Luc Turpin

1- My original statement was : Neutral mutations are frequent changes in DNA that don't affect an organism's survival or reproduction. While they don't directly drive evolutionary change, they contribute to genetic diversity, creating a reservoir of variations that can later support beneficial mutations. And I stand by it. 2- No overthrowing of theory necessary. Both chance and intention can play a role in evolution, especially if you include cultural evolution. Adding intention into the mix does not disprove evolutionary theory; it just increases complexity by recognizing that intentional actions can also influence change. And God is not necessarily required for intention to be brought into the evolutionary picture

I will have to double check, but I think of reading that they had to be assembled together, then expressed in a pre-determined sequence; hence the coordination. The environment must be "primed" to require the trait; if not "primed" then there is no need for this trait. I didn’t overlook your point about organisms carrying abundant neutral mutations, but I have a slightly different perspective based on my readings. While neutral mutations do contribute to the accumulation of genetic changes, I believe it’s the beneficial mutations that drive significant evolutionary changes. I’m not suggesting any teleological direction to evolution, but rather that some non-teleological, intelligent forces may influence the process. I’m mindful not to use certain terms in forum discussions, but I do think it’s worth noting that the gradual step-by-step model of evolution is increasingly being questioned as the only sole driver of evolution, even within evolutionary biology circles. I agree with you that the environment tends to favor innovations, particularly those that enhance mobility — and this may align with the kind of “intent” I’m hinting at. Additionally, while time was indeed vast to allow evolutionary processes to unfold, I believe that more is at play than evolution one random mutation at a time. Some sense of putting it together to have a desired effect was required to make it all happen. Punctuated evolution might be a show of hand for this buildup to a desirerable effect. As for the notion of God, I think it’s important to let science and evidence lead the way, without being constrained by preconceived ideas about where it should go. Why is the idea of God so negative for you? Let’s allow the scientific process to unfold and see where it takes us.

Neutral mutations are frequent changes in DNA that don't affect an organism's survival or reproduction. While they don't directly drive evolutionary change, they contribute to genetic diversity, creating a reservoir of variations that can later support beneficial mutations. Beneficial mutations, on the other hand, are much rarer. These mutations, which enhance survival or reproduction, are crucial for driving evolution, especially for complex traits like flight or vision. However, for such significant changes to occur, multiple mutations must happen together and in a coordinated sequence. Moreover, these mutations often require a "primed" genetic environment, making major changes like the evolution of flight or new metabolic pathways both complex and rare. Evolutionary shifts occur when the genetic framework is properly prepared and the environment exerts selective pressure. My point is that chance alone is not the only force behind evolution. a lot of things must come together to make it happen. No intention of harrasing anyone. That is what I have been trying to do all along. Thank you, I will have a good look at it.

Notwhitstanding agenda and understanding, how can random, stochastic events—such as unpredictable genetic mutations and gradual genetic changes—give rise to complex and stable systems capable of sustaining life as we see in nature? Even when considering natural selection, cumulative evolutionary processes, robustness, symbiosis, self-organization, and neutral evolution, how can this occur? As a non-expert to this subject, some of the terms listed seem more like post hoc descriptive explanations for observed phenomena. Words like "selection," "cumulative steps," "robustness," "symbiosis," and "organization" seem out of place when applied to a self-perpetuating random process. They seem more appropriate for a system with intentionality.

