Luc Turpin

From Random Mutation to Teleonomy: Toward a Paradigm Shift in Evolutionary Thought Summary Advances in molecular biology, developmental biology, and cognitive science increasingly challenge the adequacy of the Modern Synthesis (MS) as the foundational framework for evolutionary theory. While the MS, rooted in mid-20th century biology, emphasized random mutation and natural selection as the primary drivers of evolution, a growing body of evidence now points to a more complex, interactive, and in some respects, purposive process. This post surveys a range of phenomena—including epigenetic inheritance, natural genetic engineering, niche construction, and organismal cognition—that collectively call for an expanded evolutionary framework. The emerging paradigm posits organisms not as passive subjects of selection, but as active agents capable of modulating their own evolutionary trajectories through behavior, learning, and environmental feedback. The integration of purpose-like (teleonomic) processes into evolutionary theory would mark a significant conceptual shift—one with implications for biology, philosophy, and morality. 1. Introduction Molecular and experimental biology have transformed our understanding of life in recent decades. However, some researchers believe that evolutionary theory—especially as embodied in the Modern Synthesis (MS)—has not kept pace with these advances (Pigliucci, 2010). Calls for an expanded synthesis (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Laland et al., 2015; Van Wright 2025) reflect the need to revise the solely gene-centric and largely mechanistic view of evolution that has dominated since the mid-20th century. According to the MS, evolution occurs primarily through the accumulation of random genetic mutations filtered by natural selection (Coyne, 2005). Yet this framework is increasingly being challenged by empirical findings that suggest more dynamic, interactive, and potentially teleonomic- processes at work in evolution (Jablonka, 2012; Shapiro, 2011; Corning 2014, 2025). It is also implied by Gilbert and Hepel that we are currently in the midst of a new synthesis (Ehab). 2. Limitations of the Modern Synthesis The MS played a foundational role in unifying Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian genetics. Nonetheless, its core assumptions have remained largely unchanged and continue to emphasize genes, random mutation, and selective filtering. Even in its updated form—the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)—concepts such as developmental plasticity, epigenetics, and niche construction are often treated as auxiliary, rather than foundational, processes (Pigliucci & Müller, 2010; Laland et al., 2015). However, mounting evidence suggests that the processes driving evolution extend beyond random mutation and selection. The following phenomena exemplify the need for a broader theoretical framework: 2.1 Epigenetics Epigenetic mechanisms demonstrate that heritable changes in gene expression can occur without alterations to the DNA sequence. Environmental stimuli, developmental history, and parental experience can influence gene expression across generations, thereby affecting evolutionary trajectories without invoking traditional mutational change (Bonduriansky & Day, 2018, Al Aboud 2023; Schrey A. W. 2012). 2.2 Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) HGT, particularly prevalent among prokaryotes, enables the lateral exchange of genetic material across taxa. This mechanism challenges the vertical, lineage-based assumptions of the MS and indicates a more networked, reticulate structure of evolutionary innovation (Ochman et al., 2000; Doolittle 2007). 2.3 Symbiosis The concept of symbiogenesis, advanced by Lynn Margulis (1993, 1998), illustrates how mutualistic interactions can give rise to evolutionary novelty, such as the origin of mitochondria. Such cooperative dynamics challenge the individualistic, competition-based assumptions of Darwinian models. 2.4 Dynamic Genomes: Read-Write Systems Contemporary genomic research reveals that genomes function not as static blueprints but as responsive, modifiable systems (Jablonka, 2012; Keller, 2014). Genes can be activated, silenced, or rearranged in response to internal and external stimuli, indicating a "read-write" functionality that deviates from the traditional "read-only" paradigm (Shapiro 2013, 2017). 2.5 Natural Genetic Engineering Barbara McClintock (1984) first identified transposable elements and genome restructuring in response to stress. Shapiro (1993, 2005, 2011) extended this concept into the framework of “natural genetic engineering,” whereby organisms can direct genetic changes in functionally meaningful ways (Koonin 2011). 2.6 Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) Evo-Devo research underscores the central role of developmental processes in shaping evolutionary change. The modular, context-sensitive nature of development implies that phenotypic variation is not solely the product of random mutation, but also of environmentally contingent developmental pathways (Müller, 2007; Gilbert et al., 2015; Melo 2016). 