Luc Turpin

understood! Our control over adaptation would be limited, but not null and void as originally implied by evolution. Giving extreme examples that cannot occur does not negate the fact that it could be limited but not complete control over adaptation. The point is that the process is not entirely deterministic as presumed. Organisms cannot directly choose their adaptation, but, through culture and to some degree, they can influence which traits moves along and which traits stays behind. So, complete control over adapting to flight by growing wings is not possible, there is still room for influence, and that is the point that I am making here. That intentionality and volution have some say and sway over the whole damned thing about living.

Intelligence is highly genetically inheritable, but, may I dare say, what about consciousness?

Short answer: I think therefore I change my behavior which in turn controls my survivabilty which in turn affects evolution. Long answer: see post on culture.

Yep, your right; evolvability of evolution in of in itself is not that much of a novel concept, but that evolution might be partially controllable and directional through cutture is less "no shit Sherlock".

Woodrat eating its own feces or momma rat adapting to food shortages are examples of animals responding to environmental cues to survive. However, the animals themselves are not controlling nor directing the action. The idea proposed here is that extragenetic activity is at play in evolution; a build-up to introducing extragenetic-controllable evolutionary activity. Again, the woodrat isn't "deciding" to eat its poop for survival, and epigenetic changes most of the time, but not always, are just responses to the environment, not intentional actions. Though, the interesting part comes when culture is considered. Culture involves behaviors, knowledge, and practices passed down through social learning. Unlike genetic traits, culture allows organisms to choose behaviors or strategies that might help them survive. As said, this choice affects survivability which in turn influences evolution. And herein lies the hypothesis that evolution is in part under a certain control by the organism and that if it is “controllable”, even partially, then there may be intent at giving evolution some sense of direction. Again, the point being made is that culture partially, but at times, injects partial intentionality into, and partial direction to evolution. Also, culture and genetic evolution interact in a feedback loop whereby cultural practices change the environment which in turn influence which genetic traits are passed down. By including culture in our understanding of evolution, we realise that evolution isn't just about genetic changes through natural selection. Culture adds flexibility and speed to how organisms adapt, and this could lead to a more complex view of evolution, where both genes and culture play key roles. And this my friend would be a monumental shift in the conventional theory of evolution, its main tenets and more importantly its implications as to our role in all of this. We would not longer be considered mere bystanders but active partnering participants in the danse of life. Please consider my response to TheVat and my long post on culture above as a response to yours.

I was asked to substantiate, I did. Agree that I have not provided supporting evidence, but which, if any of my assertions are wrong? They are based on the logical contentions that dinosaurs were probably less evolved than mammals, that they had different characteristics than mammals, occupied a different niche, etc. They are "vérité de La Palisse" in French for things that are self evidently correct. Yes, current research show correlation and not causation as in the Orca example and Portugal experiment given in the article. Science on this matter is in it's early stages.

In the context of the topic, "cultural evolution" was intended to suggest that culture has an influence on, and possibly even a controlling effect over, evolution, rather than referring to "cultural evolution" in its strict, established sense. The statement suggests that choosing to live at higher altitudes to avoid predators involves both an immediate decision and a long-term evolutionary process: Immediate Decision: Moving to higher altitudes is a way to avoid predators and control one's environment, driven by the need to survive. Evolutionary Process: Over time, living at higher altitudes leads to changes in the population. These changes happen gradually through genetic adaptations, making the species better suited for life in that environment. In short, the intent is to influence one's survival, and destiny for which evolution is affected, I agree. How so?

