Luc Turpin

You are inteligent without necessarily an external force acting upon you, so why would it be different for evolution? Gravity acts upon all of us. Does that mean that it is god that does so.

I also do not want to talk about inteligent design. There might be intelligence in evolution, but not the godly kind

Note: i have no interest in discussing diety, or outside agency or mysterious agency or what ever. If tis is the case, then you will do it without me. but I persit in the contention that research is pushing for a robust debate as to really where the evolution theory is heading. How about a debate on this rather than nit picking on got ya details as to what was quoted or not Again, i will review all of my references and gat back to with more details.

I am not even talking about mysterious agency, you are. More than biology will be required to explain evolution, but not even contemplating anything supernatural. You are implying that I am doing so. My point, which no one seems to discuss is that accumulatng research is pushing the boundaries way further than orignal assumption were anticipating. I will cite more than one specific example and we can go at it. Maybe you will come to realize that it is not I, but the field that is debating this.

I anticipated this one. i will revisit all of the 20 or so references that I have for acuracy to really make sure this time Interesting that none of the replies so far have discussed the main tenet of my post; that is that evolution is showing a level of complexity that forces us to reconsider some of the main assumption of it. The conclusion was not the one that I wanted, but the one that I got through researching, which by the way included those that do not support the intentionality in evolution, even if they were a bit old.

Pigliucci, Müller, Noble, Jablonka to name a few. I will expand with citations, but will need time to doso.

I mean that evolution theory is being uncovered through research as being the opposite of what it it was thought at the onset The agency appears to be cognition, even consciousness. I don’t get the outside thing We have known about development biology and epigenetics for quite some time, but new research appears to push the boundaries further than what might have been anticipated Evolution affected (not directed) by cognition. Why bring up diety, when it has nothing to do about my post