Many evolutionary scientists, such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins, have argued that gene evolution is not always linear. These scientists suggest that the process of evolution involves a variety of mechanisms that go beyond direct necessity. Some of these include neutral mutations, exaptation and gene regulation. These mechanisms together help explain the evolutionary process, showing that it's not always a simple case of genes evolving directly to solve an immediate problem (i.e., necessity). The path of evolution can be more roundabout and involve repurposing existing genes or structures. My concern centers on how such complexity—particularly the shift from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms—can arise "by chance" through evolutionary processes. This is, I believe, a major question in evolutionary biology, especially considering the high degree of coordination required for multicellularity. This transition from single-celled to multi-celled requires not only the development of specialized cells, but also complex communication and regulatory systems to maintain cooperation. This process likely involved many steps that, some argue, could have been facilitated by gradual gene changes. However, the idea that this could occur purely by chance raises concerns. The analogy of a monkey typing a Shakespeare novel is often used by critics of evolution to suggest that the probability of highly complex structures emerging by chance is very low. This is a common critique by proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), such as Behe, Dembski, and Meyer. They argue that the complexity of certain biological systems seems too improbable to have evolved through gradual, natural processes without some form of directed guidance. Notwithstanding the preceding paragraph, the presence of complex genetic programs before the emergence of multicellular animals, that genes involved in embryonic development and regulatory processes were already in place long before the appearance of complex animals, that many regulatory genes have pre-metazoan origin (implying that the common ancestor of all animals may have already possessed a highly complex genome), or that viral replicative modules could have originated in the precellular era, are all examples that raise concerns as to the standard view of evolution. To summarize, my critique centers on the idea that while genes do not arise solely out of necessity, the complexity involved in the evolution of genetic systems requires an incredible amount of "pre-adaptation" through exaptation, neutral mutations, and gene regulation. The probability of this occurring "by chance" through natural selection alone is akin to asking a monkey to type out a Shakespearean novel.

This finding is truly surprising: the genetic program and molecular machinery were already in place long before they were needed. It almost suggests that life was "pre-equipped" with the essential tools, waiting for the right moment to evolve into greater complexity. Another intriguing discovery is that many genes seem to have emerged on Earth far earlier than traditional theories suggest. This challenges the prevailing scientific timeline, once again possibly presenting the notion of genes existing before their necessity became apparent. Source Both results challenge mainstream evolutionary biology. So, are we on the verge of a shift in our understanding of biology, or are we merely encountering blips on the radar screen? "It wouldn't bypass natural selection; rather, it would undergo the same evolutionary process, but with a distinct result. I associate intention with purpose, viewing it as deliberate and meaningful rather than a product of chance or randomness.

1- I could argue that all organisms use both learned and innate behaviors to interact with their environment, but that would be controversial. Therefore, I'll assert that lower-level organisms shape their environment primarily through non-learned behaviors that occur by chance and contribute to their survival. 2- I believe I discussed intentional behaviors at length in my post, with imitation through learning being one of the key examples. 3- I also provided 16 references that suggest there is more to this than meets the eye. They indicate that skills are indeed learned and passed down through generations. 4- In my humble opinion, both random and chance essentially serve the same purpose. 5- I don't understand the question! 6- If I don’t fully grasp the need for traits to be transmitted through generations, why do I mention the gene pool? Intention to thrive and survive, which occurred in the begining through chance and not by intention

Yes, I agree with both points in your post. Without critiquing your criticism of me, I simplified my argument to highlight that there may be intention behind the evolutionary process, rather than it being purely mechanical.

DNA mutations are random changes that occur by chance, such as errors during DNA replication or due to external factors like radiation. Natural selection then "selects" the mutations that help organisms survive and reproduce, while those that are detrimental are eliminated. This process makes evolution non-random, as it results in improvements in survival. However, evolution itself lacks any inherent purpose—it is simply a process. The concept of "evolution" has evolved over time. While the fundamental process remains unchanged, it now encompasses more than just genetic alterations. However, even with the notion of only being encompassed by genes, single-celled organisms eventually evolved into more complex life forms, which challenges the conventional idea that evolution is purely unintentional, as this progression suggests an increase in complexity. I digress a bit here. Things become even more fascinating—and possibly intentional—when we consider culture. Traditional evolutionary theory focuses on genetic mutations and natural selection, but organisms such as humans also shape their environment through cultural practices, which in turn influence evolution. By altering the very environment in which natural selection occurs, more advanced organisms, especially humans, take a significant step in the evolutionary process. Again, more advanced organisms can intentionally modify their surroundings, creating feedback loops that impact evolutionary outcomes. For example, human language is shaped both by biological and cultural evolution. Cultural traits such as intelligence or cooperation can influence genetic selection, making these traits more prevalent in future generations. When we consider culture and human behavior alongside biology, evolution becomes a more dynamic and interactive process. While natural selection remains an important factor, cultural actions and practices can modify or amplify its effects, creating new environments and challenges. In this perspective, random mutations and environmental factors are not the sole drivers of evolution, but the whole process is also affected by the changes humans and other organisms make to the world. Evolution becomes a more complex and multi-dimensional process, with culture playing a crucial role in shaping one’s future.