The following text is based on the “culture” portion of the text provided in the referenced article from New Scientist titled “The extraordinary ways species control their own evolutionary fate” by Kevin Lala. I am providing it because the portion on "culture" of the article was removed from my original post for possible copyright infringement. However, it is needed to better understand the writer's and my own perspective of things. As the following is redacted from a text not mine with added text from mine, I can therefore not assume credit for it. I also passed it through Chatjpt to make the text simpler, clearer and more understandable to the reader and then again, remodified it. I seem to encounter difficulty making myself better understood. Humans are highly adaptable creatures not only because of their genes but also due to learned behaviors shaped by culture. While genetic evolution helps humans survive in various environments, culture allows them to shape their environment, meet their needs, and, again help them even better survive than with genes alone. For example, agriculture enables humans to grow crops and domesticate animals, which allows them to better survive in their environment. These cultural traits are passed down to the next generation through learning, and over time, genetic evolution catches up, consolidating the advantage proffered by the learned behavior. I believe that some of these cultural traits are initially stumbled upon, but then voluntarily perpetuated by humans, which helps partially control their evolution, though this is just my perspective. Culture is not unique to humans; many animals show cultural behaviors as well. A significant amount of research shows that animals pass on learned behaviors along with genetic traits. This cultural transfer allows animals to adapt quickly to changing environments. For example, behaviors like finding food or avoiding predators are passed through social learning rather than relying on slow motion genetic evolution. This allows animals to survive while waiting for genetic changes to occur. Again, some of these behaviors may have been chosen, and then if they are chosen and help them better survive, then we can we not say that this may be a bit of control over evolution? A good example of cultural evolution is seen in killer whales. Different groups of orcas develop unique hunting methods, such as using waves to knock seals off ice or beaching themselves to catch prey. These behaviors are learned and passed down within groups, not inherited through genes. Interestingly, these groups do not interbreed, leading to genetic differences between them. This shows how culture can drive genetic changes over time. Again, if species chose their cultural traits and those traits are passed on through evolution, doesn't that suggest that evolution is partially under the species' control? Evolution is shaped not only by natural selection but also by behavior and culture. Epigenetics, for example, shows how an organism’s environment or experiences can affect gene expression and impact future generations. While epigenetics involves influence rather than control, behaviors such as cooperation and cultural practices do play key roles in evolution, adding an extra layer to how species adapt and evolve. This again seems to suggest that some aspects of evolution might be under cultural volition. The author of the article argues that evolution is cyclical, with culture, behavior, and epigenetics influencing natural selection, and vice versa. As these traits evolve, they influence future evolutionary changes, creating a feedback loop. This view suggests that evolution is not just about genetic traits being shaped by natural selection but about an ongoing interaction between genes, behaviors, culture, and the environment. Organisms actively shape their evolutionary paths through their behaviors and cultural practices, creating a more dynamic and interactive view of evolution. Again, I believe that some of this is under the species’ control, while other parts are not. And also agree with the author that evolution is not under the sole natural selection stewardship of genes, but also of culture, behavior, epigenetics and horizontal gene transfer, which alone makes it not something that is between direct descendants, but also a matter of the entire kingdom. For example, viruses have inserted their genes into ours. In summary, evolution is not just a passive process driven by genetic mutations. Culture and behavior are powerful tools of adaptation, helping species adjust to their environments in ways that complement genetic evolution. This perspective provides a deeper understanding of how life on Earth diversifies and evolves over time, and it opens up the possibility that some aspects of evolution are under some form of control. You may not agree, but the possibility is there. It will be therefore up to science to determine whether or not this is arbitrarily given or volitionally chosen. Some of the evidence provided by the author in the article seems to possibly favour the latter rather than the former. Dinosaurs Dinosaurs did not have culture like humans or some social animals. They likely didn’t pass down knowledge and behaviors to future generations the way humans do. Dinosaurs had traits that helped them dominate the Earth for millions of years, but they lacked the social structures and communication that humans possess. Unlike mammals and birds, dinosaurs couldn’t adapt quickly to changing environments. This adaptability allowed mammals to thrive after dinosaurs went extinct. Mammals developed better social structures, larger brains, and used tools, which enabled them to outcompete and dominate. I believe some of this occurred with conscious chosen effort, though this is just my opinion. Luck also played a role—if the extinction event had been more catastrophic or conditions hadn’t favored mammals, they could have failed just like the dinosaurs. Evolution isn’t entirely under control, but mammals were more adaptable, which gave them an advantage. Still, they could have been unlucky if conditions had been different. Culture was one of many reasons why mammals outlived dinosaurs and my bet is on culture being a volitionaly chosen trait that partially controls evolution.