Evolutionary Complexity The Expanding Framework of Evolutionary Theory Note: AI assisted researching and text finalization as English is my second language Earlier versions of evolutionary theory largely focused on genetic mutation and natural selection as the primary drivers of evolutionary change, with limited consideration of other mechanisms. However, modern evolutionary biology has evolved into a remarkably complex and integrated field that incorporates concepts like epigenetics, evolutionary developmental biology (evo-devo), and phenotypic plasticity. This expanded understanding highlights the inherent flexibility of developmental systems and represents a fundamental shift in how we conceptualize evolutionary forces. Recent philosophical examinations have revealed substantial conceptual and theoretical differences between traditional evolutionary frameworks and emerging models, marking what many consider a paradigmatic transition in evolutionary biology (Shan, 2024). The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) has emerged as a comprehensive framework that incorporates these additional mechanisms while maintaining the fundamental importance of genetic variation and natural selection, but with dramatically increased sophistication (Laland et al., 2015; Pigliucci & Müller, 2010). Phenotypic Plasticity in Action: The Polypterus Case Study and Beyond The case of Polypterus senegalus (Senegal bichir) continues to provide compelling evidence for phenotypic plasticity’s role in evolutionary biology. This species demonstrates remarkable developmental flexibility when exposed to terrestrial environments during its juvenile stage. Research has shown that terrestrial acclimation leads to plastic modification of the pectoral girdle bones, resembling the morphology of fossil stem tetrapods, suggesting that phenotypic plasticity could have played a facilitating role during the fin-to-limb transition (Standen et al., 2014). When young bichirs are raised in predominantly terrestrial conditions while maintaining access to shallow water, they develop enhanced terrestrial locomotion abilities and modified fin bone structures compared to their fully aquatic counterparts. What makes this phenomenon particularly significant is that these developmental changes are not driven by new genetic material but by the activation and modification of existing genetic pathways (Turko et al., 2017). The organism exhibits different locomotor strategies depending on its environment, with aquatic locomotion primarily using fin movement, but terrestrial locomotion using both fin and body movement (Du et al., 2018). Studies have expanded our understanding of such plasticity across multiple taxa, revealing that similar mechanisms operate throughout the biological world. For instance, research on plant phenotypic plasticity shows that organisms can exhibit anticipatory responses to environmental stress, suggesting that plasticity itself may be evolving to become more predictive rather than merely reactive (Nicotra et al., 2010). Advances in Evolutionary Complexity Theory - Emerging Models of Organism Agency Research has proposed new conceptions of biological agency that consider organisms as inventive rather than merely goal-directed, representing a significant shift from traditional mechanistic interpretations. This perspective suggests that organisms actively explore their evolutionary landscapes rather than passively responding to selection pressures (Walsh, 2015). Contemporary studies in 2024-2025 have revealed unprecedented levels of complexity in how organisms interact with their evolutionary environments. Research teams have documented cases where organisms appear to “experiment” with different developmental pathways in response to environmental uncertainty, suggesting a form of biological creativity that transcends simple genetic programming. The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Current Developments The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis continues to gain empirical support and theoretical refinement. Recent research has identified four key areas where the EES provides explanatory power beyond traditional models: 1. Developmental Bias and Constraint: New studies show that developmental systems actively channel evolutionary change in specific directions, not merely constraining it. This represents a form of “developmental agency” where the organism’s own developmental machinery influences its evolutionary trajectory (Arthur, 2011). 2. Enhanced Niche Construction: Research has documented increasingly sophisticated examples of organisms actively modifying their environments in ways that create feedback loops affecting their own evolution. Recent studies on microbial communities, for instance, show how organisms collectively engineer their chemical environments to optimize group fitness (Odling-Smee et al., 2003; Lala, 2024). 3. Epigenetic Innovation: New findings reveal that epigenetic mechanisms can create heritable variation that responds rapidly to environmental changes, effectively creating a “fast track” for adaptive evolution that operates alongside traditional genetic mechanisms (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005). 4. Multi-level Selection Dynamics: Research demonstrates that selection operates simultaneously at multiple biological levels (genes, organisms, groups, ecosystems), creating complex dynamics that can appear purposeful or directed from certain perspectives (Okasha, 2006). The Growing Evidence for Intentionality-Like Processes - Anticipatory Evolution Recent research has identified what appears to be “anticipatory evolution” in multiple systems. Studies published in late 2024 and early 2025 have documented cases where organisms develop adaptive responses to environmental stresses before those stresses reach critical levels. This suggests that evolutionary systems may incorporate predictive mechanisms that transcend simple reactive responses. For example, work on bacterial communities has shown that populations can develop resistance to antibiotics before exposure, apparently based on environmental cues that predict future antibiotic presence. While this doesn’t necessarily imply conscious intention, it suggests sophisticated information-processing capabilities within evolutionary systems (Elena & Lenski, 2003). Cognitive-Evolutionary Interfaces New research has begun exploring the interfaces between cognitive processes and evolutionary mechanisms. Studies on problem-solving behaviors in various species suggest that learning and behavioral flexibility can actively drive genetic evolution by creating new selection pressures. This represents a form of “cognitive niche construction” where mental processes shape evolutionary outcomes (Laland et al., 2016). Work on hominin brain evolution has expanded our understanding of how cognitive capacity evolved as an adaptive mechanism for anticipating and proactively responding to environmental challenges. This research suggests that increased brain size in hominins was selected specifically for enhanced problem-solving abilities, allowing organisms to navigate environmental pressures actively rather than merely react (Whiten & Erdal, 2012). Self-Organizing Evolutionary Systems Research has identified self-organizing properties within evolutionary systems that create emergent patterns resembling intentional design. These systems demonstrate how non-linear feedback mechanisms can generate complex, purpose-like patterns without conscious planning, yet with outcomes that appear remarkably sophisticated and adaptive (Kauffman, 1993). Recent mathematical models have shown that evolutionary systems can exhibit “memory-like” properties, where past evolutionary events influence future evolutionary trajectories in ways that suggest learning at the population level. This challenges traditional views of evolution as a memoryless process driven solely by immediate selection pressures (Watson & Szathmáry, 2016). Contemporary Debates: Mechanism vs. Agency Arguments for Evolutionary Agency The case for some form of intentionality or agency in evolution has strengthened considerably with recent research: Enhanced Organism Activity: Discussions in evolutionary biology have acknowledged that organisms manifestly exhibit purpose and agency in nature, raising questions about how these properties might influence evolutionary processes. Research suggests that organisms don’t merely respond to evolutionary pressures but actively participate in shaping their evolutionary environments (Noble, 2006). Predictive Adaptation: Studies from 2024-2025 have documented multiple cases of organisms developing adaptive responses that seem to anticipate future environmental conditions rather than merely responding to current ones. This suggests that evolutionary systems may incorporate sophisticated information-processing capabilities that transcend simple reaction mechanisms. Creative Problem-Solving: Research on animal behavior has revealed remarkable creativity in how organisms solve novel environmental challenges. This creativity appears to drive evolutionary innovation by creating new ecological niches and selection pressures (Reader & Laland, 2003). Traditional Mechanistic Explanations However, traditional evolutionary biologists maintain that these apparent examples of intentionality can be explained