|
A
Natural Brain for Intelligent Design
A new scientific concept for
biological evolution
|
Boris Zlotin and Alla Zusman
Ideation International
Southfield, Michigan |
|
1985 -- 2000
Translated by Alla Zusman[ 1 ]
Foreword
The discussion about Intelligent Design -- fed by political controversy
-- is heating up, as evidenced by recent editorials in USA Today
("Faith, science complement each other," August 16, 2005, and "New
school year, new battle over evolution," August 26, 2005). Yet a
solution exists that can pacify the frenzy.
The main question of the discussion is the following: Is Intelligent
Design a science or religion? Unfortunately, today it is both.
The science part: It is a scientific fact that normal evolution through
haphazard mutation and selection could not have created certain complex
biological structures in the available timeframe. A possible explanation
for this paradox is that the evolution of a species is not random but is
subjected to guidance (intelligent design) that streamlines the
evolutionary process. This explanation appears scientific -- with
calculations, formulated discrepancies in the existing theory, and a
possible direction that resolves these problems.
But now comes the difficult part: Who is this intelligent guide capable
of influencing evolution? So far, the only candidate for this role is an
almighty God, and this is not a scientific solution. (The existence of
God is a matter of faith rather than scientific proof.) At the same time
we have no reason to believe that Little Green Extraterrestrials are
responsible. If we could only find another plausible candidate -- one
with a physical rather than imaginary nature -- we could keep things in
the realm of science and take religion out of the equation.
The authors are specialists in technological evolution. In the mid-1980s
we conducted in-depth studies of biological evolution theory for the
purpose of identifying useful analogies between natural and
technological evolution. We were surprised by the numerous discrepancies
in the theory of natural evolution (the "intelligent design" problem is
just one of more than a dozen). In the process of seeking a solution to
explain the discrepancies, we developed a theory that explains
intelligent design without God's involvement. In 1986 we reported and
discussed our findings with evolution specialists; they were outraged,
yet could offer no scientific objections to the theory. For the next 20
years as we worked on other matters we kept our eye on the subject, and
it still looks promising (additional data accumulated over the last two
decades supports our view).
This paper is a result of applying the TRIZ approach to the process of
solving scientific problems and generating new scientific concepts.[ 2 ]
The processes for solving scientific problems and generating new
scientific concepts are based on the same approach -- problem inversion.
The essence of this approach is simple: instead of asking, "How can a
certain phenomenon be explained?" we ask "How can this phenomenon be
created under the given conditions?" The problem then becomes a typical
inventive problem and can be attacked using existing TRIZ tools such as
the Innovation Principles, ARIZ, System of Operators, etc.[
3 ] Based on
this approach, a process was developed for building new scientific
concepts (see the Appendix).
To test the usefulness of the problem inversion approach for generating
new scientific concepts, the authors applied it to several areas,
including organization theory and biological evolution. This paper
describes the process and results of our efforts to invent a new concept
of biological evolution. The process/results were first presented in
1985 at the TRIZ Congress in Petrozavodsk, Russia.[ 4
] The hypothesis was
revisited in 1988 at a TRIZ seminar conducted by Boris Zlotin and Dr. Gafur Zainiev at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics at the Siberian
division (Novosibirsk) of the Soviet Union Academy of Science.
The report presented at the TRIZ Congress and later in Novosibirsk
generated much controversy. Our TRIZ colleagues were concerned that
attempts to break into such highly specialized areas -- especially with a
hypothesis that seemed more like fantasy than reality -- would compromise
TRIZ in the eyes of professionals. For their part, professional
evolutionists were (to say the least) extremely skeptical as well. But
over the next 20 years, no facts were brought to light that could
invalidate the hypothesis.
