I haven't read the study, but it seems very tentative to me. As it should be. I'm sure that Sharov and Gordon both understand evolutionary mechanisms much better than I do. But this article seems to be playing to the popular notion that evolution = an inevitable increase in complexity, intelligence, etc, or that it moves towards "higher" or "better" organisms, which is a flawed way of viewing evolution (the author's use of the word "epigenetically" also strikes me as a questionably unusual use of the word in the context in which it is written). Organisms evolve such that adaptive traits are more likely to be passed on to progeny, and although this is often coupled with an increase in complexity, it doesn't have to be. For example, I'd say lampreys (weird eel-looking things that are one of the very few living vertebrates to not have a jaw) are doing all right for themselves in their little niche, despite their lack of many of the derived features of "higher vertebrates". With computers, on the other hand, greater complexity is generally associated with the ability to accomplish new tasks, or to accomplish old tasks more quickly, easily, etc. I suppose there's definitely some broad concepts that the "evolution" of computers have in common with the evolution of life, but I think that the link between adaptive advantage and greater complexity is greater in technology than it is in living things.