I queried the net and obtained 6 studies on cognition influencing survival. All collectively demonstrated that cognition is essential for evolutionary survival. Tolman, Kasper, Dunbar, Janson, Lima, and Pinker provided substantial evidence showing that cognitive abilities enhance survival and reproductive success in various species. I also queried for cognitive flexibility in influencing evolutionary survivability and obtained 10 studies, all identifying a favorable role of cognition in survival. Emery & Clayton; Toth & Schick; O'Keefe & Nadel; Gagliardo; Dunbar; Bussey & Muir; Jaakkimainen; Reader & Laland; Rutherford; Borgia & Coleman; and Hamilton. Correct Imitation is a learned behavior, usually in a social learning process Mimicry is a genetic adaptation shaped by natural selection. Behaviors influencing survival, then in a cascading effect, influencing the gene pool. So, does that level of influence make some outcomes of evolution more probable than others? Asking the question without necessarily having the answer.

Intentional learning - using cognitive flexibility to chose between venues of actions Unintentional learning - mimicking; those that adopt the behavior survive; those that do not, do not survive.

Point well taken! Will work on finding comparative studies where cognitive flexibility helps and hinders survival. 1-The author's not mine. 2- Obvious, but still needed to provide evidence of it. 3- The literature is replete with examples of intentional behavior. I will present more finding to that effect if I can find time during the holidays. 4- I said that it was not directly controled, but indirectly yes. 5- At leat I am showing evidence this time.

Those that find me irrelevant and dismissible, should not read beyond this point. The main argument of the article, as indicated in the opening post, is that species have extraordinary ways of influencing their evolutionary fate. However, neither the post's author nor the article's author intends to suggest that organisms directly control their gene pool or have total control over their evolutionary course. Rather, the author of the main article emphasizes that non-genetic inheritance plays a significant role in evolvability, though not in the sense of having direct or total control over genetic changes. As for the author of the original post, he also suggests that behaviors may be within an organism's control, which can potentially affect their survival and reproduction, leading to changes in the gene pool. This aligns somewhat with CharonY's point that "behaviors influence reproductive success, but do not control how the composition of the next generation is going to be." To further explore this, it is important to first establish the possibility of intentional learned behaviors in nature. Intentional learned behaviors refer to actions that individuals consciously acquire through social interaction, education, or self-reflection, and that can be passed down across generations via social learning. The idea of intentionality in behaviors is well supported in research, particularly in the field of cultural evolution. Boyd and Richerson highlight that cultural behaviors, including intentional ones, can influence biological evolution by altering the environment in which selection pressures operate. Additionally, Csibra and Gergely discuss how human cognition is uniquely capable of intentional learning, which accelerates cultural transmission and transformation. Empirical studies, such as those by Michael Tomasello, demonstrate that humans as young as 12 months old engage in intentional learning through imitation, where they actively choose to learn specific behaviors. Moving on, it is also worth considering how behaviors influence an organism’s survivability and reproductive success. The orcas discussed in the article provide an example of learned behaviors that directly impact survivability. By learning to make waves to dislodge seals from shorelines, these orcas improve their access to food, thereby increasing their chances of survival and reproduction. Research supports this idea; for example, Stephens and Krebs emphasize that learned behaviors are essential for survival, enabling organisms to forage more efficiently, avoid predators, and mate more effectively. Studies on birds and bees further corroborate this. In an experiment by Krebs and Davis, birds adjusted their foraging strategies based on past experiences, leading to higher success rates in finding food and avoiding predators. Similarly, bees in Royer’s study learned to associate specific cues with the presence of predators, enhancing their chances of survival. Now, it’s clear that survival to reproductive age is critical in shaping the gene pool. Organisms that survive to reproduce pass on their genetic material to the next generation, while those that do not are effectively removed from the gene pool, a process known as natural selection. I argue that traits favoring cognitive flexibility, which in turn support learning, are part of the genetic material passed on to the next generation. For example, bees that can learn to forage more efficiently or avoid predators are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on genetic traits associated with better learning abilities (e.g., improved memory, neural efficiency). Over time, these cognitive traits may become more prevalent in the population. Boyd and Richerson suggest that cultural evolution, in which learned behaviors play a key role, influences human cognition and facilitates the transmission of cognitive traits across generations. In conclusion, I believe I have demonstrated that intentionaly learned behaviors exist, they can affect survivability and reproduction, and that survivability to reproduction ultimately shapes the gene pool. Cognitive traits related to learning, such as improved memory or neural efficiency, may indeed be passed down through generations, further supporting the role of learned behaviors in evolutionary processes.Through this indirect route to the gene pool, I also assert that I have demonstrated a form of partial and indirect control over it. Now, if there is possible control over the gene pool, is there then some sense of direction in evolution?