Introduction
It is no surprise that TRIZ specialists have long been interested in
biological evolution -- biology was one of the first sciences in which
evolutionary laws were discovered. An analysis of the work of famous
biologists-evolutionists (Shmalgayzen, Lubischtev, Yablokov,
Timofeev-Resovsky, Berg and others) has shown that it is fitting to
compare the patterns revealed for technological evolution with those of
biological evolution. There are many similarities, but also significant
differences. For example, some patterns well known in biology have not
yet surfaced in technology, and vice versa.
Our original intention was to learn the patterns of biological evolution
and transfer them to TRIZ. Because we were not professional biologists
we had to educate ourselves, starting with high school biology
textbooks, continuing with college courses, and eventually studying
monographs on various subjects (investing more than 1500 hours).
Gradually this in-depth study began to reveal certain difficulties and
even dilemmas (contradictions) in contemporary Darwinism, also called
the Synthetic Theory of Evolution (STE). Since we were involved in
developing TRIZ we decided to apply TRIZ elements and tools to
biological dilemmas. Since then our efforts to develop a methodology for
generating new scientific concepts and to develop new scientific
concepts related to biological evolution have continued in parallel.
Our work resulted in the hypothesis of a nature-given brain for intelligent design that
we believe, if proven, will complement STE. This hypothesis was first
presented at the Third TRIZ Congress in Petrozavodsk in 1985. We
continued working on it and in 1988 and 1989 presented and discussed it
with professional biologists during TRIZ seminars at the
Institute of Cytology and Genetics at the Siberian division of the
Soviet Union Academy of Science. We also briefly described the
hypothesis in the form of a science fiction idea in our children's book
A Month Under the Stars of Fantasy.[ 5 ]
Initial
model
The basic model of STE is well known: haphazard changes to live
organisms due to genetic mutations, and the survival of the most
adaptable species in the process of natural selection. This model
adequately explains the underlying mechanisms of many biological
processes, but demonstrates a number of crucial enigmas related to
specific facts and phenomena.
Enigma 1
Cephalization (from the Greek word
kephal, meaning "head") refers to the evolutionary trend of mental
and psychological capabilities evidenced by the ratio of brain mass
to body mass. It seems logical that with the growth of cephalization
the "pressure" of natural selection should become less, because a
more psychologically developed organism can compensate for negative
impacts from the environment through behavioral changes and
adaptation. For example, unusually cold weather can kill heat-loving
fish, while foxes and monkeys learn to avoid cold by hiding in
ground holes, creating shelters from dead leaves, and so on. The
development of mental capabilities should help animals survive
because it provides for better caring of the brood, gathering in
flocks, the sharing responsibilities, etc., lowering the pressure of
natural selection. This means that the growth in brain mass should
slow the organism's evolution -- however, paleontological research
reveals the opposite: evolution speeds up with cephalization. There
is no satisfactory explanation for this phenomenon.
Enigma 2
Estimations of the probability of the
appearance of certain biological features proves that relatively few
generations and a limited number of species (i.e., a relatively
small number of variants to explore) make complex biological
organisms unlikely to appear under the conditions of haphazard
mutation and selection. There have been several moderately
satisfactory attempts to explain this phenomena, but no general
agreement exists.
Enigma 3
The selection theory does not adequately
explain the evolution of features (organs) that are not functional
in infancy yet continue to evolve (e.g., the electric organs of the
electric ray). Nor does it explain the development of advanced
features before the need has arisen (seams in the skulls of mammals,
for example), or of features that are useful for the entire species
but harmful for an individual specimen (such as the rattle of a
rattlesnake).
Enigma 4
Biological evolution asserts that its
main purpose is to ensure the survival of the species rather than
the individual. If this is so, it seems preposterously excessive to
have an organ as powerful as the human brain or nervous system for
the exclusive purpose of individual survival.
Enigma 5
To explain the reasons for the
development of useful mutations, several hypotheses for the natural
inventiveness of live organisms have been offered. The first
referred to "embryo inventiveness"; as biology evolved,
inventiveness was attributed to cells, genes, molecules, and so on.
In effect, the responsibility for biological invention has been
moving deeper and deeper to the micro-level. But where does it end?