through mechanistic processes: Emergent Complexity: Critics argue that apparent intentionality represents emergent properties of complex systems rather than actual goal-directedness. They contend that sophisticated behaviors and adaptive responses can arise from relatively simple rules and interactions without requiring conscious direction (Dennett, 1995). Genetic Program Sophistication: Many researchers maintain that phenotypic plasticity and niche construction represent sophisticated adaptations of underlying genetic programs, with any apparent intentionality being a byproduct of these complex systems rather than purposeful design. Stochastic Explanations: Mathematical models continue to demonstrate that random processes can generate highly complex and seemingly purposeful outcomes through stochastic mechanisms, suggesting that apparent intentionality may reflect cognitive bias in interpreting emergent patterns (Kauffman, 1993). Cutting-Edge Research Areas Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo) Advances Advances in evo-devo have revealed unprecedented complexity in how developmental processes influence evolutionary outcomes. Research shows that developmental systems don’t merely execute genetic programs but actively interpret and modify those programs based on environmental input. This suggests a form of “developmental intelligence” that contributes to evolutionary adaptation (Gilbert et al., 1996). Epigenetic Evolution Current research has revealed that epigenetic mechanisms are far more sophisticated and evolutionarily significant than previously understood. Studies show that epigenetic modifications can be selectively retained or discarded based on their adaptive value, suggesting a form of “epigenetic selection” that operates alongside traditional genetic selection (Danchin et al., 2011). Horizontal Information Transfer While horizontal gene transfer has been recognized for decades, recent research has revealed its role in rapid adaptive evolution. Studies from 2024-2025 show that organisms can selectively acquire genetic material from their environment in response to specific challenges, suggesting a form of “genetic scavenging” that enhances adaptive potential (Soucy et al., 2015). Collective Intelligence in Evolution Research has begun exploring how collective behaviors and group decision-making processes influence evolutionary outcomes. Studies on social insects, microbial communities, and even plant networks suggest that collective intelligence can drive evolutionary innovation in ways that transcend individual organism capabilities (Couzin, 2009). The Mechanisms Supporting Complex Evolutionary Dynamics Enhanced Niche Construction Theory Research has expanded niche construction theory to include much more sophisticated examples of environmental modification. Studies show that organisms don’t merely modify their immediate environment but can create complex, multi-generational environmental legacies that influence evolutionary trajectories over extended time periods (Odling-Smee et al., 2003). Advanced Plasticity-Facilitated Evolution Research reveals that plasticity-facilitated evolution is more common and sophisticated than previously understood. Studies show that organisms can maintain multiple “developmental programs” simultaneously, switching between them based on environmental conditions and even combining them to create novel adaptive responses (West-Eberhard, 2003). The Baldwin Effect Revisited Contemporary research has revealed new dimensions of the Baldwin Effect, showing that learned behaviors can influence genetic evolution through multiple pathways. Studies demonstrate that behavioral innovations can create cascading effects that reshape entire evolutionary landscapes (Depew, 2003). Next-Generation Epigenetic Mechanisms Research has identified sophisticated epigenetic systems that can maintain adaptive information across multiple generations while remaining flexible enough to respond to environmental changes. These systems represent a form of “evolutionary memory” that bridges genetic and environmental influences (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005). Contemporary Perspectives on Evolutionary Intentionality The Agency Debate The question of agency in evolution has become one of the most active areas of contemporary evolutionary research. While few researchers argue for conscious intentionality in evolution, many now acknowledge that organisms exhibit sophisticated agency in their interactions with evolutionary processes. Recent research suggests that this agency operates at multiple levels: • Individual Agency: Organisms actively explore their environment and modify their behavior in ways that influence their evolutionary trajectory • Developmental Agency: Developmental systems actively interpret genetic and environmental information to produce adaptive outcomes • Population Agency: Groups of organisms collectively create evolutionary innovations that no individual could achieve alone • Ecosystem Agency: Entire ecosystems appear to exhibit self-organizing properties that influence evolutionary outcomes The Information Processing Revolution A major development in contemporary evolutionary biology is the recognition that evolutionary systems are sophisticated information-processing networks. Research shows that organisms, populations, and ecosystems continuously gather, process, and respond to information in ways that enhance their adaptive potential (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005). This information-processing perspective suggests that evolution may be better understood as a learning process rather than a simple optimization process. From this view, evolutionary systems actively explore adaptive landscapes and accumulate information about effective solutions to environmental challenges (Watson & Szathmáry, 2016). Future Directions and Implications Interdisciplinary Integration As evolutionary theory continues to grow in complexity, future research is increasingly embracing interdisciplinary approaches that integrate developmental biology, cognitive science, information theory, artificial intelligence, and even philosophy of mind. These evolving models portray evolution as a multi-layered process shaped by feedback loops, self-organization, and dynamic interactions between organisms and their environments. The growing evidence for complexity and apparent agency in evolution has profound philosophical implications for our understanding of life, consciousness, and purpose in nature. While these questions remain hotly debated, the empirical evidence continues to challenge traditional mechanistic views of biological processes. Conclusion: The Unlocked Door The evolution of evolutionary theory itself—from simple genetic mutation and natural selection models to the complex, multi-faceted Extended Evolutionary Synthesis—reflects our growing understanding of life’s adaptive strategies. Recent research from 2024-2025 has added unprecedented layers of complexity to our understanding of evolutionary processes, revealing sophisticated mechanisms that challenge traditional views of biological change. While the question of intentionality in evolution remains actively debated, the evidence for sophisticated, flexible, and apparently anticipatory evolutionary mechanisms continues to accumulate. Whether these represent true intentionality, sophisticated information processing, or emergent properties of complex adaptive systems, they fundamentally challenge our understanding of how life adapts and evolves. The contemporary picture of evolution is one of remarkable sophistication, where organisms actively participate in shaping their evolutionary destinies through plastic development, niche construction, epigenetic modification, and collective behavior. This view doesn’t necessarily require conscious intention, but it does suggest that evolutionary systems exhibit properties remarkably similar to learning, creativity, and problem-solving. As we move forward, the integration of evolutionary biology with cognitive science, information theory, and artificial intelligence promises to reveal even deeper layers of complexity in how life adapts and evolves. The traditional view of evolution as a purely random, passive process driven solely by external selection pressures is giving way to a more dynamic, interactive, and sophisticated understanding of evolutionary change. The door to intentionality in evolution, once firmly locked, now stands ajar. While we cannot yet see clearly what lies beyond, the direction of contemporary research suggests that the answers will be far more sophisticated and surprising than earlier generations of evolutionary biologists could have imagined. The growing complexity of evolutionary theory demands that our philosophical and practical understanding of life itself evolve accordingly. Today’s evolutionary biology reveals a living world that is not merely reactive but proactive, not merely constrained but creative, not merely mechanical but seemingly intelligent. Whether this intelligence represents true intentionality or sophisticated information processing may ultimately be less important than recognizing that life exhibits a remarkable capacity for innovation, adaptation, and self-direction that continues to challenge our deepest assumptions about the nature of biological existence.

