On Differences Between Patent Archives and Fossil DNAs
(If Any At All)

Y. B. Karasik,
Thought Guiding Systems Corp.,
Ottawa, Canada.

A few days ago Genady Filkovsky drew my attention to two articles [1, 2], which, inter alia, point out to the differences between bio- and technical evolution:

(It is not that all this is explicitly said in those pretty vague articles but it seemed to me that this is said in them.)

These are interesting and not trivial observations. So far other authors used to point out to trivial and obvious ones only:

In the view of the above non-trivial differences, it is interesting to figure out why technical systems have the capability of getting reborn and why bio-systems allegedly do not have such a capability. Technical systems are described in documents which do not disappear even if a system dies out. Its description can always be invoked and used for rebirth of the system. On the other hand, if a species dies out its description gets lost forever. Stop! This is incorrect! DNA of a species which died out does not get lost forever! It preserves in fossils! Hence description of the species also does not get lost. The only difference then is that people can use the archived descriptions of technical systems to get them reborn and the nature cannot use DNAs preserved in fossils to get bio species reborn!

But what if it can but we simply do not know? What if mating is not the only way to reproduce bio systems? What if the nature can also "invoke" the "archived" DNAs (under some conditions) and recreate the died out species from fossils? So far nobody considered this possibility. The scientists only discussed the possibility of artificial reviving species from fossils in the labs with the help of humans (like in "Jurassic Parc"). The possibility that it can happen naturally, not in the lab and without human intervention, has never been contemplated. Should, however, nature have a capability to reborn species from fossils, the first difference between the bio and technical systems would disappear.

(By the way, is there any way to "infect" a cell with an alien DNA, which would susbstitute the original DNA of the cell? If no law of biology precludes from this, then I can imagine a micro-organisms that "eat" DNAs of dead animals and then transfer them to the cells of the living animals and "infecting" them with these DNAs. Some other schemes of natural rebirth of the died out species can also be envisioned.)

Regarding the transfer of bio technologies from one species to another, it would be interesting to either find an explanation to why this does not happen or find a counter example. Maybe again there are some bio agents (akin to viruses), which can transfer bio technologies by infecting species and modifying its DNA? Who knows?

Anyway, the afore-mentioned articles are thought provoking. They also indicate that the real research on technological evolution (as well as on bio one) is being conducted outside of the so called TRIZ community. The latter only shouts and boasts at all possible venues that it is at the forefront of the research of technological evolution, whereas it is not. It is only busy with evolving itself into a TRIZ-mafia rather than with a scientific research whatsoever.