From Random Mutation to Teleonomy: Toward a Paradigm Shift in Evolutionary Thought

Summary

Advances in molecular biology, developmental biology, and cognitive science increasingly challenge the adequacy of the Modern Synthesis (MS) as the foundational framework for evolutionary theory. While the MS, rooted in mid-20th century biology, emphasized random mutation and natural selection as the primary drivers of evolution, a growing body of evidence now points to a more complex, interactive, and in some respects, purposive process. This post surveys a range of phenomena—including epigenetic inheritance, natural genetic engineering, niche construction, and organismal cognition—that collectively call for an expanded evolutionary framework. The emerging paradigm posits organisms not as passive subjects of selection, but as active agents capable of modulating their own evolutionary trajectories through behavior, learning, and environmental feedback. The integration of purpose-like (teleonomic) processes into evolutionary theory would mark a significant conceptual shift—one with implications for biology, philosophy, and morality.

1. Introduction

Molecular and experimental biology have transformed our understanding of life in recent decades. However, some researchers believe that evolutionary theory—especially as embodied in the Modern Synthesis (MS)—has not kept pace with these advances (Pigliucci, 2010). Calls for an expanded synthesis (Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Laland et al., 2015; Van Wright 2025) reflect the need to revise the solely gene-centric and largely mechanistic view of evolution that has dominated since the mid-20th century. According to the MS, evolution occurs primarily through the accumulation of random genetic mutations filtered by natural selection (Coyne, 2005). Yet this framework is increasingly being challenged by empirical findings that suggest more dynamic, interactive, and potentially teleonomic- processes at work in evolution (Jablonka, 2012; Shapiro, 2011; Corning 2014, 2025). It is also implied by Gilbert and Hepel that we are currently in the midst of a new synthesis (Ehab).

2. Limitations of the Modern Synthesis

The MS played a foundational role in unifying Darwinian natural selection with Mendelian genetics. Nonetheless, its core assumptions have remained largely unchanged and continue to emphasize genes, random mutation, and selective filtering. Even in its updated form—the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)—concepts such as developmental plasticity, epigenetics, and niche construction are often treated as auxiliary, rather than foundational, processes (Pigliucci & Müller, 2010; Laland et al., 2015).

However, mounting evidence suggests that the processes driving evolution extend beyond random mutation and selection. The following phenomena exemplify the need for a broader theoretical framework:

2.1 Epigenetics

Epigenetic mechanisms demonstrate that heritable changes in gene expression can occur without alterations to the DNA sequence. Environmental stimuli, developmental history, and parental experience can influence gene expression across generations, thereby affecting evolutionary trajectories without invoking traditional mutational change (Bonduriansky & Day, 2018, Al Aboud 2023; Schrey A. W. 2012).

2.2 Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT)

HGT, particularly prevalent among prokaryotes, enables the lateral exchange of genetic material across taxa. This mechanism challenges the vertical, lineage-based assumptions of the MS and indicates a more networked, reticulate structure of evolutionary innovation (Ochman et al., 2000; Doolittle 2007).

2.3 Symbiosis

The concept of symbiogenesis, advanced by Lynn Margulis (1993, 1998), illustrates how mutualistic interactions can give rise to evolutionary novelty, such as the origin of mitochondria. Such cooperative dynamics challenge the individualistic, competition-based assumptions of Darwinian models.

2.4 Dynamic Genomes: Read-Write Systems

Contemporary genomic research reveals that genomes function not as static blueprints but as responsive, modifiable systems (Jablonka, 2012; Keller, 2014). Genes can be activated, silenced, or rearranged in response to internal and external stimuli, indicating a "read-write" functionality that deviates from the traditional "read-only" paradigm (Shapiro 2013, 2017).

2.5 Natural Genetic Engineering

Barbara McClintock (1984) first identified transposable elements and genome restructuring in response to stress. Shapiro (1993, 2005, 2011) extended this concept into the framework of “natural genetic engineering,” whereby organisms can direct genetic changes in functionally meaningful ways (Koonin 2011).

2.6 Evolutionary Developmental Biology (Evo-Devo)

Evo-Devo research underscores the central role of developmental processes in shaping evolutionary change. The modular, context-sensitive nature of development implies that phenotypic variation is not solely the product of random mutation, but also of environmentally contingent developmental pathways (Müller, 2007; Gilbert et al., 2015; Melo 2016).

