Luc Turpin

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?

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.