Q&A: Technological Evolution
Technological Evolution
Question
Good evening!
A simple question: is it correct to say that a computer that builds robots in its own form is basically heredity, just not biological?
And is it also correct to compare a computer program that is copied to a dividing cell (although the program does not operate in the phenotype, but rather is parallel to the genotype)?
And if we combine the questions, then if a computer creates robots and puts its program into them, and they too continue creating, is that evolution (of course without getting into the part about selection)?
Another question: if natural selection and heredity are a blind process, where what is better adapted is what survives, then how do people talk about epigenetics, which allows (perhaps) inheritance of acquired traits?
Thank you.
Answer
This is really a question of definition. If those robots die out and contend with the environment, then there will definitely be evolution there. The mechanism of heredity does not matter. What matters is that there is heredity.
About epigenetics, you can read sources that deal with it. For example, on Wikipedia.
Discussion on Answer
You can say anything. But for that you need to know biology. There is epigenetics, and you can read about it.
Thank you for the quick reply. Another question: I do not understand how, according to Lamarck, the organism changes. What difference does it make that it wants to change? After all, we cannot lengthen our necks, for example, because of circumstances, can we? Is it like developing muscles or remembering things?
That you would have to ask him. As far as I know, Lamarck did not propose a mechanism, but pointed to a phenomenon (a real one: that there is progress in the direction of what is beneficial. But the mechanistic explanation for it is evolution).
Meaning that according to Lamarck evolution is teleological, or even fatalistic, whereas according to Darwin it is random?
Teleological. I did not understand why fatalistic. And according to Darwin it is based on randomness.
Following up on the question (and on other similar questions I asked recently): why, according to Darwinian evolution, can one not speak of acquired inheritance? And just as in Lamarckian evolution acquired traits are passed on, why not also say in Darwin that an acquired trait changes the DNA the way a mutation does?