2.7 Niche Construction

Organisms actively modify their environments in ways that affect their own and others’ evolutionary trajectories. Niche construction theory (Odling-Smee et al., 1996; Scott-Phillips et al., 2013; Deffner 2019) reframes evolution as a co-constructive process, where feedback loops between organisms and environments play a central role.

3. Behavior, Cognition, and Learning in Evolution

Cognition—defined as the set of mental processes involved in acquiring knowledge and responding to environmental stimuli—has emerged as a powerful evolutionary force (Rochais et al. 2023, Thornton 2019, Lehtonen et al. 2023; Webber 2003; Richerson 2005; Byrne, 1995; Thornton & Boogert, 2019). Cognitive processes include for example perception, memory, decision-making, problem-solving, and learning. These processes allow organisms to engage in goal-directed behaviors that can influence fitness and survival (Boogert 2024).

Key empirical findings include:

• Cost-Benefit Calculations: Animals weigh competing outcomes, optimizing behaviors based on past experience (Tang et al., 2016).

• Observational Learning: Ground squirrels, for example, can rapidly replicate complex foraging behaviors after observation (Byrne, 1995; Mackintosh).

• Social Learning: Rats, bats, and fish engage in social transmission of behaviors, enhancing adaptability (Galef, 2016; Thornton 2006).

• Plant Decision-Making: Even plants demonstrate resource allocation strategies that resemble decision-making (Trewavas, 2014).

• Tool Use: Some birds use cars at traffic lights to crack nuts, demonstrating planning and causal reasoning (Schilthuizen, 2018).

These examples suggest that learning and cognition are not ancillary, but possibly central to evolutionary dynamics—especially in contexts where rapid adaptation confers selective advantages. Cognition is to agency as water is to a rose.      

4. Toward a Teleonomic Perspective in Evolution

As noted above, the Modern Synthesis—which emphasizes genes, randomness, and a largely static view of evolution—is increasingly being challenged by emerging fields such as epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer, symbiosis, the “read-write” nature of the genome, natural genetic engineering, evolutionary developmental biology (Evo-Devo), and niche construction. Researchers like Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb (2005) and Sonia E. Sultan (2017) have argued that epigenetic inheritance adds non-genetic layers of evolutionary information, while James A. Shapiro (2011) has emphasized the natural genetic engineering capacity of cells to restructure their own genomes in response to environmental stimuli. Lynn Margulis (1998) revolutionized our understanding of symbiosis as a fundamental driver of evolutionary novelty. Stephen J. Gould and Elizabeth Vrba critiqued the narrow gene-centric focus, proposing exaptation and broader roles for organisms in evolution. Stuart Kauffman (2000), Denis Noble (2006) Jablonka (2005) argue for a systems-based, interactive view of evolution, rejecting the idea of genes as the sole unit of causation. Kevin Laland and colleagues (2015) advocate for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, emphasizing niche construction, plasticity, and developmental processes.

The concept of teleonomy—purpose-like behavior rooted in biological structure and function—provides a useful framework for interpreting agency in evolution (Corning, 2014; 2023). Unlike teleology, which implies supernatural design, teleonomy is consistent with naturalistic causation and evolutionary history. Mayr (1960) and Kingdon (1993) both emphasized that behavior often precedes phenotypic change, suggesting a bottom-up pathway where agency drives adaptation.

Growing evidence from these perspectives shifts the focus away from genes as the sole drivers of evolutionary change, highlighting instead a more dynamic interplay between organisms, their behaviors, and the environments they inhabit. This evolving perspective suggests that organisms are not merely passive recipients of selection pressures but active participants in shaping their own evolutionary trajectories. Moreover, the role of cognition—manifested in cost-benefit decision-making, observational learning, social learning, and tool use—further implies that evolution may be guided, at least in part, by goal-directed processes, as explored by Peter Corning (2023), Frans de Waal (2016) and Van Wright (2023) in the context of agency and teleonomic behavior.

