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.

I have made every attempt to show that the information is legitimate. I can go not further. Close the thread if you wish to do so. But, again, we might be missing an opportunity of discussing the unimaginable, which seems to be coming out in some of the most recent research. Again, what do I know!

I cannot go to the source because it is only accessible by paying subtantive amounts. What I read and posted surely sounds to me like a subtle form of intention or agency or whatever you want to call it. Burrying the discussion in detailed objections misses the point and avoids an unbiased conversation on wheter or not agency could be at play. What would be required to show agency? That type of questions.

Please also be reminded that the last four references provide clear examples of how mechanistic princiiples could be very well at play here rather than agency. Hope that you did not forget that part while concentrating on the other part!

This is the raw material used to produce the first post of this thread. Gao, X., et al. (2024). Environmental forecasting in bacterial colonies as a foundation for adaptive evolution. Nature Ecology & Evolution. The study, "Environmental forecasting in bacterial colonies as a foundation for adaptive evolution" by Gao, X., et al. (2024), published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, explores how bacteria in colonies can anticipate environmental changes and adapt accordingly. This research investigates the mechanisms by which bacterial colonies utilize environmental information to prepare for future conditions, essentially acting as a form of "environmental forecasting". The study highlights that this predictive capability is a crucial aspect of bacterial adaptive evolution, allowing them to respond effectively to both predictable and unpredictable environmental shifts. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Environmental Forecasting: The research suggests that bacterial colonies aren't merely reacting to their current environment, but rather they are actively predicting future conditions based on past experiences or subtle cues. Adaptive Evolution: This predictive ability allows bacteria to prepare for anticipated changes, leading to a more efficient and rapid adaptive evolution process. Instead of waiting for mutations to appear and be selected for, bacteria can already be primed to thrive in the new environment. Mechanisms: The study likely delves into the specific mechanisms that enable this forecasting. This could involve: Signal detection: Bacteria might possess sensory systems that detect subtle changes in the environment, providing early warnings of upcoming shifts. Cellular memory: Previous environmental conditions could be stored in bacterial cells, allowing them to "remember" past patterns and anticipate future occurrences. Collective behavior: The colony as a whole might exhibit emergent properties, where the interactions between individual bacteria contribute to the overall predictive capacity of the group. Implications: Understanding how bacteria forecast and adapt has significant implications for various fields: Ecology: It sheds light on how bacterial populations respond to environmental changes, including climate change and pollution. Microbial Ecology: It provides insights into the dynamics of bacterial communities and their role in ecosystems. Biotechnology: It could lead to new strategies for engineering bacteria to adapt to specific industrial or medical applications. In essence, the study by Gao et al. reveals a sophisticated level of environmental awareness in bacteria, highlighting their ability to anticipate and prepare for future changes, which is a key factor in their evolutionary success. Shu, X., & Chen, X. (2020). "Anticipatory behavior and its evolution in biological populations." Frontiers in Genetics. The article "Anticipatory behavior and its evolution in biological populations" by Shu and Chen (2020) explores how organisms anticipate future events and how this ability has evolved. It suggests that anticipatory processes are more widespread and older than previously thought, playing a crucial role in the evolution of physiological systems. Here's a breakdown of the key aspects discussed in the article: 1. Anticipatory Behavior in Biological Systems: Beyond Cognition: The article highlights that anticipatory behaviors aren't limited to organisms with complex nervous systems. Examples can be found in simple organisms like microbes, indicating that anticipation is an ancient and fundamental biological process. Diverse Examples: The authors discuss various anticipatory processes, including circadian rhythms (daily biological cycles), stress priming (preparing the body for potential stress), and cephalic responses (physiological changes in anticipation of eating). Organizational Properties and Mechanisms: The article emphasizes that anticipatory processes have unique organizational properties and mechanisms, suggesting they are a distinct type of biological process. 2. The Role of Anticipation in Evolution: Evolutionary Old: Anticipatory behaviors are not just recent adaptations; they are believed to be evolutionarily old, suggesting their significance in the development of biological systems. Shaping Physiological Systems: Anticipation can influence the evolution of physiological systems by preparing organisms for future environmental changes or challenges. For instance, anticipatory stress responses might have helped organisms adapt to fluctuating conditions. Evolutionary Framework: The article advocates for incorporating an anticipatory framework into the existing understanding of physiological processes to better understand how organisms adapt and evolve. 3. Potential Mechanisms of Anticipation: Genetic Networks: Anticipatory behaviors are likely influenced by genetic networks that allow organisms to "predict" or prepare for future conditions. Learning and Adaptation: Organisms can learn from past experiences to anticipate future events, further refining their anticipatory responses. 4. The Importance of Studying Anticipation: Advancing Understanding: By studying anticipation, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of how biological systems function, adapt, and evolve. Potential Applications: Understanding the mechanisms of anticipation could potentially lead to new insights into various fields, including medicine and biotechnology. In essence, the article by Shu and Chen (2020) makes a compelling case for the importance of anticipation in the evolution and function of biological populations, suggesting that it is a fundamental process that deserves more attention in biological research. Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, Agency, and Evolution. Cambridge University Press. The central insight of Darwin's Origin of Species is that evolution is an ecological phenomenon, arising from the activities of organisms in the 'struggle for life'. By contrast, the Modern Synthesis theory of evolution, which rose to prominence in the twentieth century, presents evolution as a fundamentally molecular phenomenon, occurring in populations of sub-organismal entities - genes. After nearly a century of success, the Modern Synthesis theory is now being challenged by empirical advances in the study of organismal development and inheritance. In this important study, D. M. Walsh shows that the principal defect of the Modern Synthesis resides in its rejection of Darwin's organismal perspective, and argues for 'situated Darwinism': an alternative, organism-centred conception of evolution that prioritises organisms as adaptive agents. His book will be of interest to scholars and advanced students of evolutionary biology and the philosophy of biology. Proposes a new understanding of the process of evolution Offers a balanced philosophical analysis of current debates within evolutionary biology Compares and contrasts two central theories of evolution and holds each up to empirical scrutiny · Ginsberg, J., et al. (2024). Evolutionary processes, consciousness, and purpose: An interdisciplinary review. Philosophy of Science. This paper explores the evolutionary origins of consciousness, integrating perspectives from biology, neuroscience, and philosophy. It examines the role of Unlimited Associative Learning (UAL) as a potential marker for the emergence of consciousness and discusses its implications for understanding the distribution of consciousness in the animal kingdom. The authors also address the philosophical implications of an evolutionary approach to consciousness, emphasizing the inseparability of subjective experience from physical correlates. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Interdisciplinary Approach: The paper draws on insights from neuroscience, biology, and philosophy to investigate the evolution of consciousness. Unlimited Associative Learning (UAL): A key concept is UAL, which refers to the capacity to learn complex associations between stimuli and actions, potentially indicating the presence of consciousness. Evolutionary Origins: The paper explores how UAL might have evolved and how it relates to the Cambrian explosion and the diversification of animal life. Taxonomic Distribution: The authors discuss how the concept of UAL can inform our understanding of which animals might possess conscious experience. Philosophical Implications: The paper considers the implications of an evolutionary perspective for understanding the nature of consciousness, particularly the relationship between subjective experience and physical processes. Distinguishing Experience, Awareness, and Consciousness: The paper makes distinctions between experience, awareness, and consciousness, potentially clarifying their relationship to each other. Uller and Helanterä (2019) explore the concept of niche construction in evolutionary biology and its implications for conceptual change. They examine how niche construction, the process where organisms modify their environment, challenges and potentially reshapes established evolutionary frameworks. The authors analyze contrasting views on niche construction, particularly focusing on how it influences selection and development, and how these perspectives reflect different underlying assumptions about the causal processes in evolution. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Niche Construction and Conceptual Change: The paper investigates the idea that niche construction necessitates a shift in how evolutionary biologists conceptualize evolutionary processes. Contrasting Views: Uller and Helanterä highlight two main perspectives on niche construction. One emphasizes its role in selection, where organisms modify their environment to favor certain traits. The other emphasizes its role in development and inheritance, where organismal traits and environmental modifications are intertwined. Causal Independence: The authors suggest that the debate surrounding niche construction stems from different assumptions about the "causal independence" of the processes that generate variation, differential fitness, and inheritance. Conceptual Frameworks: The paper explores how different conceptual frameworks in evolutionary biology, some emphasizing natural selection as the primary driver and others incorporating niche construction, lead to different interpretations of evolutionary phenomena. Communication Failure: The authors also address potential sources of communication failure between scientists who hold different views on niche construction and its role in evolutionary biology. Alternative Evolutionary Representations: The paper suggests that a broader representation of evolving systems, one that incorporates niche construction more explicitly, might be necessary for a more complete understanding of evolutionary processes. In essence, Uller and Helanterä's work delves into the philosophical implications of niche construction for evolutionary biology, arguing that it requires a reassessment of fundamental concepts and assumptions about how evolution works. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/epdf/10.1093/bjps/axx050 Laland, K. N., & Janik, V. (2020). The biological foundations of cultural evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The article "The biological foundations of cultural evolution" by Laland and Janik (2020) explores the interplay between biology and culture in shaping human evolution. It argues that cultural evolution, particularly cumulative culture, relies on specific cognitive mechanisms that are themselves products of cultural evolution, challenging traditional gene-culture coevolution views. The authors propose a "self-assembly hypothesis," suggesting that these mechanisms, like imitation and mind-reading, evolved through a process of culture-culture coevolution. Here's a breakdown of the key points: Cumulative Culture: Humans have evolved the capacity for cumulative culture, where knowledge and skills are passed down and improved upon over generations, leading to increasingly complex behaviors and