Ignore, ignore, ignore; both ways and all will be fine.

All of my posts are irrelevant and dismissible? Really! So, I am wasting my time in writing them, and you are wasting yours reading them. Apologies then for wasting your time.

The work of the scientist that began all of this thread was replete with examples of studies and data used to corroborate his perception of evolution e.g. orcas, their behaviors and genetic fallout ; that is data and evidence. Definition: control over a behavior, affecting survival to reproductivity and ultimately affecting the gene pool. I pick humans moving to consuming milk during the agricultural shift, which had a incidence on genes. I will be discussing this matter in a later post as I am running out of time with other personal matters. It also think that my definition of control was similar to the author's definition, but as indicated in an earlier post, I might have misconstrued it for something else. I think that my later posts have not been about quotes, but arguments in my own words that I seem to understand. Beg to differ and if so, then science cannot contend that the cosmos is mechanistic and material. It then becomes a belief, not a fact. Ran out of free time, will try and get to your post tomorrow. Many points I agree. Science not you, saying that materialism is in fact a belief not a fact. No intention of being rude. Apologies if I appeared to be so!

Science has long peered into the universe through an objective lens, uncovering what appeared to be a mechanistic and material world, and presenting it as fact, not belief. This approach often overlooks the notion that the universe also harbors a subjective reality, one that may challenge these deeply held convictions. While science itself may be free of beliefs, scientists, like all individuals, are shaped by their upbringing, culture, emotions, and personal philosophies. These influences inevitably impact the interpretation of data, the formulation of research questions, and even the models used to understand the cosmos. History is filled with theories once accepted as irrefutable truth, only to be later questioned or overturned by new evidence—shifts that arise not solely from data, but from a reevaluation of beliefs about nature. As for subjectivity, the thoughts and emotions of individuals are not easily captured by material explanations. Many philosophical traditions have long argued that the subjective realm is as real as the objective world studied by science. There exists a tension between the mechanistic, objective world revealed by science and the subjective nature of reality—a tension that science often ignores or downplays. While science strives for objectivity, it is ultimately conducted by humans, whose beliefs and other influences inevitably shape their work.

Expecting to provide evidence isn't bias and presenting scientific work of others is evividence. However, bias in how certain ideas were received is. Calling me out on the use of "control" when it's was the authors own word might be an indication of bias at play. This appears to be a strategy of shifting the focus or an ideological reaction to what is being presented

In the course of my contributions to various scientific forums, I want to emphasize that the ideas that I presented are the work of scientists, not my own original concepts. These scientists propose alternative views that challenge the prevailing scientific consensus. The knowledge I share comes from these individuals, who have developed hypotheses based on rigorous research and empirical data. My role has been to try and convey their ideas, often using their own words, definitions, and explanations. However, despite my reliance on these established thinkers, I have encountered criticism regarding my understanding and use of certain terminology. For instance, in this thread, the use of the word "control" and the definition of "conventional wisdom" (specifically relating to mutations and natural selection) were met with suspicion. I was told that I was either misusing terminology or relying on outdated, "backward" thinking. While I acknowledge that a stronger grasp of scientific domains that I have discussed would have greatly benefited my responses, I also find myself questioning the nature of these objections. It is true that I have not always done justice to the work of these thinkers in my responses to forum members’ criticisms. In some cases, I may have failed to present their ideas as clearly as they deserve. And, I may have inadvertently made it harder to engage effectively with objections raised by others. Nonetheless, I wonder whether my perceived lack of scientific expertise is the sole contributor at play here. Is it simply my insufficient grasp of the basics that has led to negative reactions, or could it also be an indication of a broader reluctance within the scientific community to entertain alternative viewpoints? Could it be bias at play here in how certain ideas were received? In my view, it is likely a combination of both factors: my limited understanding of specific scientific domains, and the broader human tendency to temporarily reject ideas that challenge deeply held beliefs. However, despite these challenges, I believe that these discussions have been valuable and hope to be able to continue them in the future. Finally, I am cognizant that I need to "brush up" on the basic as I move along in my quest for knowledge. I wil be reading Dough Futuyma "Evolution".