Taken together, these insights bring us closer to the possibility that evolution is not entirely blind, but may involve elements of purpose and meaning shaped by the agency of living systems. Furthermore, this evolving understanding of evolutionary processes calls into question the adequacy of the traditional mechanistic worldview. Unlike "apparent" purpose that emerges passively from environmental interactions, teleonomic behavior involves self-directed actions driven by internal goals or needs. In this expanded framework, purpose and agency are inherently linked, with behavior and cognition acting as central, causal forces in evolution—suggesting that organisms may actively and purposefully shape their own evolutionary trajectories.

5. Conclusion

A growing body of empirical evidence points to the limitations of the Modern Synthesis and supports the need for an expanded evolutionary framework. This new synthesis integrates genes, development, environment, behavior, and cognition in a unified model of evolutionary dynamics. Organisms are increasingly seen not merely as passive vehicles for genetic change, but as active participants capable of shaping their evolutionary futures through purposive, goal-oriented behavior.

Far from negating Darwinian principles, this framework contextualizes them within a broader, more integrative paradigm. By acknowledging the roles of cognition, agency, and systemic feedback, we move closer to a scientific theory of evolution that can account for both the stochastic and the directed aspects of biological change.

Postscript: As a forward-thinking idea, it could all come down to non-linear dynamics, as demonstrated by the successful application of Lorenz equations and the concept of attractors in developmental biology (Capra & Luisi, 2014)—suggesting that apparent purpose may emerge through such dynamics.

References:

Al Aboud N.M, Tupper C. (2023) Genetics, Epigenetic Mechanism, National Library of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532999/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Bonduriansky, R. and Day, T. 2018. Extended Heredity: A New Understanding of Inheritance and Evolution. Princeton University Press. https://dokumen.pub/extended-heredity-a-new-understanding-of-inheritance-and-evolution-9781400890156.html

Boogert N.J. (2024) How does cognition determine an individual’s fitness? A systematic review of the links between cognition, behaviour and fitness in non-human animals https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2024.0118

    Byrne, R. W. (1995). The thinking ape: Evolutionary origins of intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Capra F, Luisi Pl. 2014 The systems view of life: a unifying vision, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. https://docdrop.org/download_annotation_doc/Fritjof-Capra_-Pier-Luigi-Luisi---The-Systems-View-of-Life_--9y66j.pdf

Corning, P. A. (2014). The Re-emergence of "Teleology" in Evolutionary Biology: What Does It Mean for the "Modern Synthesis"? Biology & Philosophy

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

Corning. P.A. (2018). Synergistic selection: How cooperation has shaped evolution and the rise of humankind. Singapore: Worl Scientific.

Corning, P. A. (2023). Nature’s Purposive Evolution: Purpose, Agency, and the Mechanisms of Evolution.

Corning P.A. (2025) Evolution “On Purpose” : A more inclusive New Theory of Biological Evolution. Institute for the Study of Complex System (in the “Beyond the Selfish gene section). https://acavispublishers.com/TBS/fulltext/Evolution-On-Purpose-A-More-Inclusive-New-Theory-of-Biological-Evolution

Coyne, J. A. (2005). Why Evolution Is True. Viking Press. https://books.google.ca/books?id=1bUoIpTQbLYC&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

Deffner Dominik, Constructing. (2019) Evolution « On Purpose”: How Niche Construction Affects Natural Selection. Evolution “On Purpose”, Teleonomy in Livings Systems, The Vienna Series in Theoretical Biology, Chapter – 4. https://www.google.com/search?q=evolution+on+purpose&rlz=1C1CHBF_enCA997CA997&oq=Evolution+on+purpose&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyCggAEAAY4wIYgAQyBwgBEC4YgAQyBwgCEAAYgAQyCAgDEAAYFhgeMggIBBAAGBYYHjIGCAUQRRg8MgYIBhBFGDwyBggHEEUYPNIBCTEyODUzajBqNKgCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

de Waal, F. (2016). Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?
https://dokumen.pub/are-we-smart-enough-to-know-how-smart-animals-are-978-0393246186.html

Doolittle, W. F., & Bapteste, E. (2007). Pattern Pluralism and the Tree of Life Hypothesis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 104(10), 4796-4800. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17261804/

Ehab Abouheifa, Hans Larssonb. A review of Scott F. Gilbert’s and David Epel’s Ecological Developmental Biology: Integrating Epigenetics, Medicine, and Evolution Ehab Abouheifa,* and Hans Larssonb. https://bio.mcgill.ca/faculty/abouheif/articles/Abouheif&Larsson09.pdf

