals

Recently, within the biology literature, there has been some interest in exploring the evolutionary function of animal displays through computer simulations of evolutionary processes. Here we provide a critique of an exploration of the evolutionary function of complex symmetrical displays. We investigate the hypothesis that complex symmetrical signal form is the product of a ‘hidden preference’ inherent in all sensory systems (i.e. a universal sensory bias). Through extending previous work and relaxing its assumptions we reveal that the posited ‘hidden preference’ for complex symmetry is in reality a preference for homogeneity. The resulting implications for further accounts of the evolutionary function of complex symmetrical patterning are considered.

[1]  T. Guilford,et al.  An exaggerated preference for simple neural network models of signal evolution? , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[2]  A. Zahavi.  Mate selection-a selection for a handicap. , 1975, Journal of theoretical biology.

[3]  M. Enquist,et al.  Hidden preferences and the evolution of signals , 1993 .

[4]  R. Johnstone.  Female preference for symmetrical males as a by-product of selection for mate recognition , 1994, Nature.

[5]  Karl Sims,et al.  Evolving 3d morphology and behavior by competition , 1994 .

[6]  R. Thornhill,et al.  Fluctuating asymmetry and sexual selection. , 1994, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[7]  Stanley J. Rosenschein,et al.  From Animals to Animats: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior , 1996 .

[8]  R. A. Johnstone.  Artefact or network evolution? , 1995, Nature.

[9]  P. Grobstein.  From Animals to Animats 2: Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Simulation of Adaptive Behavior , 1994 .

[10]  M. Golubitsky,et al.  Fearful Symmetry: Is God a Geometer? , 1992 .

[11]  Magnus Enquist,et al.  Symmetry, beauty and evolution , 1994, Nature.

[12]  A. Zahavi.  The cost of honesty (further remarks on the handicap principle). , 1977, Journal of theoretical biology.

[13]  Geoffrey P. Miller,et al.  Artificial life as theoretical biology: How to do real science with computer simulation , 1995 .

[14]  D C Krakauer,et al.  The evolution of exploitation and honesty in animal communication: a model using artificial neural networks. , 1995, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[15]  M. Enquist,et al.  Darwin’s principle of antithesis revisited: a role for perceptual biases in the evolution of intraspecific signals , 1995, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  M. Enquist,et al.  Selection of exaggerated male traits by female aesthetic senses , 1993, Nature.

[17]  Daniel Osorio,et al.  Symmetry detection by categorization of spatial phase, a model , 1996, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[18]  A Arak,et al.  Conflict, receiver bias and the evolution of signal form. , 1995, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[19]  N. Cook.  Artefact or network evolution? , 1995, Nature.