Analyzing the theory of biological
evolution in light of TRIZ has led to an interesting conclusion:
similar to the way TRIZ has evolved, the "battle line" in
bio-evolution lies in the evaluation of the role of trial-and-error
-- that is, the haphazard exploration of variants.
As mentioned earlier, the Synthetic
Theory of Evolution (STE) holds that bio-evolution is a result of
haphazard mutations (the exploration of variants). However, a number
of noted biologists-evolutionists, among them L. S. Berg and A. A.
Lubischtev, disagree with this theory. In its place they offer
models of evolution based on the assumption that patterns of
biological evolution exist (Berg's nomogenesis theory[
6 ]) or that
one or more end-seeking factors are responsible for guiding
evolution in a desirable direction (finalist theories of
evolution[ 7 ]). In the finalist theories the candidates for the role
of this factor are wide-ranging: from God to "programmed evolution."
Yet these models are not free of problems, either. If purposeful
evolution exits, why is it so slow? And why does it allow so many
failures such as dead ends, the elimination of an entire species,
etc.? The war between STE apologists and nomogenesists has been
going on for some time, exposing considerable differences between
the theories.
In addition to the difficulties mentioned above are less crucial
problems in biological theory. Explanations have been offered that
eliminate certain contradictions, but many of these are ad hoc
hypotheses capable of justifying whatever is needed. The sum total of
these explanations (and there are many in STE theory) makes the subject
too complex and rather clumsy, lacking the elegance of a true theory.
Clearly bio-evolution theory is in need of serious reexamination and
restructuring that will allow all of the related factors to be explained
from a single methodological platform.
Inverting the problem
Let us imagine that we have been tasked with designing a mechanism
capable of managing evolution -- that is, a means of enhancing a
biological organism toward its most ideal state in the most direct and
expeditious way. We are seeking, it would seem, to build an "electronic
brain for directing evolution," or an expert system for intelligent
design. This brain must be able to solve problems such as: Would the ideality of a
deer increase if its neck were longer? On the one hand, the number of
useful functions would increase because the deer would be able to reach
higher branches to obtain food. On the other hand, the harmful factors
would increase as well: a longer neck calls for a stronger skeleton to
carry the head; providing blood to the end of a longer neck requires a
more powerful heart, which will eventually lead to higher body mass and
thus increase the food required for survival. The brain for intelligent
design must weigh the advantages and disadvantages and then decide
whether a "suggested" mutation is beneficial. If there is no benefit,
the variant must be rejected without being field-tested, and new
variants explored. If there is a possible benefit, the brain must
command the genetic mechanism to start implementing the "innovation."
Let us summarize the requirements for the mechanism we are seeking.
Evidently it must be able to:
-
Consider available models of the given
organism, then select and test (mentally) various changes to the
organism in a particular environment.
-
Amass information about variants that
have been attempted in the past in order to avoid the same failures.
-
Establish a set of rules that define
preferable directions, exclude seemingly wrong paths, and limit the
number of trials; in other words, possess knowledge of applicable
evolutionary patterns.
-
Influence genetic mechanisms that will
test the results of mental selection in a real environment.
Of course, a sufficiently powerful computer could satisfy these
requirements. But a live brain can do so as well.
Interestingly, most finalistic theories were seeking such a brain as an
external entity to the organism, inevitably getting mired in mystique.
TRIZ, on the other hand, recommends a thorough search for available
resources. And in this case, the only available resource that fulfills
the requirements is the brain of the evolving organism.
Given the above, the following hypothesis can be formulated: The
evolution of a live organism can be guided by its own brain and nervous
system, as these possess practically all the required capabilities. Even
the brains of relatively simple organisms can formulate and resolve
problems based on an adequate model of the environment and of the
organism itself,[ 8 ] so long as they possess certain computation abilities
that will allow them to "calculate" a simple evolutionary jump, not to
mention much more complex reactive and adaptive behavior. The brain,
however, is capable of accumulating both operational and genetic
information (i.e., knowledge about the complex instincts of animals).