2.7 Niche Construction Organisms actively modify their environments in ways that affect their own and others’ evolutionary trajectories. Niche construction theory (Odling-Smee et al., 1996; Scott-Phillips et al., 2013; Deffner 2019) reframes evolution as a co-constructive process, where feedback loops between organisms and environments play a central role. 3. Behavior, Cognition, and Learning in Evolution Cognition—defined as the set of mental processes involved in acquiring knowledge and responding to environmental stimuli—has emerged as a powerful evolutionary force (Rochais et al. 2023, Thornton 2019, Lehtonen et al. 2023; Webber 2003; Richerson 2005; Byrne, 1995; Thornton & Boogert, 2019). Cognitive processes include for example perception, memory, decision-making, problem-solving, and learning. These processes allow organisms to engage in goal-directed behaviors that can influence fitness and survival (Boogert 2024). Key empirical findings include: Cost-Benefit Calculations: Animals weigh competing outcomes, optimizing behaviors based on past experience (Tang et al., 2016). Observational Learning: Ground squirrels, for example, can rapidly replicate complex foraging behaviors after observation (Byrne, 1995; Mackintosh). Social Learning: Rats, bats, and fish engage in social transmission of behaviors, enhancing adaptability (Galef, 2016; Thornton 2006). Plant Decision-Making: Even plants demonstrate resource allocation strategies that resemble decision-making (Trewavas, 2014). Tool Use: Some birds use cars at traffic lights to crack nuts, demonstrating planning and causal reasoning (Schilthuizen, 2018). These examples suggest that learning and cognition are not ancillary, but possibly central to evolutionary dynamics—especially in contexts where rapid adaptation confers selective advantages. Cognition is to agency as water is to a rose. 4. Toward a Teleonomic Perspective in Evolution As noted above, the Modern Synthesis—which emphasizes genes, randomness, and a largely static view of evolution—is increasingly being challenged by emerging fields such as epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, symbiosis, the “read-write” nature of the genome, natural genetic engineering, evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo), and niche construction. Researchers like Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb (2005) and Sonia E. Sultan (2017) have argued that epigenetic inheritance adds non-genetic layers of evolutionary information, while James A. Shapiro (2011) has emphasized the natural genetic engineering capacity of cells to restructure their own genomes in response to environmental stimuli. Lynn Margulis (1998) revolutionized our understanding of symbiosis as a fundamental driver of evolutionary novelty. Stephen J. Gould and Elizabeth Vrba critiqued the narrow gene-centric focus, proposing exaptation and broader roles for organisms in evolution. Stuart Kauffman (2000), Denis Noble (2006) Jablonka (2005) argue for a systems-based, interactive view of evolution, rejecting the idea of genes as the sole unit of causation. Kevin Laland and colleagues (2015) advocate for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, emphasizing niche construction, plasticity, and developmental processes. The concept of teleonomy—purpose-like behavior rooted in biological structure and function—provides a useful framework for interpreting agency in evolution (Corning, 2014; 2023). Unlike teleology, which implies supernatural design, teleonomy is consistent with naturalistic causation and evolutionary history. Mayr (1960) and Kingdon (1993) both emphasized that behavior often precedes phenotypic change, suggesting a bottom-up pathway where agency drives adaptation. Growing evidence from these perspectives shifts the focus away from genes as the sole drivers of evolutionary change, highlighting instead a more dynamic interplay between organisms, their behaviors, and the environments they inhabit. This evolving perspective suggests that organisms are not merely passive recipients of selection pressures but active participants in shaping their own evolutionary trajectories. Moreover, the role of cognition—manifested in cost-benefit decision-making, observational learning, social learning, and tool use—further implies that evolution may be guided, at least in part, by goal-directed processes, as explored by Peter Corning (2023), Frans de Waal (2016) and Van Wright (2023) in the context of agency and teleonomic behavior. Taken together, these insights bring us closer to the possibility that evolution is not entirely blind, but may involve elements of purpose and meaning shaped by the agency of living systems. Furthermore, this evolving understanding of evolutionary processes calls into question the adequacy of the traditional mechanistic worldview. Unlike "apparent" purpose that emerges passively from environmental interactions, teleonomic behavior involves self-directed actions driven by internal goals or needs. In this expanded framework, purpose and agency are inherently linked, with behavior and cognition acting as central, causal forces in evolution—suggesting that organisms may actively and purposefully shape their own evolutionary trajectories. 5. Conclusion A growing body of empirical evidence points to the limitations of the Modern Synthesis and supports the need for an expanded evolutionary framework. This new synthesis integrates genes, development, environment, behavior, and cognition in a unified model of evolutionary dynamics. Organisms are increasingly seen not merely as passive vehicles for genetic change, but as active participants capable of shaping their evolutionary futures through purposive, goal-oriented behavior. Far from negating Darwinian principles, this framework contextualizes them within a broader, more integrative paradigm. By acknowledging the roles of cognition, agency, and systemic feedback, we move closer to a scientific theory of evolution that can account for both the stochastic and the directed aspects of biological change. Postscript: As a forward-thinking idea, it could all come down to non-linear dynamics, as demonstrated by the successful application of Lorenz equations and the concept of attractors in developmental biology (Capra & Luisi, 2014)—suggesting that apparent purpose may emerge through such dynamics. References: Al Aboud N.M, Tupper C. (2023) Genetics, Epigenetic Mechanism, National Library