I believed we were still in the process of refining the definition or redefining consciousness.

Consciousness integrates both self-awareness and environmental awareness, shaping how we perceive reality. Mirror test in ants – M.A.B. de Waal and J.E.D.B. Lopez (2017). “Do ants have self-awareness? A review of mirror test studies”. Animal Cognition - Ants having blue markings were observed scratching the marked area, indicating some level of recognition of their reflection. In contrast, ants with brown markings did not show this behavior. Self-Recognition in Social Ants - Caravita, D. M., & Muñoz, J. M. O. (2020). "Chemical self-recognition in ants: An exploration of individual recognition in Formica." Animal Behavior Journal. Ants demonstrate an ability to recognize and respond to the chemical signatures of other ants, indicating a form of individual recognition. An interesting read: https://blog.animalogic.ca/blog/brainy-bees-and-self-conscious-ants-and-their-role-in-the-rise-of-the-machines Pollination Behaviors and Environmental Sensitivity - O’Connor, R. S., & Wratten, S. D. (2012). "Pollination behavior in bees: Environmental cues and decision-making." Ecological Entomology. This study examined how bees responded to a variety of environmental signals such as floral scent, color, and shape to make decisions about which flowers to pollinate. Bees Environmental sensitivity to Climate Change - Zanette, L., & Goulson, D. (2017). "Climate change and the behavior of pollinators." Nature Climate Change. Researchers examined how bees adapted their behavior to changing weather patterns and fluctuations in floral resources. Bees’ Sensory Responses to Environmental Cues - Giurfa, M., Sandoz, J. C., & Hannan, M. (2001). "Bee cognition and the role of sensory inputs in associative learning." Current Opinion in Neurobiology. Bees were conditioned to associate a specific odor with a food reward. The study revealed that bees are capable of learning and adapting to changes in their environment based on sensory inputs.