In the past there was a lack of information as to whether it was
possible to exert a "natural" influence on genes. But recent research
conducted by V. A. Geodakyan[ 9 ] in gender theory shows that it might
indeed be possible. A simple mechanism for creating this influence might
be the natural selection of the best (from an evolutionary point of
view) mate. A less obvious mechanism was suggested by biologist and
TRIZ specialist Dr. G. A. Zainiev,[ 10 ] who believes that rather than
influencing the structure of DNA molecules, such a mechanism can control
DNA activity -- that is, activate a switch that changes certain links
(genes) within the DNA structure so that they become dominant.
This hypothesis -- that an organism's evolution can be guided by its
brain and nervous system -- resolves the complex issues and
contradictions discussed earlier. It explains why fewer generations are
required compared to the calculated number: many of the "trials" can be
made "mentally." Moreover, the more advanced the brain, the more
effectively it can solve evolutionary tasks, and the faster the
evolution (in accordance with the actual process) can take place. The
hypothesis also explains certain failures, as the brain for intelligent
design cannot possess all the information necessary to predict results
many generations in the future. In fact its capabilities are rather
limited, allowing it to identify relatively short-term directions that
will benefit the lives of its successors only slightly better (or at
least not worse) than it will benefit its own life.
The hypothesis of a brain for intelligent design leads to the assumption
that an organism's "inventiveness" should, instead of being transferred
from molecules to elementary particles, be replaced with the
inventiveness of the previous system -- that is, the parental organisms.
It is also possible that the brain and nervous system have evolved as
tools to promote survival and evolution in the first place. The
hypothesis can also easily explain the appearance of advanced features,
collective adaptations, and organs that are not useful until fully
developed.
Verifying the hypothesis
The following facts support the hypothesis of a brain for intelligent
design:
Alfred Wallace proposed a theory of biological evolution as a result of
natural selection almost simultaneously with Darwin. Later, however, he
abandoned the idea because it could not explain the emergence and rapid
development of the human brain. Nor could it resolve the fact that the
complexity of a brain powerful enough to survive in our multi-faceted
lives conflicts with the relatively simple conditions that exist when
the brain is formed. From the point of view of our hypothesis this mismatch can be explained as follows: human intellect
forms as a result of a rapid (compared to evolutionary processes)
"switch" from focusing solely on evolution to utilizing some portion of
its computational power for everyday life. We can also explain the
phenomenon of excessive brain power with which the brain, formed in
ancient times on relatively simple tasks, can successfully handle the
problems of today. It also explains why evolution accelerated so
strongly with the appearance of humans then practically stopped after
Cro-Magnon: it is possible that the brain switched entirely from
evolution to everyday tasks.
In addition, this hypothesis explains why the range of brain capability
is significantly wider than that of other organs -- different people or
organisms have different brain volumes to be switched. Such abnormal
brain phenomenon as super-memory, high-speed mental computation, etc.
are rendered understandable. We might also assume that this switching
can be controlled and/or trained so that a human can, from the
biological point of view, become smarter.
The brain for intelligent design hypothesis is compatible and complementary
to Geodakyan's genetic theory of gender. It is also fairly compatible
with the Synthetic Theory of Evolution if one assumes the coexistence of
both mechanisms for mutation -- haphazard and purposeful. It is also
possible that, as it evolves further, the human brain will re-assign
some of its power back to evolutionary tasks.
What sort of objections can we expect against this hypothesis? For one,
it appears that it cannot explain the evolution of plants, as they do
not have brains. It is possible, however, that the role of a brain could
be performed by certain nerve groups such as ganglia in insects. And we
cannot exclude the possibility that specific cells exist to perform a
necessary function (nowadays we hear about cell or molecular computers).
In point of fact, the question of how plants evolve and whether or not
they have some brain-like power capable of guiding their evolution could
become the experimentum crucis on which the hypothesis is confirmed or
rejected.