of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532999/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Bonduriansky, R. and Day, T. 2018. Extended Heredity: A New Understanding of Inheritance and Evolution. Princeton University Press. https://dokumen.pub/extended-heredity-a-new-understanding-of-inheritance-and-evolution-9781400890156.html Boogert N.J. (2024) How does cognition determine an individual’s fitness? A systematic review of the links between cognition, behaviour and fitness in non-human animals https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2024.0118 Byrne, R. W. (1995). The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Capra F, Luisi Pl. 2014 The systems view of life: a unifying vision, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://docdrop.org/download_annotation_doc/Fritjof-Capra_-Pier-Luigi-Luisi---The-Systems-View-of-Life_--9y66j.pdf Corning, P. A. (2014). The Re-emergence of "Teleology" in Evolutionary Biology: What Does It Mean for the "Modern Synthesis"? Biology & Philosophy Corning. P.A. (2014). Evolution on purpose: How behaviour has shaped the evolutionary process. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112, 242-260. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12061 Corning. P.A. (2018). Synergistic selection: How cooperation has shaped evolution and the rise of humankind. Singapore: Worl Scientific. Corning, P. A. (2023). Nature’s Purposive Evolution: Purpose, Agency, and the Mechanisms of Evolution. Corning P.A. (2025) Evolution “On Purpose” : A more inclusive New Theory of Biological Evolution. Institute for the Study of Complex System (in the “Beyond the Selfish gene section). https://acavispublishers.com/TBS/fulltext/Evolution-On-Purpose-A-More-Inclusive-New-Theory-of-Biological-Evolution Coyne, J. A. (2005). Why Evolution Is True. Viking Press. https://books.google.ca/books?id=1bUoIpTQbLYC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false Deffner Dominik, Constructing. (2019) Evolution « On Purpose”: How Niche Construction Affects Natural Selection. Evolution “On Purpose”, Teleonomy in Livings Systems, The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology, Chapter – 4. https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+on+purpose&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA997CA997&oq=Evolution+on+purpose&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyBwgBEC4YgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyCAgDEAAYFhgeMggIBBAAGBYYHjIGCAUQRRg8MgYIBhBFGDwyBggHEEUYPNIBCTEyODUzajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 de Waal, F. (2016). Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? https://dokumen.pub/are-we-smart-enough-to-know-how-smart-animals-are-978-0393246186.html Doolittle, W. F., & Bapteste, E. (2007). Pattern Pluralism and the Tree of Life Hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(10), 4796-4800. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17261804/ Ehab Abouheifa, Hans Larssonb. A review of Scott F. Gilbert’s and David Epel’s Ecological Developmental Biology: Integrating Epigenetics, Medicine, and Evolution Ehab Abouheifa,* and Hans Larssonb. https://bio.mcgill.ca/faculty/abouheif/articles/Abouheif&Larsson09.pdf Galef B. G. (2012) Social learning and traditions in animals: evidence, definitions, and relationship to human culture https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1196 Gilbert, S. F., Epel, D., & O'Neill, L. (2015). Ecology and Evolution of Developmental Plasticity. Elsevier Gilbert S.F. (2015) Developmental Plasticity and Development Symbiosis: The Return of Eco-Devo 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2015.12.006 Gilbert, S. F., Bosch, T. C. G., & Ledón-Rettig, C. (2015). Eco-Evo-Devo: Developmental symbiosis and developmental plasticity as evolutionary agents. Nature Reviews Genetics, 16(10), 611–622. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3982 Gould J. Vrba E. (1982) introduced the concept of exaptation, critiquing narrow gene-centric narratives and emphasizing co-option of traits: “features that now enhance fitness but were not built by natural selection for their current role… be called exaptations” cambridge.org+15colab.ws+15cambridge.org+1 Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. MIT Press, prologue. https://ia601707.us.archive.org/16/items/eva-jablonka-marion-lamb-evolution-in-four-dimensions-massimo-morigi-epigenetic-/EVA%20JABLONKA%2C%20%20MARION%20LAMB%2C%20%20%20EVOLUTION%20IN%20FOUR%20DIMENSIONS%2C%20MASSIMO%20MORIGI%2C%20EPIGENETIC%2C%20GEOPOLITICAL%20REPUBLICANISM%2C%20FILOSOFIA%20DELLA%20PRASSI%2C%20EPIFANIA%20STRATEGICA.pdf Jablonka E. (2012). Epigenetic inheritance and plasticity: The responsive germline, Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610712000818?via%3Dihub https://www.scielo.br/j/gmb/a/d5pDYvT4PzdfLkJQQmN5gBH/?utm_source=chatgpt.com Kauffman, S. A. (2019). A world beyond physics: The emergence and evolution of life. New York: Oxford University Press. Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. https://sfi-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/sfi-edu/production/uploads/sfi-com/dev/uploads/filer/97/fe/97fe8a10-70a1-4cbc-b6cf-76acf8de8d14/96-08-072.pdf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman?utm_source=chatgpt.com Keller, E. F. (2014). From gene action to reactive genomes: The journal of Physiology. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4048100/ Kingdon, J. (1993) Self-made man: Human evolution from Eden to extinction? New York: John Wiley & Sons https://carta.anthropogeny.org/libraries/bibliography/self-made-man-human-evolution-eden-extinction Koonin, E. V. (2011). The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. FT Press. http://www.evolocus.com/Textbooks/Koonin2011.pdf Laland, K. N., et al. (2015). The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Its Structure, Assumptions and Predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282(1813). https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019 Lehtonen T. K., Helantera H, Solvi C, Wong, Loukola O, (2023) The role of cognition in nesting, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0142 Mayr, E. (1960). The emergence of evolutionary novelties. In S. Tax (Ed.), Evolution after Darwin (Vol. 1 pp 349-380. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mackintosh N.H., Animal Learning, Britanica https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-learning McClintock, B. (1984). The significance of responses of the genome to challenge. Science, 226(4676), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.15739260 Margulis, L. (1993). Symbiosis in Cell Evolution. W.H. Freeman. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1993/A1993KK54300001.pdf Margulis, L. (1998). Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution. file:///C:/Users/Dad/Downloads/Lynn%20Margulis%20The%20Symbiotic%20Planet%20A%20New%20Look%20at%20Evolution%20(Science%20Masters)%20(1999,%20Phoenix%20Paperbacks)%20libgen.lc.pdf Melo D., Porto A., Cheverud J., Marroig G., (2016) Modularity: genes, development and evolution, National Library of Medecine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5617135/ Muller G.B., (2007), Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis, Nature Reviews Genetics, https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg2219 Noble, D. (2006). The Music of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome. https://virtualmmx.ddns.net/gbooks/TheMusicofLifeBiologyBeyondGenes.pdf https://www.demul.nl/en/texts/online-publications/6442-noble-versus-dawkins-dna-is-not-the-program-of-the-concert-of-life?utm_source=chatgpt.com Odling-Smee, J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (1996). Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691044378/niche-construction?srsltid=AfmBOor23h-pjMAf4wk4FkeWilmz4RecbNUNTA4hWqKsqziUmRM-AhwA Ochman, H., Lawrence, J. G., & Groisman, E. A. (2000). Lateral Gene Transfer and the Nature of Bacterial Innovation. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012500 Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. B. (2010). Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. The MIT Press. http://mitp-content-server.mit.edu:18180/books/content/sectbyfn?collid=books_pres_0&fn=9780262513678_sch_0001.pdf&id=8278 Rochais C., Schradin C., Pillay N., (2023) Cognitive performance is linked to survival in free-living African striped mice : 36883277 Richerson P. J., Boyd R., Henrich J. Gene-Culture Coevolution in the Age of Genomics, National Library of Medecine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210012/ Scott-Phillips, T.C., Laland K.N., Shuker D.M. Dickins T.E. West S.A., (2013) The Niche Construction Perspective: A Critical Appraisal, Evolution – International journal of organic evolution THE NICHE CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL Schilthuizen M. (2018) Evolving street-smarts Aeoll https://aeon.co/essays/how-city-birds-evolved-to-be-smarter-than-rural-birds Schrey A.W., Richards C.L., Meller V., Sollars V. Ruden (2012) M. The Role of Epigenetics in Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (National Library of Medecine https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3335599/ Shapiro, J.A. (1992) Natural genetic engineering in evolution, Genetica. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1334920/ Shapiro, J.A. (2011). Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. FT Press p2. Science. P. 7,https://www.everand.com/read/562616452/Evolution-A-View-from-the-21st-Century-Fortified https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/james-a-shapiro?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/37/1/evolution-is-neither-random-accidents-nor-divine-intervention-biological-action-changes-genomes?utm_source=chatgpt.com Shapiro, J.A. (2013) How life changes itself: The read-write genome. Physics of life https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23876611/ Shapiro J. A. (2017) Living Organisms Author Their Read-Write Genomes in Evolution, National library of medicine https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5745447/#:~:text=Both%20biotic%20and%20abiotic%20ecological,%2C%20often%20abrupt%2C%20evolutionary%20transformations. Smith C., Phillips A., Reichard M. (2015). Cognitive ability is heritable and predicts the success of an alternative mating tactic, Proceedings of the Royal Society B. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1046?utm_source=chatgpt.com Sultan S. E. (2017) Developmental plasticity: re-conceiving the genotype, Interface Focus https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0009 Tang H., Luo F., Li S.H., Ming Li B., (2016) Behavioral representation of cost and benefit balance in rats, PubMed 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.08.054 Thornton A., Boogert N., (2019) Animal Cognition: The Benefits of remembering, Current Biology https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2819%2930383-5?utm_source=chatgpt.com Thornton A., McAuliffe K (2006) Teaching in wild meerkats, Pubmed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16840701/ Trewavas, A. (2014). Plant behaviour and intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/plant-behaviour-and-intelligence-9780199539543?cc=ca&lang=en& Vane-Wright R.I., Corning P.A. (2023) Teleonomy in living systems: an overview Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 139, Issue 4, August 2023, Pages 341–356, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blad037 Weber B. H., Depew David J., (2003) Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2871.001.0001

