On 7/2/2025 at 9:03 PM, Luc Turpin said:

Can anyone help me in accessing the full documents for the following references?

• Gao, X., et al. (2024). Environmental forecasting in bacterial colonies as a foundation for adaptive evolution. Nature Ecology & Evolution.

• Shu, X., & Chen, X. (2020). "Anticipatory behavior and its evolution in biological populations." Frontiers in Genetics.

• Lindstedt, S., et al. (2019). "Evolving anticipation in variable environments." Evolutionary Ecology.

• Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, Agency, and Evolution. Cambridge University Press.

• Ginsberg, J., et al. (2024). Evolutionary processes, consciousness, and purpose: An interdisciplinary review. Philosophy of Science.

• Uller, T., & Helanterä, H. (2019). Niche construction and conceptual change in evolutionary biology. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science.

• Laland, K. N., & Janik, V. (2020). The biological foundations of cultural evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

• Shettleworth, S. J. (2010). Cognition, evolution, and behavior. Oxford University Press.

• Bshary, R., & Schäffer, D. (2002). Concepts of cognition in fish. Animal Cognition, 5(3), 161-171.
  Healy, S. D., & Brahams, D. (2000). Cognitive ecology. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 29, 1-43.

Funny that you do not question those references that imply that its all mechanistic!

And you need to consult more broadly and more recently to get a full revised view of evolution theory.

I understand that this is controversial and might not be entirely correct, but when does science ignore what does not fit in the current paradigm.

In speculations we can discuss what if based on some amount of evidence.

You never did provide that reference to Pigliucci for me, did you?

I don't believe you have read any of these references you claim support your notion. You seem to have extraordinary trouble locating them. I share the suspicion of others that many, or perhaps even all, don't even exist.

Listing references you have not read is deceit.

Apart from being offensive to your readers, deceit of this kind totally devalues the ideas you are putting forth.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by exchemist

12 hours ago, swansont said:

No. Speculations merely means that it’s not mainstream. It does not mean guess or unsupported conjecture. Rigor is still required - scientific evidence, specific predictions, falsifiability. It also means familiarity with the mainstream ideas you want to supplant, and you’ve repeatedly fallen short of that.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

May I add 'or even extend' ?

I do not wish to supplant anything, but when there is an alternate view out there, which is even more robust that I originally anticipated, do we just ignore it.....ignore the evidence.

"Evolutionists" have been neglecting a whole side of the possible story and then go on stating that they have been unbiased and objective all along.

6 hours ago, Phi for All said:

The only purpose is taking advantage of the changes in allele frequency within a population over a great deal of time. Why do you need something more? What about Earth's species do you feel is lacking due to this process?

The story is much more complicated than that. I personally do not need anything more, but I will not ignore the evidence, which, from both sides, paints a much more complex and dynamic process than the one you allude to. Nothing is lacking in the process, as we are here today to talk about it. But, again, we did not get here solely by simple random changes in allele frequency.

5 hours ago, CharonY said:

Even less than that. Evolution is basically just what we call the process by which allele frequency changes with time. It is like watching a pot boil and try to derive intention of the pot and its purpose. Yet all that happened is that a heat source transferred energy into the liquid. It did not boil because the pot really, really wanted it.

Evolution is just the consequence of things happening to the gene poll when certain conditions are met present (basically, deviation from Hardy-Weinberg conditions). If you put together a combination of mechanisms, such as mutations, non-random mating, gene flow, and selection, the gene pool will change.

The pot doesn't have agency, but organisms do. Evolution is much more than simple cause and effect, and you know that as well as anyone. It’s a complex, multifactorial process that has shaped where we are today. Have you explored the data from the "other side" before concluding that science has definitively settled on a purely mechanistic view? In our previous discussions, I got the impression that you didn’t see there being an alternate perspective. However, my recent readings suggest otherwise—there’s a robust alternative view worth considering. While I’m not sure if evolution is mechanistic or purposeful, I remain open to both sides and believe data should guide our understanding, not our worldview.

2 hours ago, exchemist said:

You never did provide that reference to Pigliucci for me, did you?

I don't believe you have read any of these references you claim support your notion. You seem to have extraordinary trouble locating them. I share the suspicion of others that many, or perhaps even all, don't even exist.

Listing references you have not read is deceit.

Apart from being offensive to your readers, deceit of this kind totally devalues the ideas you are putting forth.

The content of the references provided was valid; only the references were not.

As stated, I read summaries of them, but did not access the information based on the references.

These references (see bellow) are valid ones and they help paint a picture of a possible alternate route to evolution.

By the way, some of the same people that I had quoted before, but this time with links that work.

I invite you to visit them and realize that I am not the only crackpot in town entertaining such ideas and that the evidence is robust.