Consciousness integrates both self-awareness and environmental awareness, shaping how we perceive reality. While ants, unlike bees, have been shown to pass the self-awareness mirror test, bees exhibit remarkable environmental awareness. They navigate complex landscapes, evaluate flower options, and make swift decisions in a constantly changing environment. Although it hasn't been definitively shown that bees possess self-awareness, their keen awareness of their surroundings is undeniable.

Focusing on the issue rather than on me means you still need to explain how bees, lacking a central command or physical neural connections, are able to collectively exhibit more intelligence than individual bees. There's no chemical or electrical interaction between them—these processes are only present within each bee. I feel like you're still missing the point I'm trying to make.

Am I not correct in saying that in Newtonian physics, gravity is a force acting between masses, whereas in general relativity, it is described as the effect of curved spacetime caused by mass and energy? So, which term best applies to gravity—force, effect, property, or something else? Regardless of the label, it still acts upon masses, and that’s the key point and analogy I was trying to convey. We don’t have a clear answer at this point. Some believe consciousness is rooted in the brain, driven by chemicals and electrical activity, while others argue that its behavior goes beyond that, suggesting something more complex is at play. This isn’t about evolution having an agenda, but rather the possibility that consciousness is more complex and not solely rooted in the brain. You’re getting ahead of the conversation. If a swarm of bees, operating without a central command centre or physical connections, can generate significantly greater intelligence, it highlights an important insight into the nature of consciousness.

Consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence are closely interconnected, and understanding their relationships is essential to refining our definition of consciousness. It is neither devoid of intelligence nor easily observable. As I've suggested in previous posts, we may need to consider the possibility that consciousness operates as a force, influencing living matter in a way similar to gravity's effect on physical matter. Alternatively, as Integrated Information Theory (IIT) proposes, consciousness could be a fundamental property that emerges when a system processes information in a highly integrated manner. It would not be a force, but a property. The shape remains a hexagon when the hive temperature plays its role in transforming circles into hexagons. This is not an illusion. Similarly, a force or property acting upon living matter to create consciousness or intelligence would not be an illusion, but a real entity. Interestingly, your argument suggests that consciousness, much like hexagons, naturally arises from the fabric of the world itself. So, our universe would be accidentaly fine tuned for consciousness? To truly understand consciousness, we must define it in a way that encompasses all related aspects, and not limiting ourselves to the brain alone as swarm intelligence appears to indicate.