Purpose does not apply to every evolutionary changes, but constitutes more than a very small % of changes. Your explanation is impeccable until we get to the very big jump size and complexity wise from the non living to the living. I heard that size wise the difference between molecule and bacterium is from coin to planet. If that is correct, how do we explain this through chemical means

Purpose does not apply to every evolutionary changes, but constitutes more than a very small % of changes.

I’m having difficulty understanding your point. Could you please clarify? I’m not suggesting that evolution didn’t occur, nor am I claiming that chance didn’t play a role. However, my contention is that the complexity and richness of diversity did not arise solely from random changes in allele frequencies within a population. Some of the information that I posted earlier implies that there maybe purpose involved as well. What we see evolution wise does not change, but the mechanisms for it does. The words "purpose" and "teleonomy are used by the "The Third Way", a movement in evolutionary biology that views natural selection as part of a holistic, organism-centered process. I will stick with their terms. I am talking about an internal purpose, not an external one. Yes, I’m referring to teleonomy, not teleology. Regarding your bear example, while they may not have consciously decided to adapt, they certainly employed cognition as part of the process of adapting to their environment, which led to new behaviors. What I’m questioning is the idea that random changes in allele frequencies within a population are the sole drivers of evolution—that everything is random and we are simply machines executing a genetic program. It didn’t happen all by chance, nor did it happen by design, but it did happen. I feel that theory has sorely lagged behind recent discoveries in the field of evolution. Pardon the pun, but it is struggling to adapt.