I admit that I might be somewhat too set in my ways, and perhaps a little too old in my thinking to completely overhaul my approach to how I engage on this forum. However, I’m always open to learning and would appreciate any book recommendations that could help my understanding. While some of the ideas that I present are not fully formed and on the margins of science, isn't the process of presenting new concepts—where they can be reviewed and critiqued by experts like yourself—truly beneficial for all involved? Engaging in these conversations provides an opportunity to clarify what might be right and especially what might be wrong about the concepts. As some of you in this forum may have noticed, I do not fully subscribe to the prevailing scientific consensus that mechanistic processes alone account for everything that occurs in the universe. While I respect the advancements and contributions that mechanistic approaches have provided in our understanding of the world, I find myself drawn to perspectives that challenge the notion that all phenomena can be reduced to mere physical processes. I am particularly interested in studies, research projects, and theses that might be uncovering gaps in the mechanistic worldview—where it appears that something beyond simple cause-and-effect chains might be at play. This interest isn't rooted in skepticism for science, but rather a curiosity about what may lie outside the boundaries of reductionist thought. Furthermore, I have a keen interest in interdisciplinary sciences, philosophy, and, what the heck, metaphysics, as I believe that the combination of these disciplines might offer alternatives that might bring to light aspects of reality that are yet to be understood. Again, I am not advocating for abandoning science, but rather seeking to expand the boundaries of what we consider valid avenues for exploration. Since joining 'Science Forums,' I have learned so much.

I don't think that they are out of context and agree that the author is most probably overselling concepts to lay audiences, for which I am one of them. All typos are mine, because I had to type it all up. I am a layperson trying to understand the world through science. I count on experts like you to help me out.