technologies. Cognitive Mechanisms: This process relies on cognitive mechanisms like imitation, mind-reading, and normative cognition, which are crucial for social learning and cultural transmission. Self-Assembly Hypothesis: The article proposes that these cognitive mechanisms are not solely the result of genetic evolution but also shaped by cultural evolution itself, suggesting a co-evolutionary relationship. Culture-Culture Coevolution: The authors emphasize the importance of culture-culture coevolution, where cultural changes influence the evolution of cognitive abilities, which in turn further shape cultural evolution. Challenging Traditional Views: This hypothesis challenges the traditional view that cultural evolution is solely driven by gene-culture coevolution, where genetic changes lead to cultural changes, and vice versa. Evolution of Learning Biases: The article suggests that explicit learning biases, such as the tendency to copy the majority, are also shaped by cultural evolution, gradually becoming more adaptive over time. Evidence from Developmental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience: The authors point to evidence from developmental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, which indicates that some cognitive mechanisms, like imitation, are culturally inherited. Importance of Social Learning: The article highlights the significance of social learning in cultural evolution, emphasizing the role of attentional learning and explicit social learning biases. Implications for Understanding Human Evolution: The research has significant implications for understanding how humans evolved their unique cognitive abilities and how culture has shaped our species. Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press. How do animals perceive the world, learn, remember, search for food or mates, communicate, and find their way around? Do any nonhuman animals count, imitate one another, use a language, or have a culture? What are the uses of cognition in nature and how might it have evolved? What is the current status of Darwin's claim that other species share the same "mental powers" as humans, but to different degrees? In this completely revised second edition of Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior, Sara Shettleworth addresses these questions, among others, by integrating findings from psychology, behavioral ecology, and ethology in a unique and wide-ranging synthesis of theory and research on animal cognition, in the broadest sense--from species-specific adaptations of vision in fish and associative learning in rats to discussions of theory of mind in chimpanzees, dogs, and ravens. She reviews the latest research on topics such as episodic memory, metacognition, and cooperation and other-regarding behavior in animals, as well as recent theories about what makes human cognition unique. In every part of this new edition, Shettleworth incorporates findings and theoretical approaches that have emerged since the first edition was published in 1998. The chapters are now organized into three sections: Fundamental Mechanisms (perception, learning, categorization, memory), Physical Cognition (space, time, number, physical causation), and Social Cognition (social knowledge, social learning, communication). Shettleworth has also added new chapters on evolution and the brain and on numerical cognition, and a new chapter on physical causation that integrates theories of instrumental behavior with discussions of foraging, planning, and tool using. The decade since the first edition of Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior was written has seen an explosion of new developments in almost every area it covers. Many of them are around the boundary that traditionally divided comparative psychology from the biological study of behavior, the very boundary that Cognition, Evolution, and Behavior focused on bridging. There is now every sign that a truly integrative cross-disciplinary research program on comparative cognition has finally taken off. As a happy result, many parts of the first edition are outdated. This second edition integrates new developments and insights with earlier material. To mention a few examples, associative learning has seen new challenges to what has been the dominant theory in the area for almost a half century. New studies of whether animals are aware of their memories or have "episodic like" memory—questions hardly touched by serious researchers before 1998—raise fundamental issues about the promises and limits of what we can learn from comparing verbal and nonverbal species. Comparative studies of numerical cognition, spatial cognition, and animal communication have taken important new directions and seen more theoretical integration with work on child development and with neuroscience. The study of social learning and animal culture has exploded. Analyses of social cognition in field and laboratory, including the contentious topic of whether other species have theory of mind, have been extended to species as diverse as dogs, hyenas, goats, ravens, and fish. Spirited debates about whether any animals can be said to teach their conspecifics or to have culture have been fueled by prominent new discoveries, not only with primates but with other species. Likewise, studies of tool using—both fieldwork documenting its occurrence and analyses of what tool-users know—now include birds as well as a range of primates. As with studies of social cognition, the possibility of convergence in evolutionarily diverse species promises important insights into the conditions for evolution of human-like behavior and understanding. We are seeing the development of a much more detailed, nuanced, and biologically informed view of how and why species are both the same and different cognitively, including of course what humans share with other species and how we may be unique. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved) My take on this is that Shettleworth's statement on cognitive traits being shaped by natural selection to support "flexible and adaptive responses" opened the door to the possibility that cognition also shaped evolution. Some researchers including Laland and Walsh were able to build upon Shettleworth bottom-up approach to see if a top down approach was also possible. Once these "flexible and adaptive responses" were unleashed by evolution, why would they then not start acting upon evolution? And Walsh and Laland explored this and have come up with tantalizing indications that it might be so.