Galef B. G. (2012) Social learning and traditions in animals: evidence, definitions, and relationship to human culture https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1196

Gilbert, S. F., Epel, D., & O'Neill, L. (2015). Ecology and Evolution of Developmental Plasticity. Elsevier

Gilbert S.F. (2015) Developmental Plasticity and Development Symbiosis: The Return of Eco-Devo 10.1016/bs.ctdb.2015.12.006

Gilbert, S. F., Bosch, T. C. G., & Ledón-Rettig, C. (2015).
Eco-Evo-Devo: Developmental symbiosis and developmental plasticity as evolutionary agents.
Nature Reviews Genetics, 16(10), 611–622.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrg3982

Gould J. Vrba E. (1982) introduced the concept of exaptation, critiquing narrow gene-centric narratives and emphasizing co-option of traits: “features that now enhance fitness but were not built by natural selection for their current role… be called exaptations” cambridge.org+15colab.ws+15cambridge.org+1

Jablonka, E., & Lamb, M. J. (2005). Evolution in Four Dimensions: Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral, and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life. MIT Press, prologue. https://ia601707.us.archive.org/16/items/eva-jablonka-marion-lamb-evolution-in-four-dimensions-massimo-morigi-epigenetic-/EVA%20JABLONKA%2C%20%20MARION%20LAMB%2C%20%20%20EVOLUTION%20IN%20FOUR%20DIMENSIONS%2C%20MASSIMO%20MORIGI%2C%20EPIGENETIC%2C%20GEOPOLITICAL%20REPUBLICANISM%2C%20FILOSOFIA%20DELLA%20PRASSI%2C%20EPIFANIA%20STRATEGICA.pdf

Jablonka E. (2012). Epigenetic inheritance and plasticity: The responsive germline, Science Direct. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0079610712000818?via%3Dihub

https://www.scielo.br/j/gmb/a/d5pDYvT4PzdfLkJQQmN5gBH/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

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

Kauffman, S. A. (2000). Investigations. https://sfi-edu.s3.amazonaws.com/sfi-edu/production/uploads/sfi-com/dev/uploads/filer/97/fe/97fe8a10-70a1-4cbc-b6cf-76acf8de8d14/96-08-072.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Kauffman?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Keller, E. F. (2014). From gene action to reactive genomes: The journal of Physiology. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4048100/

Kingdon, J. (1993) Self-made man: Human evolution from Eden to extinction? New York: John Wiley & Sons https://carta.anthropogeny.org/libraries/bibliography/self-made-man-human-evolution-eden-extinction

Koonin, E. V. (2011). The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution. FT Press. http://www.evolocus.com/Textbooks/Koonin2011.pdf

Laland, K. N., et al. (2015). The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: Its Structure, Assumptions and Predictions. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 282(1813).
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

Lehtonen T. K., Helantera H, Solvi C, Wong, Loukola O, (2023) The role of cognition in nesting, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2022.0142

Mayr, E. (1960). The emergence of evolutionary novelties. In S. Tax (Ed.), Evolution after Darwin (Vol. 1 pp 349-380. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Mackintosh N.H., Animal Learning, Britanica https://www.britannica.com/science/animal-learning

McClintock, B. (1984). The significance of responses of the genome to challenge. Science, 226(4676), https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.15739260

Margulis, L. (1993). Symbiosis in Cell Evolution. W.H. Freeman. https://garfield.library.upenn.edu/classics1993/A1993KK54300001.pdf

Margulis, L. (1998). Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution. file:///C:/Users/Dad/Downloads/Lynn%20Margulis%20The%20Symbiotic%20Planet%20A%20New%20Look%20at%20Evolution%20(Science%20Masters)%20(1999,%20Phoenix%20Paperbacks)%20libgen.lc.pdf

Melo D., Porto A., Cheverud J., Marroig G., (2016) Modularity: genes, development and evolution, National Library of Medecine: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5617135/

Muller G.B., (2007), Evo-devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis, Nature Reviews Genetics, https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg2219

Noble, D. (2006). The Music of Life: Biology Beyond the Genome.
https://virtualmmx.ddns.net/gbooks/TheMusicofLifeBiologyBeyondGenes.pdf

https://www.demul.nl/en/texts/online-publications/6442-noble-versus-dawkins-dna-is-not-the-program-of-the-concert-of-life?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Odling-Smee, J., Laland, K. N., & Feldman, M. W. (1996). Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution. Princeton University Press.