I do not wish to supplant anything, but when there is an alternate view out there, which is even more robust that I originally anticipated, do we just ignore it.....ignore the evidence. "Evolutionists" have been neglecting a whole side of the possible story and then go on stating that they have been unbiased and objective all along. The story is much more complicated than that. I personally do not need anything more, but I will not ignore the evidence, which, from both sides, paints a much more complex and dynamic process than the one you allude to. Nothing is lacking in the process, as we are here today to talk about it. But, again, we did not get here solely by simple random changes in allele frequency. The pot doesn't have agency, but organisms do. Evolution is much more than simple cause and effect, and you know that as well as anyone. It’s a complex, multifactorial process that has shaped where we are today. Have you explored the data from the "other side" before concluding that science has definitively settled on a purely mechanistic view? In our previous discussions, I got the impression that you didn’t see there being an alternate perspective. However, my recent readings suggest otherwise—there’s a robust alternative view worth considering. While I’m not sure if evolution is mechanistic or purposeful, I remain open to both sides and believe data should guide our understanding, not our worldview. The content of the references provided was valid; only the references were not. As stated, I read summaries of them, but did not access the information based on the references. These references (see bellow) are valid ones and they help paint a picture of a possible alternate route to evolution. By the way, some of the same people that I had quoted before, but this time with links that work. I invite you to visit them and realize that I am not the only crackpot in town entertaining such ideas and that the evidence is robust. Corning, P. A. (2014). Evolution “on purpose”: How behaviour has shaped the evolutionary process. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112, 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12061 Corning, P. A. (2019). Teleonomy and the proximate-ultimate distinction revisited. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 127 (4), 912–916. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz087 Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? (Yes, urgently.). Nature, 514(7521), 161–164. https://doi.org /10.1038/514161a Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilroy, S., & Trewavas, A. (2022). Agency, teleonomy and signal transduction in plant systems. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, blac021. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blac021. Jablonka, E. (2013). Epigenetic inheritance and plasticity: The responsive germline. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 111, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2012.08.014 Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2014). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kauffman, S. A. (2019). A world beyond physics: The emergence and evolution of life. New York: Oxford University Press. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, F. J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews, Genetics, 11, 137–148 Okasha, S. (2018). Agents and goals in evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

There is no empirical support for a teleological explanation, but there is an impressive amount of evidence suggesting that evolution might have a purpose. I don't believe that God needs to be involved in that purposefulness.

Noted

I based this post on abstracts and summaries. Isn’t that at least sufficient to suggest, in general terms, and in the Speculations section, that there may be another side to the story? I attempted to consult full published papers, but most were either inaccessible or locked behind paywalls. Let me read the document and then I will be making my own argument on the matter.

I go where the evidence goes, so yes I changed my mind, because that is how it should be. And I am changing my mind again. See below, read some of it and then tell me that there is no evidence for purpose in evolution and that nobody believes in this stuff. Let's have a discussion after that and see where it goes. By clicking on this link and then clicking on the PDF book button, all is there to defend, with ample evidence, that evolution might very well have a purpose. https://direct.mit.edu/books/oa-edited-volume/5634/Evolution-On-Purpose-Teleonomy-in-Living-Systems Here is but a few of the references cited in the document that imply purpose in evolution Most links go directly to the abstract of the article that is being referenced, so no fooliing around this time. And all of the authors that I referenced in my original post are mostly there, but this time with functionning links. Corning, P. A. (2014). Evolution “on purpose”: How behaviour has shaped the evolutionary process. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112, 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12061 Corning, P. A. (2019). Teleonomy and the proximate-ultimate distinction revisited. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 127 (4), 912–916. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz087 Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? (Yes, urgently.). Nature, 514(7521), 161–164. https://doi.org /10.1038/514161a Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Gilroy, S., & Trewavas, A. (2022). Agency, teleonomy and signal transduction in plant systems. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, blac021. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blac021. Jablonka, E. (2013). Epigenetic inheritance and plasticity: The responsive germline. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 111, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2012.08.014 Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2014). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Kauffman, S. A. (2019). A world beyond physics: The emergence and evolution of life. New York: Oxford University Press. Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, F. J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews, Genetics, 11, 137–148 Okasha, S. (2018). Agents and goals in evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Shapiro, J. A. (2013). How life changes itself: The read-write (rw) genome. Physics of Life Reviews, 10, 287–323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2013.07.001 Shell, W. A., Steffen, M. A., Pare, H. K., Seetharam, A. S., Severin, A. J., Toth, A. L., & Rehan, S. M. (2021). Sociality sculpts similar patterns of molecular evolution in two independently evolved lineages of eusocial bees. Communications Biology, 4, 253. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42003-021-01770-6 Waring, T. M., & Wood, Z. T. 2021. Long-term gene–culture coevolution and the human evolutionary transition. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 288, 20210538. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2021.053 Just posted something that might be interesting to you. No AI no LLMs And thank you for indicating the difference.