Corning, P. A. (2014). Evolution “on purpose”: How behaviour has shaped the evolutionary process. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112, 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12061

Corning, P. A. (2019). Teleonomy and the proximate-ultimate distinction revisited. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 127 (4), 912–916. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz087

Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? (Yes, urgently.). Nature, 514(7521), 161–164. https://doi.org /10.1038/514161a

Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gilroy, S., & Trewavas, A. (2022). Agency, teleonomy and signal transduction in plant systems. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, blac021. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blac021.

Jablonka, E. (2013). Epigenetic inheritance and plasticity: The responsive germline. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 111, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2012.08.014

Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2014). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kauffman, S. A. (2019). A world beyond physics: The emergence and evolution of life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, F. J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews, Genetics, 11, 137–148

Okasha, S. (2018). Agents and goals in evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

do not wish to supplant anything, but when there is an alternate view out there, which is even more robust that I originally anticipated, do we just ignore it.....ignore the evidence.

"Evolutionists" have been neglecting a whole side of the possible story and then go on stating that they have been unbiased and objective all along.

If there is objective evidence, how much opportunity have you wasted in not providing it?

What you have presented is a belief, and the problem with that is that anything can be interpreted to support it. It does not count if it’s not objective.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The content of the references provided was valid; only the references were not.

That conclusion simply does not follow. If the references don’t exist, there is no content, so there is nothing that can be said to be valid.

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

I do not wish to supplant anything, but when there is an alternate view out there, which is even more robust that I originally anticipated, do we just ignore it.....ignore the evidence.

"Evolutionists" have been neglecting a whole side of the possible story and then go on stating that they have been unbiased and objective all along.

But I have never accepted that "Evolutionists" - whatever they may be - are neglecting anything. Perhaps a few are. Perhaps a few more are not working directly in those specific fields.

But we should consider the following fact.

Every species now or previously on Earth (and presumably elsewhere if there is life elsewhere) has been subject to some form of evolution, albeit some more than others.

For instance I understand from geologists that stromatolites have seen very little change since their appearance over 3 billion years ago.

In all of that massive spread of evolution many different factors and events have resulted in a diverse range of responses.

(Remember evolution is about the interplay between a species and its environment)

When we survey that vast array of responses and put it on one side of scale compared to a small quantity of unusual responses ( we should statistically expect some unusual ones)

I do not find it at all suprising that the mainstream body of the theory is becoming a bit slow and ponderous.

After all most of the evidence continues to pile up on one side of that scale.

But it would be quite wrong to suggest that evolutionary has not responded or changed since its inception.

11 hours ago, CharonY said:

Even less than that. Evolution is basically just what we call the process by which allele frequency changes with time. It is like watching a pot boil and try to derive intention of the pot and its purpose. Yet all that happened is that a heat source transferred energy into the liquid. It did not boil because the pot really, really wanted it.

Yes this is why I wanted to advise Luc against using "purpose" as a term. When he remarked,

There is no empirical support for a teleological explanation, but there is an impressive amount of evidence suggesting that evolution might have a purpose.

I felt that the meaning of teleology was not understood. A teleological explanation IS one that assigns a purpose to some phenomenon. Purpose comes from conscious minds. When we say a rock has a purpose, we mean that we sentient beings have a purpose for that rock.

@Luc Turpin

Edited July 4Jul 4 by TheVat
Tag added

5 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

I do not wish to supplant anything, but when there is an alternate view out there, which is even more robust that I originally anticipated, do we just ignore it.....ignore the evidence.

"Evolutionists" have been neglecting a whole side of the possible story and then go on stating that they have been unbiased and objective all along.

The story is much more complicated than that. I personally do not need anything more, but I will not ignore the evidence, which, from both sides, paints a much more complex and dynamic process than the one you allude to. Nothing is lacking in the process, as we are here today to talk about it. But, again, we did not get here solely by simple random changes in allele frequency.

The pot doesn't have agency, but organisms do. Evolution is much more than simple cause and effect, and you know that as well as anyone. It’s a complex, multifactorial process that has shaped where we are today. Have you explored the data from the "other side" before concluding that science has definitively settled on a purely mechanistic view? In our previous discussions, I got the impression that you didn’t see there being an alternate perspective. However, my recent readings suggest otherwise—there’s a robust alternative view worth considering. While I’m not sure if evolution is mechanistic or purposeful, I remain open to both sides and believe data should guide our understanding, not our worldview.

The content of the references provided was valid; only the references were not.

As stated, I read summaries of them, but did not access the information based on the references.

These references (see bellow) are valid ones and they help paint a picture of a possible alternate route to evolution.

By the way, some of the same people that I had quoted before, but this time with links that work.

I invite you to visit them and realize that I am not the only crackpot in town entertaining such ideas and that the evidence is robust.