Desert woodrat, dog, agar, lactose and thale cress examples indicated in the article are solely extragenetic cases of evolvability; the organim being kept alive until genes consolidate the modification. They do not imply control nor direction of evolution, but interestingly culture affecting evolution does and this is totally unexpected if true. Yes, a lot of discoveries are surprises, but it does not change the fact that surprises change our understanding of what it is and what it is not. And what it is is not what it was thought to be. Ancestry, species change, survivability are all fine as you indicate in your post. Natural selection still holds, but how natural selection occurs appears to waver. At the very least, one random mutation at a time no longer holds the high ground of evolution because of horizontal gene transfer. That genes were the only game in town needed revision after epigentic discoveries. And then comes along the possibility that culture affects evolvability and possibly opens the doorway to evolutionary control and direction, wich was not in the cards of our understanding of evolution. All of the examples that you have given are influence without control, but what about culture's influence on evolution. If this is such the case, then we can start contemplating the possibility that evolution is under a certain form of control, with also a possible direction to it if there is control. Simple organisms influence, but have very little control over evolution Dinosaurs did not have enough culture to control their demise while mammals had enough to control evolution and gain ascendance. Ask anyone in this forum if there is control over or direction in evolution as this article implies that culture is able to assign to evolution. That is unconventional evolution. Luck also played a big role into this along with one better adapted than the other to the prevailing environmental conditions. Think of relative rather than absolute control.

Somewhere that can be anywhere! As the current thinking goes, If conditions randomly set would have been conducive to life, we would be living on Neptune instead of earth. I reiterate, as the article indicates, if there is a sense of control, is then direction not far behind? So, I provide the link to an inacessible article? "This unusual, supercharged evolvability gives us more control over our evolutionary future than we might think." "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." "From the origin of life, through continual interactive cycles of causation, organisms have channelled and directed their own evolution, and evolution has sculpted them in turn." "and we control our own evolution to a much greater extent" "And because niche construction tends to link adaptive traits together, it too influences both evolvability and the direction of evolution." Re-read the sections on 'Culture" and "Rethinking human evolution". Epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer were surprises when discovered. Never said they were new. Horizontal gene transfer significantly reduces the effects of random mutations. Theories evolve over time, true. But, let's admit that major changes have occurred to the theory without change to its implications.

No control over the process. No direction in the process. That we are but meagre innocent bystanders holding on to an anywhere ticket to nowhere.

If correct, the following article would be a significant departure from conventional thinking on evolution. It would inject some form of control into the process. With culture at hand, especially for humans, we may no longer be able to claim that we are but meagre innocent bystanders holding on to an anywhere ticket to nowhere, but accreditable participants in a bi-directional, self influenceable and self-perpetuating dance. Excerpts from the article: “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.” “Until now, research has focused on genetic change, and genes undoubtedly are part of the explanation. 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 organisms to invade new environments, cope with change and stress, evolve new phenotypes and resist extinction until adaptive genetic mutations appear.” “This adds a whole new dimension to the evolutionary process because the things organisms do that influence their evolution have themselves evolved through natural selection – making the Darwinian evolutionary algorithm cyclical. From the origin of life, through continual interactive cycles of causation, organisms have channelled and directed their own evolution, and evolution has sculpted them in turn.” From a New Scientist article titled “The extraordinary ways species control their own evolutionary fate” by Kevin Lala. Finidings in the aforementioned article are not the only discoveries that makes us question the conventional wisdom of evolution. Some new findings disqualify earlier notions of evolution; other findings significantly distill the importance that was originally attributed to some precepts of the theory; and, others still infuse so much more complexity than anticipated into the theory that it renders the original-conventional picture of evolution almost unrecognisable. Step by step incremental modifications to evolution over many years might have blinded us to the fact that we may no longer be dealing with exactly the same theory. Change in theory might have occurred to some, but change in mindset and implications of theory in many others have not. If there is control over our evolutionary destiny, is there then direction in evolution? The article was accessible only through a “pay wall”, so I am printing it here. Apologies for the length of the post. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Living in the desert is a challenge. But the Mojave Desert woodrat has an ace to play: it can eat poison. This allows the rodent to survive and thrive by feeding on toxic creosote bushes. Remarkably, it hasn’t evolved the genes required to do so. Instead, it eats the faeces of other woodrats and thereby inherits detoxifying bacteria that take up residence in its gut. The desert woodrat is an example of how the things organisms do can affect their evolution. And it is far from a one-off: in recent years, 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. But that’s not all. These non-genetic ways of adapting may also help explain another puzzling aspect of evolution – evolvability, or why some organisms have a greater capacity to evolve than others. I am one of a growing group of evolutionary biologists who believe that non-genetic inheritance plays a vital role in evolvability. The new thinking has implications for how we view our own evolution, too. Our complex culture makes the way humans evolve very different and far more rapid than the evolution of most other species. This unusual, supercharged evolvability gives us more control over our evolutionary future than we might think. (remaining article snipped owing to copyright concerns)