In my very long night of searching and discovering, the only thing that I came up with some sense of purposefullness in evolution is this: Will not convince anyone of purpusefullness, but fun to read. Noble is one of the very few that promotes this kind of notion. ForbesEvolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists OutRichard Dawkins' Selfish Gene faces a formidable challenge as a biophysicist makes a case for an evolution driven by purpose, intention and a collective intelligence.This is should also be fun to read https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/11/how-life-works-by-philip-ball-review-the-magic-of-biology And I guess this is where the idea of cooperative molecules possibly came from (from the Forbes article): "Xavier’s research made headlines for her discovery of emergent, cooperative networks of molecules that mutually catalyze each other's formation in ancient bacteria. These systems were first theorized by complexity scientist, Stuart Kauffman, as a candidate for the origins-of-life story that challenges gene-centrism. Xavier studied under Noble and Kauffman before launching the Origin of Life Early-Career Network (OoLEN) with over 200 young, interdisciplinary researchers from around the world. This group co-authored an inaugural scientific paper The Future of Origin of Life Research: Bridging Decades-Old Divisions. Xavier has identified another form of intention at the cellular level of emergent systems: cooperation. She doesn’t understand why it’s acceptable to think of evolution as competitive but evidence of cooperation is considered taboo. “I think to solve life's origins, we'll need to look much more at cooperation. And emergence really brings cooperation into the scene, whether you want it or not,” says Xavier, who also sees creativity as fundamental to life. “It's so obvious, you either accept that it is true that life is creative or you don't.” Xavier says her field is at an inflection point with gene-centrism holding back progress in health and medicine. “I think we’re completely stuck,” says Xavier. She’s actively pushing in a new direction even if she has to leave academia for the private sector to do it. “The gene-centric paradigm,” says Xavier, “That has to go. It's urgent.”

I spent most of last night and this morning thoroughly reviewing the references I posted. Most, if not all, of the works proposing agency in evolution did not withstand scrutiny, whereas those explaining apparent agency through mechanistic principles have been more convincing. I also examined various influences on evolution, and many of the authors I encountered avoided explicitly endorsing the idea of outside factors—or agency—actively influencing the process, instead opting to skirt the notion. There is, however, some discussion about cognition influencing evolution—such as organisms predicting outcomes—and mechanisms by which unintentional effects might shape evolutionary trajectories. These include predictive adaptive plasticity, genetic preparedness and pre-adaptation, evolvability and canalization, environmental niche construction, epigenetic inheritance, cultural transmission, evolutionary bet-hedging, and the Baldwin effect. Nonetheless, I must admit, none of these explanations are close to conclusive. While these factors suggest potential ways in which organisms or their environments might influence evolution—whether purposively or not—demonstrating a direct causal role of agency remains elusive within the current scientific framework. Given this context, I kindly request that the moderators consider either removing my thread or relocating it to the "trash can" section of the forum, as it seems to warrant such action. In summary, there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the concept of agency in evolution, and therefore, insufficient grounds for a meaningful debate on whether mechanistic principles or agency better explain—or even interact within—the evolutionary process.

This is a good one that can go on the side of explaining apparent agency by means of mechanistic principles. Material was googled, not AI, but nothing else that I can do to convince you otherwise. Also, at one point, AI will have to be considered in advancing science; it already does. But what about the possibilty that the hing running smoothly affect something else in the future?

This one is not under my control, but only in yours. It would be sad to silence a voice that tries to use the best means possible to try and bring an opposing point of view in the discussion

Cannot believe that you believe that this was all made up! I give up!

Are you implying that the last four references showing that this apparent business of agency can all be explained by mechanistic principles dont' exist ????? If so, get another computer. Ok, enough, we are getting nowhere again. Worked hard on this stuff and on ensuring that the material was referenced. If you do not believe me than so be it.