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691044378/niche-construction?srsltid=AfmBOor23h-pjMAf4wk4FkeWilmz4RecbNUNTA4hWqKsqziUmRM-AhwA

Ochman, H., Lawrence, J. G., & Groisman, E. A. (2000). Lateral Gene Transfer and the Nature of Bacterial Innovation. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/35012500

Pigliucci, M., & Müller, G. B. (2010). Evolution: The Extended Synthesis. The MIT Press. http://mitp-content-server.mit.edu:18180/books/content/sectbyfn?collid=books_pres_0&fn=9780262513678_sch_0001.pdf&id=8278

Rochais C., Schradin C., Pillay N., (2023) Cognitive performance is linked to survival in free-living African striped mice : 36883277

Richerson P. J., Boyd R., Henrich J. Gene-Culture Coevolution in the Age of Genomics, National Library of Medecine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK210012/

Scott-Phillips, T.C., Laland K.N., Shuker D.M. Dickins T.E. West S.A., (2013) The Niche Construction Perspective: A Critical Appraisal, Evolution – International journal of organic evolution THE NICHE CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE: A CRITICAL APPRAISAL

Schilthuizen M. (2018) Evolving street-smarts Aeoll https://aeon.co/essays/how-city-birds-evolved-to-be-smarter-than-rural-birds

Schrey A.W., Richards C.L., Meller V., Sollars V. Ruden (2012) M. The Role of Epigenetics in Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (National Library of Medecine https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3335599/

Shapiro, J.A. (1992) Natural genetic engineering in evolution, Genetica. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1334920/

Shapiro, J.A. (2011). Evolution: A View from the 21st Century. FT Press p2. Science. P. 7,https://www.everand.com/read/562616452/Evolution-A-View-from-the-21st-Century-Fortified

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/james-a-shapiro?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/37/1/evolution-is-neither-random-accidents-nor-divine-intervention-biological-action-changes-genomes?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Shapiro, J.A. (2013) How life changes itself: The read-write genome. Physics of life https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23876611/

Shapiro J. A. (2017) Living Organisms Author Their Read-Write Genomes in Evolution, National library of medicine https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5745447/#:~:text=Both%20biotic%20and%20abiotic%20ecological,%2C%20often%20abrupt%2C%20evolutionary%20transformations.

Smith C., Phillips A., Reichard M. (2015). Cognitive ability is heritable and predicts the success of an alternative mating tactic, Proceedings of the Royal Society B. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1046?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Sultan S. E. (2017) Developmental plasticity: re-conceiving the genotype, Interface Focus https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0009

Tang H., Luo F., Li S.H., Ming Li B., (2016) Behavioral representation of cost and benefit balance in rats, PubMed 10.1016/j.neulet.2016.08.054

Thornton A., Boogert N., (2019) Animal Cognition: The Benefits of remembering, Current Biology https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822%2819%2930383-5?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Thornton A., McAuliffe K (2006) Teaching in wild meerkats, Pubmed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16840701/

Trewavas, A. (2014). Plant behaviour and intelligence. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/plant-behaviour-and-intelligence-9780199539543?cc=ca&lang=en&

Vane-Wright R.I., Corning P.A. (2023) Teleonomy in living systems: an overview Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 139, Issue 4, August 2023, Pages 341–356, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blad037

Weber B. H., Depew David J., (2003) Evolution and Learning: The Baldwin Effect Reconsidered https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2871.001.0001

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

Al Aboud N.M, Tupper C. (2023) Genetics, Epigenetic Mechanism, National Library of Medicine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532999/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

…

https://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people/view/james-a-shapiro?utm_source=chatgpt.com

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/37/1/evolution-is-neither-random-accidents-nor-divine-intervention-biological-action-changes-genomes?utm_source=chatgpt.com

You forgot (or didn’t know) to strip the source identification tags out of your links.

Looks like you either lied about using AI, or used it after you were warned not to.