Real verification of a hypothesis of this kind usually requires a
substantial amount of work that includes studying the entire complex of
known facts, phenomena and mechanisms and examining how they comply with
the hypothesis. In addition, experiments should be designed that will
prove or disprove the conclusions. It is clear that this work can only
be conducted by subject matter experts in the area. We can also expect
that the hypothesis, in the process of verification, will undergo
clarification, correction and enhancement.
Further
developing the concept
The main point of the concept we are addressing here is that the brain
of an organism is utilized as a functional resource. In other words, in
addition to its accepted function of ensuring the organism's survival
over its individual life cycle, the brain is capable of performing the
additional (and no less important) function of guiding the organism's
evolution. And if we extend this line of reasoning we can assume that
the brain can perform other useful functions as well.
One of the problems with gene theory relates to the extremely high
informational density of a genome (a combination of genes). The genome
must carry the enormous amount of information necessary to build an
organism, coordinate the growth of various organs, code numerous
instincts, etc. It seems that some of these functions could be performed
by the brain. For example, after its initial formation an embryo's brain
could control the development of the embryo.
As the embryo develops the brain continues to develop as well. And the
maternal organism can serve the purpose of "coordinator." The whole
process might look like an industrial process: The genome (project
specification) defines the basic parameters of the future organism,
while the maternal organism's brain implements the design according to
the manufacturing conditions. Another variant: the maternal brain
activates the brain of the embryo. It is also possible to "download"
certain information needed to form reflexes and instincts, similar to
the transfer of information from one computer to another. This mechanism
for transferring information might not support the full growth of the
complex live organism in vitro, thus making a long gestation period an
evolutionary benefit (the usual explanation is that a long pregnancy
increases the ability of the fetus to survive). This explanation might
fall short, however, as long gestations also create delivery problems
and endanger the mother's life.
Expanding on the idea of utilizing the informational resources of the
brain and nervous system, it is easy to see that if the above hypothesis
is correct, Mother Nature must offer another informational mechanism to
allow for the exchange of useful evolutionary information between
adults. How to build such a mechanism? It could work on the basis of
synergistic effects. Similar mechanisms exist: self-synchronization in
glowworms, the so-called crowd effect, and so on. Another (and rather
fantastic) way is telepathy. A third way might be the exchange of
information during intercourse, which provides the tightest contact
between the nervous systems of two specimens of different gender, while
brain control is usually shut down (another analogy with information
transfer from one computer to another).
The brain for intelligent design hypothesis is reminiscent of Lamarckism --
the theory developed by Lamarck[ 11 ] stating that the attributes gained
over the lifetime of an individual organism are passed on to its
offspring -- and especially the branch called psycho-Lamarckism. The
basic concept of psycho-Lamarckism assumes that the organism might wish
to change, and that these wishes influence the inheritance mechanism to
bring about changes in its successors. Darwinists reject this notion
because the mechanisms by which the psyche influences the inheritance
process are unknown. Yet it is interesting that Darwinism and Lamarckism
have been in competition for more than a century. Despite the fact that
Darwinism is the recognized winner, Lamarckism reasserts itself from
time to time, usually when relevant discoveries are made. The
explanation for this relationship might well be that the theories are
complementary[ 12 ]
and should eventually be integrated into a single
general theory, as happened earlier with the development of the
Synthetic Theory of Evolution.
For example, perhaps new attribute information gained over an organism's
lifetime does not affect the genes directly but instead is placed in an
"operational memory" in the maternal organism and then transmitted to
the fetus. If in several generations this new gain has proved useful and
does not conflict with other requirements, it becomes "written" into the
genes. This is analogous to a directive in military operations: when
headwaters collect and intelligence information accumulates, validate it
and select the information that has been confirmed multiple times.
If the brain for intelligent design hypothesis is true, and if its
derivative regarding the reason for different intellectual levels in
humans is correct, the following opportunity presents itself: reassign
some of the brain's power from evolutionary tasks to individual life
tasks, creating super-intellectuals who are capable of competing with
computers.