A global trend involving inflation and incumbents. Could Harris have done anything to buck the trend or was it unavoidable? “This has been a banner year for elections; nearly half of the population of the world has gone to the polls in 2024 in a rare aligning of the calendar. The temperature of the world has been taken. And with a few notable exceptions, and to the extent that those elections were free and fair, the result has been largely the same: Virtually every party that was the incumbent at the time that inflation started to heat up around the world has lost.” https://prospect.org/economy/2024-11-06-globally-predictable-result-election-inflation-trump/

I think that others not backing up things looks more like a statement of fact than an argument. I will put into practice your suggestion. Most of my opinions were based on things that I had read. "Those that changed camps......" was actually something that I also read. Moving on as in allowing others more space for conversation.

That my opinions may be called out as inaccurate is part of a healthy discussion. I have no problem with that. I was not the only one not backing up things, many were doing the same thing, but only a select "few" of us were being call-out for it. Moving on!

The statement "Democrats did not ignore the GOP strategy; they used to wrong tools to combat it. They thought that disdain over Trump, a rosy picture of the situation and a plan not expressed in layperson’s term would be sufficient to win them the election", was an opinion of mine as you and others were also doing, but, indeed funny that I was the only one being called-out for it!

Coming back after a pause! I refute your allegation that I have not provided facts for my assertions and that I am "making stuff up". Here are some examples: In describing the abortion situation in Canada and that most were early terms (a tangent topic in the Harris Vs Trump thread) – legal through all nine months; no providers except hospitals beyond 23 weeks; 90% of abortions are done in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, while less than 1% beyond 21+ weeks. Reasons for late-stage abortions are: fetus gravely or fatally impaired; woman’s life or physical health at risk; abusive relationship; children or young teens unaware of pregnancy or in denial (+2 on this one). In determining whether or not early voting could constitute an indication of election results - charts on who was voting in battle state grounds by age and by party registration, and number of early votes; seven data sources on trends in early voting. In determining if late polling could give us an indication of election results - two data sources on the Iowa shocker; the last poll of the campaign. In determining paths toward winning for Harris - A data source on various Harris-Trump electoral paths to the White House. In determining that fear was probably a factor in the election - A New York Times article stating that “survey after survey showed that Americans were deeply fearful and intensely pessimistic”; Trump’s own words and their effect on the American public. In determining that Harris was probably not going to win the election even before results were known - An exit poll showing that 72% of voters were dissatisfied or angry (my emphasis) about the direction of the country and 67% called the economy bad or poor. Incumbents do not win with these kinds of numbers. Most data sets, except the Iowa shocker, were generally in line with what occurred. Remaining posts were opinions of mine that I shared with others as others were doing the same. Finaly, a plurality of "voices", especially on a political topic, makes for a richer conversation. How does this constitute lying (see above)? Not wasting more of my time on false accusations. Carry on!

Then I will go away!

