Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb (2005) argued that epigenetic processes
form an independent inheritance system. They also extended (Jablonka &
Lamb, 2007) the use of the concept of epigenetics to include different channels
of biological, non-genetic inheritance. In addition to epigenetic information
within cells, animals transfer material substances to their offspring (such as
during pregnancy or breast feeding) that changes the offspring’s phenotype
and behavior. Many young animals eat their mother’s feces, which, among
others, informs them about the dietary habits of their parents. Such channels
of inheritance can be thought of as epigenetic inheritance in a broader sense.
We will give careful consideration to the two channels of social learning that
Jablonka and Lamb distinguished, that is, behavioral and symbolic inheritance
(Jablonka & Lamb, 2005, pp. 154–231). To put it simply, behavioral inherit-
ance is cultural inheritance as we can observe it in animals. Jablonka and Lamb
define (animal) culture as“a system of socially transmitted patterns of behav-
ior, preferences, and products of animal activities that characterize a group of
social animals”(p. 160). The social transmission of bird songs is probably the
most widely known example of animal culture. Learning by imitation is far
from being restricted to blind copying. For example, in many parts of England,
great tits and blue tits learned how to open milk bottles, a behavior that was
learned by members of other species, as well, indicating that animals are
capable of understanding goals and outcomes of behavior.
While humans use the behavioral inheritance system, they also rely on a
further channel of transmission that is specifically human: symbolic inherit-
ance. Without entering the discussion about the origins, nature and onto-
logical status of symbols, we can make some observations about the important
differences between behavioral and symbolic inheritance.^4 First, behavioral
inheritance functions in concrete settings, in the presence of direct, transpar-
ent, often material links between the information to be learned and its use:
open seeds as another conspecific does, eat what smells and tastes like the
particles of plants in the mother’s feces, sing as the neighbor sings. By using
symbols, in contrast, food and technology can be described, explained, com-
pared, praised, and so on, even if neither of the conversation partners actually
sees or touches those things. Many symbols do not correspond to entities that
can be directly perceived in the environment. Second, although learned
behaviors can form relationships, they do not form a transparent system for
the learner. Symbols, in turn, form grammatically structured systems and can
given section of the DNA are beneficial (such as mutations regulating the immune system), they
will occur in higher rates, whereas deleterious mutations will occur at lower rates (Klironomos
et al., 2013; Martincorena & Luscombe, 2013).
(^4) For an influential hypothesis of the evolution of symbolic thought and communication in
humans, see Donald (1991).
28 Cognitive Science and the New Testament