Another derivative holds that if the reason that human evolution has, in
every practical sense, stalled is related to the switch to daily tasks,
once the switching mechanism is controlled humanity can assume the
responsibility for its own evolution and evolve itself in a desirable
direction.
Another curious derivative exists: if animals have, in principle, a
powerful enough brain for intelligent design, switching might make it
possible to create animals that possess intellect.
Evolutionists are of the opinion that the highest level of integration
manifests itself in the evolution of evolutionary mechanisms -- a problem
that is brand new in modern evolution theory.[ 13 ]
It is interesting to
consider the evolution of evolutionary tools in light of TRIZ
principles, particularly the evolutionary pattern (or "law") called
Decreasing Human Involvement.
In bio-evolution it is possible to track the first two stages in the
decreasing application of trial-and-error. The evolution of the simplest
organisms is carried out at the level of actual trials, without any
memorizing of errors -- in other words, the wrong mutations were
eliminated but could reappear in future generations. Syngenesis
represents the transition to trials with memory. Mutations (both useful
and harmful) were recorded in recessive genes, preventing the immediate
elimination of unsuccessful mutants. This process led to a "bank" of
genes capable of recording numerous mutations, including those that are
useless at a particular evolutionary stage. When conditions change,
however, certain mutations might become important for survival and
quickly surface. Also, "genes memory" provides the means for integrating
mutations into complexes, neutralizing harmful mutations, etc. The
analogy to the utilization of higher levels of "creativity" (mental
trials and the application of patterns) has not yet been confirmed in
biological evolution. In this regard, the hypothesis of a brain
for intelligent design allows these mechanisms to be realized, thereby filling the
gap.
Let us summarize the above. It is obvious that a "brain for
directing evolution"
is capable of increasing the ideality of a live organism and advancing
it along an evolutionary line. The hypothesis does not conflict with any
important assumption and thus has the potential to be true. The precise
mechanisms by which this activity takes place, however, are as yet
unknown.
This hypothesis and its derivatives call for a more extensive
application of information technology approaches to biology, the purpose
being to learn about the informational processes of live organisms,
including the influence of informational exchange on evolution. This
conclusion is in complete accordance with the general direction in which
technology and science (biology in particular) are evolving.
The brain for intelligent design hypothesis will no doubt incite a host of
objections, especially from biologists. In anticipation of this we could
offer more arguments to support the hypothesis, but at this point we do
not believe this is necessary. It would be much more beneficial for the
science of biology if this direction were to catch the attention of
professional biologists that could analyze the matter and develop it
further. In our opinion, it makes little difference whether such a brain
exists or is only accepted as science fiction. For us its greater value
is as an example of a method for inventing new scientific hypotheses --
i.e., a method that could help subject matter experts address scientific
problems.
APPENDIX
Inventing New Scientific
Concepts
STAGE 1. Analyze the existing system
Step 1a. Learn about the system's …
-
Sub-systems
-
Super-systems
-
Structure
-
Functioning
-
Basic postulates and original facts
-
Basic patterns and known mechanisms
-
Evolutionary history and dynamics, basic
trends and stages of evolution
Step 1b. Learn about other systems related to the targeted
system (apply analogies based on similar phenomena, approaches, etc.)
Step 1c. Formulate and analyze a system model:
-
Create a simple model
-
Identify the basic sub-systems of the
model
-
Identify known limitations
-
Try working with typical and universal
models
Step 1d. Analyze the model's shortcomings in order to:
-
Reveal facts inconsistent with general
evolutionary patterns, including:
-- Poorly-founded postulates
-- Violations of accepted boundaries
-- Internal contradictions
-- Ad hoc hypotheses[ 14 ]
-- Unsolved problems
-
Reveal drawbacks associated with the
current stage of the system's evolution (stagnation, for example)
-
Formulate problems
STAGE 2. Synthesize a new
concept
Step 2a. Solve formulated problems using scientific
problem-solving techniques: the Problem Inversion approach, typical and
universal explanatory mechanisms, etc.