The OP began this thead with the words "if correct" and made it clear that the intent was to review a "New Scientist article tittle "The extraordinary ways species control their evolutionary fate" by Kevin Lala, Here are again, a few excepts of the article; not mine, but the author's own words. "The extraordinary ways species control their evolutionary fate" "Natural selection isn't just something that happens to organisms, their activities also play a role, giving some species - including humans - a supercharged ability to evolve "The desert woodrat is an example of how the things organisms do can affect their evolution. "It has become clear that many organisms influence their own evolution by creating non-genetic traits that can become subject to natural selection." "This challenges traditional Darwinian thinking, which sees evolution as a process rooted in random genetic mutation" "I am one of a growing group of evolutionary biologists who believe that non-gentic inheritance plays a vital role in evolvability." "Evidence is mouting that extragenetic adaptations, such as those found in desert woodrat, can rescue organisms from the brink." "This unusual, supercharged evolvability gives us more control over our evolutionary future than we might think". "Historically, evolutionary biologists have assumed that since all organisms evolve through natural selection acting on their genes, they should all change at roughly the same rate per generation. Only in recent years has it become clear that this isn't the case" "But emerging evidence indicates that extragenetic processes are important too". "A variety of processes are involved, but here I will focus on three of the most important and intriguing: epigenetics, symbiotic inheritance and culture. These phenomena aren't just analogous to biological evolution; they are biological evolution. They allow arganisms to invade new environments, cope with change and stress, evolve new phenotypes and resist extinction until adaptive genetic mutations appear". "Until recently, the idea that epigenetic variation is subject to natural selection was controversial. In 2018, publication of a an experiment in thale cress changed that. "Research published the following year backed up the idea that epigenetics can lead to adaptive evolution." "But epigenetic adaptation creates variation in characteristics, increasing the likelihood that some fraction of the population with persist long enough to adapt genetically". "One thing that makes symbiotic hinheritance so powerful is that it needn't be passed from parent to offspring - it can spread among unrelated individuals and even occur across species". "From the origin of life, organisms channelled and directed their own evolution." The upshot of all this is that natural selection isn't something that just happens to organisms: their activities and behaviours contribute to how it happens and whether it happens at all." Evolutionary biologists have maintained that humans evolve in a manner no different from fruit flies or yeast, that all comes down to natural selection of chance mutations. Human culture is off the scale compared with any other animal when it comes to symbolism, technology and informational content. The significantce of this becomes clear one we recognise cutural change for what it really is - not so much an analogue of biological evolution, but rather a key aspect of rapid-response eveolutionary adaptation. This means that we are far more evolvable than most other species - and we control our own evolution to a much greater extent." "Developmental plasticity is a kind of variation caused by environmental factors influencing the way that an organism develops. Although initially there is no change in the genes, plasticity can increase the ability to evolve." I tried as faithfully as I could to represent the above in my posts, my use of words and my definition of terms. They were mostly based on the above. It was random mutation and natural selection, not only natural selection. They remain foudational elements of the theory of evolution. Mutations introduce variations, while natural selection acts upon variations, which leads to gradual changes and adaptations. What is more foundational than that? If I am doing so, then the author is also doing so. The gene pool is the unit on which evolution happens. Then what to do with cultural evolution which is a strong driver of evolvability, but is at times not captured in the gene pool? Do we ignore those as factors? Even if they increase an organism's chance of surviving and reproducing? Are they not considered adaptations? If they become common in a population and help the organisms, again, reproduce, then do they not contribute to evolution in a general sense? Surviving to reproduce was the intent in the use of the word "survival". Factors changing survival, but not changing the gene pool impact evolvability, but are not condidered part of the theory of evolution. According to the author, epigenetics "don't involve changes in the DNA sequence" and according to my understanding, they involve changes in gene expression, not alterations to the underlying DNA sequence. DNA methylation is the most studied concept of epigenetics. Even external factors such as stress, toxins and nutrition can influence the silencing or activation of genes. I was focussing on foundational traits and did not imply that it was all there was. I beg to differ, but this is a matter of opinion. Happy for the acknowledgement. Not only my own personal definitions and concepts, but those shared by the cited author and growing numbers of evolutionary biologists. I guess that the author also has to be re-introduces to established concepts. Not my intention to tire anyone.

If I haven't successfully helped you understand my point of view about the "difference" (not contradiction) between "conventional wisdom" and "contemporary wisdom," then I have failed. By "conventional wisdom," I mean ideas like random mutations and natural selection. "Contemporary wisdom" includes ideas like epigenetics and the deliberate actions organisms take to survive (like tool use, environmental manipulation, and mating strategies). These actions influence survival and evolution, even if they don’t directly change the gene pool. You're right that traditional biology focuses on changes in the gene pool, but it shoud also include more than just genetic mutations. For example, and as you know, epigenetics alters gene expression without changing the DNA itself, and these changes can affect survival traits that influence evolution. So, why should epigenetics be left out of the definition of evolution if it impacts survival? In my view, evolution isn’t just about genetics; it’s also about deliberate actions organisms take to survive. These actions—along with genes, epigenetics, and the environment—work together to shape evolution. The process is more complex than simply changes in the gene pool.

Many scientists, members of Science Forums and in the general population believe that evolution is all about determinism (that evolution follows a predictable and deterministic path) or is random (just happens that way; like random mutations) and leaves out the part about human agency (that of increasing the degree of control that we have over our own evolutionary trajectory). It’s the sandwich without the meat inside. Determinism on one side and randomness on the other without agency in the middle. Most probably, evolution is about all of the above. Also, this discussion is about control and direction over evolution, which is definitely not a generally accepted concept in the science field of evolution, because science sees evolution as an uncontrollable process. I repeat, thinking beings are not passive bystanders in evolution, but active participants; that’s my point. The nature of evolution has now to contend with conscious agency.

If culture may have a limited say or sway on evolution, what about technology?