Can anyone help me in accessing the full documents for the following references? Gao, X., et al. (2024). Environmental forecasting in bacterial colonies as a foundation for adaptive evolution. Nature Ecology & Evolution. Shu, X., & Chen, X. (2020). "Anticipatory behavior and its evolution in biological populations." Frontiers in Genetics. Lindstedt, S., et al. (2019). "Evolving anticipation in variable environments." Evolutionary Ecology. Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, Agency, and Evolution. Cambridge University Press. Ginsberg, J., et al. (2024). Evolutionary processes, consciousness, and purpose: An interdisciplinary review. Philosophy of Science. Uller, T., & Helanterä, H. (2019). Niche construction and conceptual change in evolutionary biology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Laland, K. N., & Janik, V. (2020). The biological foundations of cultural evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press. Bshary, R., & Schäffer, D. (2002). Concepts of cognition in fish. Animal Cognition, 5(3), 161-171. Healy, S. D., & Brahams, D. (2000). Cognitive ecology. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 29, 1-43. Funny that you do not question those references that imply that its all mechanistic! And you need to consult more broadly and more recently to get a full revised view of evolution theory. I understand that this is controversial and might not be entirely correct, but when does science ignore what does not fit in the current paradigm. In speculations we can discuss what if based on some amount of evidence.

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. With my limited technical and financial capacities, I can go no further. Myself and more importantly some researchers and newer research appears to give some credence to anticipation and agency I tried all of them more than twice before submitting and they all came up in a simple google search. Try again! Gao, X., et al. (2024). Environmental forecasting in bacterial colonies as a foundation for adaptive evolution. Nature Ecology & Evolution. The study, "Environmental forecasting in bacterial colonies as a foundation for adaptive evolution" by Gao, X., et al. (2024), published in Nature Ecology & Evolution, explores how bacteria in colonies can anticipate environmental changes and adapt accordingly. This research investigates the mechanisms by which bacterial colonies utilize environmental information to prepare for future conditions, essentially acting as a form of "environmental forecasting". The study highlights that this predictive capability is a crucial aspect of bacterial adaptive evolution, allowing them to respond effectively to both predictable and unpredictable environmental shifts. Here's a more detailed breakdown: Environmental Forecasting: The research suggests that bacterial colonies aren't merely reacting to their current environment, but rather they are actively predicting future conditions based on past experiences or subtle cues. Adaptive Evolution: This predictive ability allows bacteria to prepare for anticipated changes, leading to a more efficient and rapid adaptive evolution process. Instead of waiting for mutations to appear and be selected for, bacteria can already be primed to thrive in the new environment. Mechanisms: The study likely delves into the specific mechanisms that enable this forecasting. This could involve: Signal detection: Bacteria might possess sensory systems that detect subtle changes in the environment, providing early warnings of upcoming shifts. Cellular memory: Previous environmental conditions could be stored in bacterial cells, allowing them to "remember" past patterns and anticipate future occurrences. Collective behavior: The colony as a whole might exhibit emergent properties, where the interactions between individual bacteria contribute to the overall predictive capacity of the group. Implications: Understanding how bacteria forecast and adapt has significant implications for various fields: Ecology: It sheds light on how bacterial populations respond to environmental changes, including climate change and pollution. Microbial Ecology: It provides insights into the dynamics of bacterial communities and their role in ecosystems. Biotechnology: It could lead to new strategies for engineering bacteria to adapt to specific industrial or medical applications. In essence, the study by Gao et al. reveals a sophisticated level of environmental awareness in bacteria, highlighting their ability to anticipate and prepare for future changes, which is a key factor in their evolutionary success. Shu, X., & Chen, X. (2020). "Anticipatory behavior and its evolution in biological populations." Frontiers in Genetics. The article "Anticipatory behavior and its evolution in biological populations" by Shu and Chen (2020) explores how organisms anticipate future events and how this ability has evolved. It suggests that anticipatory processes are more widespread and older than previously thought, playing a crucial role in the evolution of physiological systems. Here's a breakdown of