Corning, P. A. (2014). Evolution “on purpose”: How behaviour has shaped the evolutionary process. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 112, 242–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12061

Corning, P. A. (2019). Teleonomy and the proximate-ultimate distinction revisited. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 127 (4), 912–916. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blz087

Laland, K. N., Uller, T., Feldman, M. W., Sterelny, K., Müller, G. B., Moczek, A., Jablonka, E., & Odling-Smee, J. (2014). Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? (Yes, urgently.). Nature, 514(7521), 161–164. https://doi.org /10.1038/514161a

Walsh, D. M. (2015). Organisms, agency, and evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gilroy, S., & Trewavas, A. (2022). Agency, teleonomy and signal transduction in plant systems. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, blac021. https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blac021.

Jablonka, E. (2013). Epigenetic inheritance and plasticity: The responsive germline. Progress in Biophysics and Molecular Biology, 111, 99–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbiomolbio.2012.08.014

Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2014). Evolution in four dimensions: Genetic, epigenetic, behavioral, and symbolic variation in the history of life (rev. ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kauffman, S. A. (2019). A world beyond physics: The emergence and evolution of life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Laland, K. N., Odling-Smee, F. J., & Myles, S. (2010). How culture shaped the human genome: Bringing genetics and the human sciences together. Nature Reviews, Genetics, 11, 137–148

Okasha, S. (2018). Agents and goals in evolution. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Good, at last we are getting some proper information. Thank you.

Looking at the first of these, the point it makes appears to be different from what you seem to be suggesting. It is saying that the behaviour of organisms influences how they evolve. I don’t think anyone would have any difficulty with that. There’s an example here: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/research/projects/behaviour-evolution.html of how bears beginning to hunt fish in the sea led to the evolution of the polar bear as a distinct species.

But this is not to suggest that bears decided to adapt themselves to swimming in Arctic waters. The adaptation followed the emerging new behaviour, because utilising this food source improved reproductive success. So this seems to be an example of teleonomy rather than teleology: a fairly important distinction to draw.

Teleonomy, that's the term I was looking for earlie to make that distinction. Thanks, @exchemist .

And teleology, when it does arise, pertains to artificial selection rather than NS. A society could agree that articulate speech is so important (coordinating hunting or plant gathering, say, or transmission of essential memes and histories to young ones) that they reward verbal fluency by codifying special marital privileges and extra shares of certain foods and amenities that enhance child care, thus increasing the fertility rate for the silver-tongued, thus (assuming there are alleles that mediate neurogenesis or what have you in such a way) enforcing a form of AS.

Corn (maize) or racehorses are common examples of AS, but once a species has sufficient intelligence it can develop culture and codes which bring about AS within its own species. This also means the line between sexual selection and AS can become quite blurred in a restrictive human culture.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by TheVat

4 hours ago, studiot said:

Every species now or previously on Earth (and presumably elsewhere if there is life elsewhere) has been subject to some form of evolution, albeit some more than others.

For instance I understand from geologists that stromatolites have seen very little change since their appearance over 3 billion years ago.

In all of that massive spread of evolution many different factors and events have resulted in a diverse range of responses.

(Remember evolution is about the interplay between a species and its environment)

When we survey that vast array of responses and put it on one side of scale compared to a small quantity of unusual responses ( we should statistically expect some unusual ones)

I do not find it at all suprising that the mainstream body of the theory is becoming a bit slow and ponderous.

After all most of the evidence continues to pile up on one side of that scale.

But it would be quite wrong to suggest that evolutionary has not responded or changed since its inception.

I’m having difficulty understanding your point. Could you please clarify? I’m not suggesting that evolution didn’t occur, nor am I claiming that chance didn’t play a role. However, my contention is that the complexity and richness of diversity did not arise solely from random changes in allele frequencies within a population. Some of the information that I posted earlier implies that there maybe purpose involved as well.

1 hour ago, TheVat said:

Yes this is why I wanted to advise Luc against using "purpose" as a term. When he remarked,

I felt that the meaning of teleology was not understood. A teleological explanation IS one that assigns a purpose to some phenomenon. Purpose comes from conscious minds. When we say a rock has a purpose, we mean that we sentient beings have a purpose for that rock.

@Luc Turpin

The words "purpose" and "teleonomy are used by the "The Third Way", a movement in evolutionary biology that views natural selection as part of a holistic, organism-centered process. I will stick with their terms. I am talking about an internal purpose, not an external one.

1 hour ago, exchemist said:

Good, at last we are getting some proper information. Thank you.

Looking at the first of these, the point it makes appears to be different from what you seem to be suggesting. It is saying that the behaviour of organisms influences how they evolve. I don’t think anyone would have any difficulty with that. There’s an example here: https://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/research/projects/behaviour-evolution.html of how bears beginning to hunt fish in the sea led to the evolution of the polar bear as a distinct species.