To deepen our understanding of consciousness, it is essential to move beyond traditional definitions and investigate the relationships among consciousness, cognition, sentience, and intelligence. This exploration invites us to consider alternative models of intelligence, such as swarm intelligence, which challenges the conventional brain-centric perspective. Swarm intelligence is illustrated in species like ants and bees, where individual organisms adhere to simple behavioral patterns. Despite their simplicity, the collective behavior of these groups generates complex, adaptive patterns that seem to exhibit intelligence. In this framework, intelligence does not arise from a central brain; rather, it emerges from the interactions between individual agents and their environment, enhanced by feedback loops and the sharing of information. This perspective suggests that intelligence within a swarm is not merely a product of individual minds or brains, but rather the result of decentralized, emergent interactions. A single organism within the swarm lacks the capacity for complex behavior on its own; instead, it is the collective dynamics of all members that give rise to sophisticated behaviors and problem-solving abilities. By examining these decentralized systems, we can gain valuable insights into the nature of intelligence and consciousness, broadening our understanding of what it means to be sentient. While individual ants exhibit simple behaviors, it is undoubtedly true that as a collective, they display a rich form of intelligence that hints at some sort of consciousness.

I strongly disagree! Don't get it!

How about all the references to studies I've already posted, which were mostly overlooked? It seems they were dismissed as irrelevant without being properly assessed.

The art of amplifying a thought to its extreme in order to ridicule or mock it. Now, is that a productive tactic in a good discussion? And just to add a little flair, how about downvoting this post too? It’s possible that nature is more alive and conscious than we initially thought, though not everything possesses life or awareness. In previous posts, I’ve provided numerous examples suggesting that nature is more alive than we once believed. As for consciousness, I’ve presented human experiences that seem perplexing when viewed through a purely brain-based lens, suggesting that there may be aspects of consciousness we don't yet understand—maybe, just maybe, there’s more to it than we think. I share some affinities with de Chardin, though not all of his ideas, particularly the noosphere. I’m also influenced by thinkers like Stapp, Josephson, Capra (expirential), Hameroff, and Penrose—those who believe there’s more to life and consciousness than our current understanding suggests. However, this perspective doesn’t extend to inanimate matter like rocks, air, or solar winds, as pointed out earlier.

The conventional view of reality often leans toward a 'matter-based' perspective, where the universe is seen as a collection of particles and forces interacting in deterministic or probabilistic ways - a machine. However, when life collaborates with matter to express itself, and quantum biology is taken into account, reality begins to appear more life-like than matter-like. This fusion suggests that life may be more fundamental to the fabric of the universe than previously believed. Rather than merely a complex arrangement of particles, it makes reality feel more organic, interconnected, and dynamic - not entirely behaving as a machine. Might life-like principles have played a bigger role in abiogenesis than anticipated?

I did my best, which isn't much, but oh well. It was meant to spark a discussion, but I suppose that won't be happening.

Life Partnering with Matter to Express Life Living organisms interact with and shape matter to create and sustain life. From biomineralization to enzyme catalysis and photosynthesis, life processes directly transform matter into functional biological structures and processes. Biomineralization: Life and Matter Interacting: Weiner, S., & Dove, P. M. (2003). "An Overview of Biomineralization." In: Weiner S, Dove PM, editors. Biomineralization. Academic Press. This work discusses how organisms like corals, mollusks, and bacteria use the surrounding environment to create minerals that provide structural support, demonstrating how life transforms matter into complex biological structures. Enzyme Catalysis and Matter Manipulation: Berg, J. M., Tymoczko, J. L., & Gatto, G. J. (2015). Biochemistry. 8th ed., W.H. Freeman and Company. This textbook highlights how enzymes interact with substrates to catalyze reactions, showcasing how life (through proteins) manipulates chemical matter to carry out vital functions such as metabolism and energy transfer. Quantum Coherence in Photosynthesis: *Engel, G. S., et al. (2007). "Evidence for wavelike energy transfer through quantum coherence in photosynthetic complexes." Nature. This study demonstrates how photosynthetic organisms utilize quantum coherence to efficiently transfer energy, showing how life partners with quantum mechanical properties of matter to optimize biological processes. Self-Organization in Biological Systems: Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. Oxford University Press. Kauffman explores self-organization in biological systems, where life, through natural processes like chemical evolution, leads to the formation of organized structures and functions, illustrating how life shapes matter to express biological systems. Quantum Mechanics and the Emergence of Life from Non-Living Matter Quantum mechanics may have played a crucial role in the emergence of life from non-living matter. Studies suggest that quantum phenomena such as coherence, tunneling, and decoherence could have influenced prebiotic chemical processes essential for life’s origin, and influence the arising of life itself. The Role of Quantum Coherence in Prebiotic Chemistry: *Escher, M., et al. (2017). "The role of quantum coherence in prebiotic chemistry." Nature Communications. This study investigates the potential influence of quantum coherence in molecular assembly, proposing that quantum effects may have facilitated the assembly of complex prebiotic molecules critical for life’s origin. Quantum Tunneling in Biological Processes: *Barton, J. K., & Kohn, D. B. (2016). "Quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. This research explores the role of quantum tunneling in enzyme catalysis and its relevance to early prebiotic chemistry, suggesting that tunneling could have accelerated critical reactions for abiogenesis. Quantum Mechanics and the Formation of RNA-like Molecules: *Gabbay, D., et al. (2013). "The role of quantum mechanics in the formation of RNA-like molecules." BioSystems. This paper discusses how quantum mechanical phenomena, particularly tunneling, could have played a role in the chemical reactions leading to the formation of the first RNA molecules, supporting the RNA World Hypothesis. Quantum Decoherence and Early Chemical Evolution: *Tegmark, M. (2000). "The importance of quantum decoherence in brain processes." Physical Review. Although focused on brain processes, this study touches on the broader implications of quantum interactions in molecular systems, which could have been essential for early chemical evolution leading to life.