the key aspects discussed in the article: 1. Anticipatory Behavior in Biological Systems: Beyond Cognition: The article highlights that anticipatory behaviors aren't limited to organisms with complex nervous systems. Examples can be found in simple organisms like microbes, indicating that anticipation is an ancient and fundamental biological process. Diverse Examples: The authors discuss various anticipatory processes, including circadian rhythms (daily biological cycles), stress priming (preparing the body for potential stress), and cephalic responses (physiological changes in anticipation of eating). Organizational Properties and Mechanisms: The article emphasizes that anticipatory processes have unique organizational properties and mechanisms, suggesting they are a distinct type of biological process. 2. The Role of Anticipation in Evolution: Evolutionary Old: Anticipatory behaviors are not just recent adaptations; they are believed to be evolutionarily old, suggesting their significance in the development of biological systems. Shaping Physiological Systems: Anticipation can influence the evolution of physiological systems by preparing organisms for future environmental changes or challenges. For instance, anticipatory stress responses might have helped organisms adapt to fluctuating conditions. Evolutionary Framework: The article advocates for incorporating an anticipatory framework into the existing understanding of physiological processes to better understand how organisms adapt and evolve. 3. Potential Mechanisms of Anticipation: Genetic Networks: Anticipatory behaviors are likely influenced by genetic networks that allow organisms to "predict" or prepare for future conditions. Learning and Adaptation: Organisms can learn from past experiences to anticipate future events, further refining their anticipatory responses. 4. The Importance of Studying Anticipation: Advancing Understanding: By studying anticipation, researchers can gain a deeper understanding of how biological systems function, adapt, and evolve. Potential Applications: Understanding the mechanisms of anticipation could potentially lead to new insights into various fields, including medicine and biotechnology. In essence, the article by Shu and Chen (2020) makes a compelling case for the importance of anticipation in the evolution and function of biological populations, suggesting that it is a fundamental process that deserves more attention in biological research.

Evolution – Mechanistic or Agency? Recent studies reveal that some organisms can adapt proactively to future environmental changes—a process known as anticipatory evolution. Instead of merely reacting after stress occurs, these organisms can “predict” upcoming challenges and adjust in advance. For instance, Gao et al. (2024) found that bacterial colonies can anticipate environmental shifts and modify gene expression to improve survival. Likewise, Lindstedt et al. (2019) and Shu et al. (2020) report that anticipatory evolution involves the development of traits or behaviors enabling organisms to prepare for future conditions. Molecular, behavioral, and genetic mechanisms contribute to this process, which may be shaped by natural selection to enhance anticipatory capacity. By using cues or signals to prepare in advance, organisms gain a survival advantage in unpredictable environments, facilitating faster and more effective adaptation. Building on these findings, some researchers argue for the presence of evolutionary agency—the idea that organisms are not merely passive recipients of evolutionary pressures but active participants. Walsh (2015) contends that organisms influence their own development and future through purposeful activities. Uller and Helanterä (2019) reinforce this idea through the concept of niche construction, where organisms actively modify their surroundings, thus shaping their own evolutionary paths. Laland and Janik (2020) further explore this notion in the context of cultural evolution, examining how changes in learned behaviors interact with biological processes. Additional studies on animals and microbes demonstrate how feedback loops between organisms and their environments shape development and evolution, suggesting a dynamic interplay rather than one-way causality. In short, evolutionary agency highlights that organisms influence their evolution through behaviors, environmental modifications, and developmental choices, making evolution an interactive, rather than purely reactive, process. This growing interest in agency extends to debates about intentionality in evolution. Some scientists and philosophers propose that evolution might involve purpose or goal-directed behavior. Walsh (2015) emphasizes purposeful organismal activity, while Ginsberg et al. (2024) explore whether evolutionary processes exhibit signs of systemic goals, suggesting that development might be guided by more than random variation and natural selection. Proponents of this view point to traits like plasticity, niche construction, and intentional behavior as evidence that evolution could be influenced by