Notes on Filkovsky's Lesson on Evolution

Y. B. Karasik
Thoughts Guiding Systems Corp.,
Ottawa, Canada.
e-mail:karasik@sympatico.ca

  1. I am not convinced that "an organism as a whole has one function, and this is the same function for all living organisms: to reproduce, to pass its genetic material into the future." Can anybody prove it ?

  2. Filkovsky claims that viruses are more ideal reproductive machines (from the standpoint of TRIZ) than more advanced organisms, that "they are almost Ideal Final Result." Is it really so ?

    Consider, for example, humans. There are two definitions of the ideal machine: the ideal machine is a machine that occupies no space, consumes no energy, etc. but nevertheless performs its function, and another definition which uses quotient of useful/harmful effects. The first definition is not applicable to both viruses and humans. Both of them occupy some space, although viruses are much smaller than humans. But the size itself does not matter. Otherwise we would have to assume that rabbits are more ideal reproductive machines than humans just because they are smaller.

    Let's, therefore, try the second definition of the ideal machine. The ratio (useful effects)/(harmful effects) is definitely higher for humans than for viruses (should we be able to calculate it, though). I explain as follows: humans beget humans (which is a useful effect) and in so doing they harm to no one (harmful effect = 0). Whereas viruses by creating their offsprings have no useful effect (useful effect = 0) but have, instead, a huge harmful effect.

    Thus, TRIZ seems to imply that humans are more ideal reproductive machines than viruses. Hence, biological evolution seems to confirm TRIZ rather than refute it !