# Open-Ended Evolution > **Machine-Evolution Nexus:** [[articles/Digital Darwinism and the Invisible World of Machine Evolution|Digital Darwinism and the Invisible World of Machine Evolution]] places this concept within the history and governance of substrate-independent evolution. **Domain:** Artificial Life / Evolution **Doc Type:** Canonical Wiki Node **Maturity:** Developed ## Definition Open-ended evolution is sustained production of adaptive novelty, new niches, new levels of organization or new dimensions of possibility without convergence on a fixed terminal solution. ## Machine-Evolution Context Tierra and Avida display genuine evolution but eventually encounter limits in continuing novelty. Reproducing Earth’s billions of years of generativity remains a central artificial-life problem. ## Continuity and Evidence Boundary Long-running change is not enough; the system must continue creating meaningful novelty rather than cycling within a bounded attractor. Claims about current AI therefore remain provisional. ## Relationships [[wiki/Niche Construction|Niche Construction]], [[wiki/Major Evolutionary Transitions|Major Evolutionary Transitions]], [[wiki/Attractor|Attractor]], [[wiki/Artificial Life|Artificial Life]] - **Edge source route:** [[collections/Edge|Edge]] connects this topic to exact Annual Question passages promoted into the Simple Reminders archive. ## Simple Reminders, Quotations, and Thoughts <!-- BEGIN SIMPLE REMINDER SEED 2026-09-11 --> > "We alone on earth can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators." > **— Richard Dawkins**, *The Selfish Gene (1976), widely cited* *Verification Status: Unverified — exact wording/source has not yet been independently confirmed against a primary source; source clue: The Selfish Gene (1976), widely cited.* [[reminders/unverified/Humans Can Rebel Against the Tyranny of Replicators by Richard Dawkins|Humans Can Rebel Against the Tyranny of Replicators by Richard Dawkins]] <!-- END SIMPLE REMINDER SEED 2026-09-11 --> > "The potential benefits of artificial intelligence will be vast, but like any powerful technology these benefits will depend on this technology being applied with care." > **— Demis Hassabis and Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Machine Succession/Artificial Intelligence’s Benefits Depend on Careful Use by Demis Hassabis and Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman|Artificial Intelligence’s Benefits Depend on Careful Use by Demis Hassabis and Shane Legg and Mustafa Suleyman]] > "The rumors of the enslavement or death of the human species at the hands of an artificial intelligence are highly exaggerated, because they assume that an AI will have a teleological autonomy akin to our own. I don't think anything less than a fully Darwinian process of evolution can give that to any creature." > **— S. Abbas Raza**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Autonomy Requires Darwinian Evolution by S. Abbas Raza|Autonomy Requires Darwinian Evolution by S. Abbas Raza]] > "The evolution of the human mind is instantiated in the evolution of technology." > **— Noga Arikha**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Human Minds Evolve Through Technology by Noga Arikha|Human Minds Evolve Through Technology by Noga Arikha]] > "Building consciousness from scratch implies following a new and very different evolutionary path to that of human intelligence." > **— Juan Enriquez**, *2015, Edge annual question “What Do You Think About Machines That Think?”* [[reminders/Consciousness/Machine Consciousness May Require a Different Evolutionary Path by Juan Enriquez|Machine Consciousness May Require a Different Evolutionary Path by Juan Enriquez]] > “From the time of the Enlightenment philosophers have speculated that the remarkable advances of science would one day spill over into the realm of moral philosophy, and that scientists would be able to discover answers to previously insoluble moral dilemmas and ethical conundrums. One of the reasons Ed Wilson's book Consilience was so successful was that he attempted to revive this Enlightenment dream. Alas, we seem no closer than we were when Voltaire, Diderot, and company first encouraged scientists to go after moral and ethical questions. Are such matters truly insoluble and thus out of the realm of science (since, as Peter Medewar noted, "science is the art of the soluble")? Should we abandon Ed Wilson's Enlightenment dream of applying evolutionary biology to the moral realm? Most scientists agree that moral questions are scientifically insoluble and they have abandoned the Enlightenment dream. But not all. We shall see.” > **— Michael Shermer**, *2001, Edge Annual Question, “What Questions Have Disappeared?”* [[reminders/Evolution/Can Science Answer Moral and Ethical Questions by Michael Shermer|Can Science Answer Moral and Ethical Questions by Michael Shermer]] > “A second step then becomes possible. That is, the organisms find new ways of copying information. This creates a second replicator and starts another evolutionary process, building on the first. This happened on earth when just one species, humans, became able to imitate each others' behaviour with sufficiently high fidelity to create a new replicator, memes. These memes (the behaviours, habits, and skills that were copied) evolved slowly at first and then faster and faster, creating our languages, social institutions, and complex culture.” > **— Susan Blackmore**, *2007, Edge Annual Question, “What Are You Optimistic About?”* [[reminders/Evolution/New Replicators Start New Evolutionary Processes by Susan Blackmore|New Replicators Start New Evolutionary Processes by Susan Blackmore]] ## Sources / Provenance - Packard et al., “An Overview of Open-Ended Evolution” (2019); Sayama and Nehaniv (2025).