organismal “intentions” or internal drives. Although this perspective remains controversial, it is gaining attention for its potential to reframe how we understand the evolutionary process. Cognition is another domain where evolutionary agency is evident. Cognitive evolution refers to the development of mental capacities—such as perception, learning, and problem-solving—across species to enhance survival and reproductive success. According to Shettleworth (2010), cognitive traits have been shaped by natural selection to support flexible and adaptive responses. Healy and Brahams (2000) show that cognitive abilities like spatial navigation, tool use, and social interaction confer distinct evolutionary advantages. Bshary and Schäffer (2002) add that such traits play a critical role in helping animals navigate dynamic ecological and social environments. Understanding the evolution of cognition offers insight into the biological roots of intelligence, communication, and strategic behavior across species. In contrast to these agency-focused views, mechanistic explanations underscore the self-organizing properties of life. Kauffman (1993) emphasized that complexity in biology often arises from self-organization—the spontaneous emergence of structure through local interactions. Turing’s (1952) foundational work on morphogenesis demonstrated how simple chemical reactions can generate complex biological patterns, such as animal coat markings. Similarly, Haken (2006) described how feedback and nonlinear dynamics produce stable, organized structures. Wolfram (2002) showed that simple, rule-based computational systems can yield remarkable complexity, suggesting that evolutionary outcomes need not be guided by purpose. More recently, Miller and Page (2007) and Mitchell (2009) developed models demonstrating that ecosystems and social systems evolve through local interactions and decentralized rules, producing diversity through mechanistic processes alone. In conclusion, the diverse phenomena observed in evolution can be interpreted through two complementary lenses. Mechanistic explanations show how biological complexity emerges from fundamental physical, chemical, and mathematical laws, without invoking purpose or intention. In contrast, the agency perspective emphasizes how organisms actively participate in shaping their evolutionary outcomes through behaviors, environmental modification, and cognitive capacities. Together, these frameworks reveal evolution as a dynamic process—either as an emergent property of basic principles or as a partially self-directed journey shaped by the very organisms undergoing change. References Gao, X., et al. (2024). Environmental forecasting in bacterial colonies as a foundation for adaptive evolution. Nature Ecology & Evolution. Shu, X., & Chen, X. (2020). "Anticipatory behavior and its evolution in biological populations." Frontiers in Genetics. Lindstedt, S., et al. (2019). "Evolving anticipation in variable environments." Evolutionary Ecology. Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, Agency, and Evolution. Cambridge University Press. Ginsberg, J., et al. (2024). Evolutionary processes, consciousness, and purpose: An interdisciplinary review. Philosophy of Science. Uller, T., & Helanterä, H. (2019). Niche construction and conceptual change in evolutionary biology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science. Laland, K. N., & Janik, V. (2020). The biological foundations of cultural evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press. Bshary, R., & Schäffer, D. (2002). Concepts of cognition in fish. Animal Cognition, 5(3), 161-171. Healy, S. D., & Brahams, D. (2000). Cognitive ecology. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 29, 1-43. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The Origins of Order: Self-Organization and Selection in Evolution. Oxford University Press. Wolfram, S. (2002). A New Kind of Science. Wolfram Media. Haken, H. (2006). Information and Self-Organization: A Unifying Approach. Springer. Turing, A. M. (1952). The chemical basis of morphogenesis. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. Miller, J. H., & Page, S. E. (2007). Complex Adaptive Systems. Princeton University Press. Mitchell, M. (2009). Complexity: A Guided Tour. Oxford University Press.

I have noticed some discrepancies between the text and some of my references, including your example. Allow me to correct and add to the referencng before entertaining a discussion and answering questions. I need to be on solid ground when making expansive claims. Please be patient and I will get back to you

Unhelpfull and incorrect comment on your part. I will go through my references to see if I missinterpreted the information and post later, but this will take a while. If I got it wrong, then I will say so. For the rest of the discussion, I don’t see that its going anywhere.

Nope! Just makes it not entirely explained as we speak. The point being made was god is not needed to explain gravity so why would it be needed to explain evolution even if cognition was influencing it.