But this is not to suggest that bears decided to adapt themselves to swimming in Arctic waters. The adaptation followed the emerging new behaviour, because utilising this food source improved reproductive success. So this seems to be an example of teleonomy rather than teleology: a fairly important distinction to draw.

Yes, I’m referring to teleonomy, not teleology. Regarding your bear example, while they may not have consciously decided to adapt, they certainly employed cognition as part of the process of adapting to their environment, which led to new behaviors. What I’m questioning is the idea that random changes in allele frequencies within a population are the sole drivers of evolution—that everything is random and we are simply machines executing a genetic program. It didn’t happen all by chance, nor did it happen by design, but it did happen. I feel that theory has sorely lagged behind recent discoveries in the field of evolution. Pardon the pun, but it is struggling to adapt.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by Luc Turpin

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

However, my contention is that the complexity and richness of diversity did not arise solely from random changes in allele frequencies within a population.. Some of the information that I posted earlier implies that there maybe purpose involved as well.

Quite simply these two sentences, as they stand, imply that that you think purpose applies to every evolutionary change.

My point is quite simply that purpose and any other mechanisms at work account for a very small % of such changes.

42 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

What I’m questioning is the idea that random changes in allele frequencies within a population are the sole drivers of evolution—that everything is random and we are simply machines executing a genetic program. It didn’t happen all by chance, nor did it happen by design, but it did happen. I feel that theory has sorely lagged behind recent discoveries in the field of evolution. Pardon the pun, but it is struggling to adapt.

The path evolution follows is not purely random. When chemicals interact is random, but how they interact is predetermined by their properties, which are fixed. So, we know what they'll do together, we just don't know when. Ditto more complex physical systems. You start getting these molecular machines that get modified by other passing molecules. The ones with the shortest energy pathway will perform the interaction with a given system. That's essentially what 'competition' is. Out of that molecular dance we start to see 'designs' of discrete molecular systems that co-interact to create the next level towards organism synthesis until we reach full organisms.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

I’m having difficulty understanding your point. Could you please clarify? I’m not suggesting that evolution didn’t occur, nor am I claiming that chance didn’t play a role. However, my contention is that the complexity and richness of diversity did not arise solely from random changes in allele frequencies within a population.

Evolution doesn’t say that it does. (see my earlier point about familiarity with the mainstream ideas you want to supplant, or extend, as studiot correctly added)

Perhaps you could expend some effort shoring up your understanding of the theory without immediately trying to suggest changes to it

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Some of the information that I posted earlier implies that there maybe purpose involved as well.

Without a reasonably precise definition of purpose and description of how the idea would be falsifiable, such discussion is pointless.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

Regarding your bear example, while they may not have consciously decided to adapt, they certainly employed cognition as part of the process of adapting to their environment, which led to new behaviors.

So what? Where is it written that conscious decisions can’t affect survival, and consequently, reproductive success?

You’re arguing against a strawman.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Quite simply these two sentences, as they stand, imply that that you think purpose applies to every evolutionary change.

My point is quite simply that purpose and any other mechanisms at work account for a very small % of such changes.

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

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

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

So what % would you put it at and why ?

Bear in mind what I said about every living thing, past and present having to be the overall base to estimate this %.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Quite simply these two sentences, as they stand, imply that that you think purpose applies to every evolutionary change.

My point is quite simply that purpose and any other mechanisms at work account for a very small % of such changes.

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

52 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The path evolution follows is not purely random. When chemicals interact is random, but how they interact is predetermined by their properties, which are fixed. So, we know what they'll do together, we just don't know when. Ditto more complex physical systems. You start getting these molecular machines that get modified by other passing molecules. The ones with the shortest energy pathway will perform the interaction with a given system. That's essentially what 'competition' is. Out of that molecular dance we start to see 'designs' of discrete molecular systems that co-interact to create the next level towards organism synthesis until we reach full organisms.

Your explanation is impeccable until we get to the very big jump size and complexity wise from the non living to the living. I heard that size wise the difference between molecule and bacterium is from coin to planet. If that is correct, how do we explain this through chemical means

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

I heard that size wise the difference between molecule and bacterium is from coin to planet. If that is correct, how do we explain this through chemical means

You seem to have answered me twice, so did you miss my reply ?

anyway in response to your caveat - if that is correct - How big is the Koh-i-Noor diamond?

Because technically it is one single molecule created by natural causes.

Edited July 4Jul 4 by studiot
spelling

Moderator Note

Without a reasonably precise definition of purpose, there is nothing to discuss. Too much hand-waving.

If such a definition is provided, and proper evidence is included, a discussion is possible in a new thread, but that needs to start with a discussion of the definition.