Step 2b. Combine all results into a new, integrated
model-concept that can complement or replace the original one. Structure
the new concept and define its boundaries and limitations.
STAGE 3. Verify the new hypothesis
Step 3a. Check to see how the new concept fits the entire
complex of facts and patterns existing in the applicable area.
Step 3b. Check to see how the new concept relates to other
theories (i.e., that it complies with the principle of
correspondence).[ 15 ]
Step 3c. Reveal new facts and patterns predicted by the new
concept; solve problems related to verifying these facts (using TRIZ if
necessary); conduct necessary verification experiments.
Step 3d. If one or more steps from 3a to 3c produce
negative results, return to Stage 2 and formulate new problems related
to the search for mechanisms that can explain the deviations.
STAGE 4. Develop the new concept further
Step 4a. Apply the patterns of evolution to the new
concept, including:
-
Formulate the opposite concept. Try to
find the conditions under which this anti-concept might become
valid. Find a way to combine the concept and anti-concept in
accordance with the pattern of integration of alternative systems
and the principle of complementarity.[ 16 ]
-
Consider applying other patterns of
evolution
Step 4b. Describe the new explanatory mechanisms that have
been obtained. Consider whether then can be expanded to other areas.
NOTES
1. Edited by Victoria
Roza.
2. Zlotin, Boris and
Alla Zusman, comp. 1991. Solving Scientific Problems. Kishinev:
STC Progress in association with Kartya Moldovenyaska (in Russian).
3. Zlotin, Boris et
al. 2000. "TRIZ Beyond Technology: The Theory of the Non-Technical
Application of TRIZ." Proceedings of TRIZCON 2000, the Altshuller
Institute for TRIZ Studies.
4. Zlotin, Boris and
Alla Zusman. 1985. "Utilizing TRIZ Tools to Solve Scientific Problems."
Third Petrozavodsk TRIZ Congress. Reprinted by the Institute of Cytology
and Genetics, Novosibirsk division of the Soviet Union Academy of
Science.
5. Zlotin, Boris and
Alla Zusman. 1988. A Month Under the Stars of Fantasy. Kishinev:
Kartya Moldovenyaska Publishing House (in Russian).
6. Berg, L. S. 1977.
Works on Evolutionary Theory, 1922-1930. Leningrad: Nauka
Publishing House (in Russian).
7. Nazarov, V. I.
1984. Finalism in Modern Evolution Theory. Moscow: Nauka
Publishing House (in Russian).
8. A lion is capable
of making fairly precise "calculations" for a jump while hunting a
gazelle; a ram can accurately jump from one rock to another in the
mountains.
9. Geodakyan, V. A.
1989. "Gender Differentiation Theory in Problems of Humans." A
collection of articles in Humans and Science. Moscow: Nayka
Publishing house (in Russian).
10. Gafur Zainiev, a
TRIZ scientist at Ideation International, holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.
11. Jean-Baptiste
Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck (1744-1829), a naturalist
and Darwin's predecessor, is the author of the first integrated concept
of natural evolution. (Translator's note).
12. The principle of
complementary, suggested by physicist Niels Bohr, states that two
contradictory theories can both be valid and complement one another.
(Translator's note.)
13. Yablokov, A. V.
and A. G. Yusupov. 1981. Evolution Theory. Second edition revised
and expanded. Moscow: Vysshaya Shkola (in Russian).
14. An ad hoc
hypothesis is a hypothesis introduced solely for the purpose of
explaining a new fact, which is not connected to or correlated with
other theories. (Translator's note.)
15. The principle of
correspondence, introduced by physicist Niels Bohr, states that any new
more general concept must include the old theory as a particular case.
(Translator's note.)
16. The principle of
complementarity, another principle introduced by Niels Bohr, states that
two contradictory theories can both be valid and complement one another.
(Translator's note.)
|