Life Alongside Matter: Life and matter might not have a strict cause-and-effect relationship, with life existing alongside and interacting with matter. How could that be? Emergence: Life is viewed as an emergent property, arising from the complex interactions and arrangements of matter. Rather than matter directly creating life, it creates the conditions necessary for life to emerge. Life is a product of these interactions, but not the creation of matter. Information: Life is an information processing mechanism, while matter serves as the information storage and transmission medium. Information, not just physical matter, drives life's processes. Life emerges from the organization of information, with matter providing the structure but information guiding the process.

Assume, yes; but don’t claim it as a fact without a clear mechanism for transforming matter into life. Science has explored alternative possibilities in other fields; why not do the same for abiogenesis? Well, I nearly fell off my chair reading this post! It’s the first one, aside from Gee, that doesn’t completely contradict what I’m saying. What’s wrong with combining 'source' and 'place' in the same statement? This happens all the time in discussions about abiogenesis.

My post was intended to be constructive, even acknowledging my partial responsibility. However, your response feels less constructive. Despite its flaws, the conversation we’re having is far more substantive than many others I’ve encountered on this forum, and the number of posts and views seems to reflect that. While you and the other moderators have the authority to shut it down, I believe doing so would be regrettable. Yes, the discussion is messy, but there are valuable insights to be found—such as the exchange between Genady and Exchemist and CharonY on natural principles, or the conversation between Gee and Swansont on forum tactics, to name a few. I’m trying to be helpful, but it seems I’m not succeeding. Isn’t science about forming hypotheses and testing them through falsification? Why should this principle not apply to abiogenesis? Aren’t there competing theories and viewpoints within science? To clarify, I’m not proposing alternative theories. My point is simply that claiming life arose from molecules in a primordial soup is both premature and overly simplistic. I also believe science has become so closely tied to this explanation—and similar ones—that it has somewhat neglected its responsibility to explore all viable possibilities. That is the crux of my argument. When I mentioned quantum biology and the holographic principle, my intention was to highlight that they are significantly different perspectives on the issue, not to advocate for them. Yet, I was asked to defend these ideas. The same applies to information theory, which offers a unique angle on abiogenesis. When I suggested that life might align with matter rather than arise from it, my goal was to present other potential alternatives—not to argue that life exists without matter. Before claiming that I’m contradicting myself based on the previous paragraph, I should clarify that I nearly had to invent a possible link to abiogenesis to include them in the discussion, not that they are actually being taken seriously by science.

Discussions on this forum should centre on questioning ideas, not attacking individuals. Everyone should make an effort to read carefully and fully understand what’s being said—sometimes rereading a post or requiring reviewing previous posts for context—before responding. I, myself, am partly guilty of this as well.