Democrats did not ignore the GOP strategy; they used to wrong tools to combat it. They thought that disdain over Trump, a rosy picture of the situation and a plan not expressed in layperson’s term would be sufficient to win them the election. They underestimated the power of negative thinking and ignored the people's perception that all was not well with America. Instead of grand events preaching to the converted, Harris should have gone to meet with regular folks in rural areas, ask them how it goes, explain her plan and tell them that she is open to hearing them. I think it's called barnstorming or something to that effect. Imagine 30 second video clips of Harris sipping coffee and listening to people of all affiliations. It could even have been "set-up" events. Acknowledging that all is not well for many regular folks and that she hears what they are saying about the trajectory of the nation, would have gone a long way in this election campaign. Wash, rinse and repeat a thousand times until folks get it that Democrats are listening to people, not only consultants or fringe groups. Those that changed camps this election cycle were those bothered by the direction and economy of the country. Telling them that all is well and carry on as usual is not a very winning strategy. In 2020, it was about Trump. In 2024, Democrats tried to make it about Trump again, but the country had moved on to another prevailing backstory.

From a New York Times article that supports my contentions about the politics of fear and electorate’s mood being ignored by Democrats. “Trump sells terror, and he has found a robust market for it. That’s because it’s a durable ware. “ “Survey after survey showed that Americans were deeply fearful and intensely pessimistic. Not even the most star-studded rally could change that. Not even an endorsement by Taylor Swift could make it go away.” “As for joy, well, we got that wrong, The Reagan-era adage that sunniness wins more votes than gloominess has been repudiated repeatedly over the decades since he left office, and while I root for its return, I recognize its current quaintness." https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/07/opinion/trump-harris-joy-anger.html And a semi-humorous view of U.S. politics from Western Europe In The Atlantic, Helen Lewis illuminated a view of America from the opposite side of the Atlantic: “In Western Europe, many see America’s presidential election this year not as a battle between left and right, liberal and conservative, high and low taxes, but something more like a soccer game between a midranking team and a herd of stampeding buffalo. Sure, the buffalo might win — but not by playing soccer.”

Good observation!

Agreed! very difficult to ignore. I am still processing everything myself. Here are a few loose-fitting thoughts about the whole matter: First, my doubts about the outcome of this election began when polls were showing a tie between Harris and Trump while the latter was carrying so much negative baggage along with him in the campaign. The Madison Square Garden thing was a disaster for Republicans with no consequence in poling. Why was that? I could not pin it down and it bothered me. But it started dawning on me when an exit poll survey indicated that 72% of voters were dissatisfied or angry about the direction of the country and 67% called the economy bad or poor. So here are a few questions: Why were Democrats so up beat about the state of the union while the people of the union were definitely not? Were they too focussed on what Trump was saying and doing, which was a distraction; too focussed on pundits and experts while forgetting about the voters themselves? You can argue until you are blue in the face that the economy is not so poor, but that counts for nothing if voters feel differently about it. Also, why were Republicans talking about towns across the U.S. that have lost their economic base over the last 10-20-30 years and not Democrats? This negative context might help us understand why some people feel threatened by immigrants. Are they racists or just worried about their own well being? To summarize, it is as if one party was talking about the "real things" that mattered to people while the other was talking about matters important to their own party. A battle of technocrat thinkers against Joe blow from the street, and it ended up a brawl won by the latter. A race that should not have even been close, but lost because of not listening to the people.

Ignoring him, if that is even possible! Or does a psychological strategy already exists for dealing with this kind of situation, but we are unaware of its existence? I have more questions than answers! What would happen if people, proponents and opponents, got tired and stopped reacting to his constant barrage of incendiary remarks? I am fabulating, I suppose!

I reiterate, the politics of fear won over the politics of reason in this election. And as evidenced by many recent posts in this thread, it still has its grip on us. The fear of Trump being elected has been replaced by the fear of what will he do in his second term! He’s got us! But, there must be a way out of all of his madness controlling us! Finally, resistance to change also played a key role in the election. And nostalgia!

sad, so, so, sad!