Luc Turpin

I spent ten days working intermittently on the introductory post. The author provided the key bullet points and central concepts, while I contributed by conducting an extensive search for relevant examples to support and illustrate these ideas. The last three paragraphs are entirely my own. The main message of the post highlights the extraordinary complexity of biology, suggesting that such intricacy likely requires more than random chance reactions. I am not attributing consciousness to chemical reactions, nor is consciousness or cognition even the central focus of the post. Instead, my emphasis is on the notion that the complexity of life seems to point toward a sense of organization of some sort. I believe this is a highly valid point for discussion. My next step was to write a post on the physical changes the brain undergoes when a thought is formed, but I'm now uncertain if it’s still worth pursuing. This one also would have taken many days to prepare. I have been using "paradigm shift" for a while without mention that it came from Chat GPT.

Cellular Communication Inspired by Jon Lieff: The Intricate Web of Cellular Communication From the irrelevant, dismissive and certified crackpot Cellular communication is far more intricate and sophisticated than we once imagined. Cells don’t operate in isolation; they constantly interact to regulate vital processes like growth, healing, and immune defense. This communication is crucial for maintaining homeostasis, enabling organisms to respond to environmental challenges, and ultimately ensuring survival. Key Insights: • Complex Communication: Cells communicate using a vast array of signaling methods that go far beyond just hormones or neurotransmitters. These signals include electrical impulses, mechanical forces, and even light signals (known as biophotons). For example, some cells communicate through electrical synapses that transmit signals at lightning speed, while mechano-transduction allows cells to sense and respond to physical forces in their environment. In the nervous system, biophotons may help neurons communicate with each other by synchronizing their activity. This multimodal communication allows cells to coordinate complex processes like cell development, immune responses and tissue repair. As a result, cellular communication is involved in the adaptation of organisms to changes in their environment, helping them navigate everything from nutrient availability to injury. • Cooperation: Cells often rely on cooperation to perform complex tasks, such as immune defense or tissue repair. This cooperation can occur within a single tissue, among different tissues, or between distinct cell types. For example, during wound healing, fibroblasts and immune cells must work together to restore tissue integrity, with fibroblasts generating new tissue and immune cells clearing infections. Similarly, cells communicate through cytokines, which are signaling molecules that enable immune cells to collaborate and mount a defense against pathogens. Without such coordination, even simple biological processes would break down. This cellular cooperation ensures that our bodies can handle complex, dynamic tasks like fighting infections, responding to injury, and maintaining organ function. • Collective Decision-Making: Cells, especially in the immune system, don’t just respond passively to stimuli. They actively "decide" based on shared signals. This concept of collective decision-making is critical for processes such as immune responses. Immune cells like T-cells and macrophages exchange chemical signals that influence whether they attack pathogens, produce inflammatory molecules, or activate other parts of the immune system. Another good example of collaborative decision-making in cells is during the development of multicellular organisms, particularly when forming tissues and organs. Cells need to communicate and work together to achieve common goals. In embryonic development, cells coordinate their actions based on signals from neighboring cells and their environment. As indicated, collaborative decision-making is key for complex physiological phenomena. Research into cellular decision-making processes also suggests that cells might even "know" when to sacrifice themselves for the greater good of the organism—an example of programmed cell death or apoptosis in cancer suppression and immune responses. • Epigenetics and Adaptation: One of the most fascinating discoveries in biology is the role of epigenetics in cellular communication. External signals, including those from neighboring cells, the environment, or even microbiota, can activate or silence genes without altering the underlying DNA sequence. These modifications, like DNA methylation, allow cells to adapt to environmental changes in a flexible manner. For example, stem cells receive signals from their environment that direct them to become specific cell types, such as muscle, nerve, or skin cells, through epigenetic mechanisms. These changes don’t require a genetic mutation, allowing organisms to respond to challenges without permanently altering their genetic code. In essence, epigenetics represents a "memory" system that helps cells remember past signals and adapt future behavior accordingly. • The Brain-Body Connection: A growing body of research highlights the crucial role of the gut-brain axis—the communication system linking the gut and the brain. The gut sends signals to the brain through vagus nerve stimulation, hormones like ghrelin and leptin, and even neurotransmitters like serotonin. These signals can influence mood, cognition, and even stress responses. In return, the brain can modulate gut function, influencing digestion and immune responses. This bi-directional communication explains why gut health is so closely linked to mental health conditions such as anxiety, depression, and even autism spectrum disorders. It suggests that cellular communication extends beyond isolated organs and systems, showing how intertwined the body's various processes truly are. • The Microbiome: The microbiome, consisting of trillions of microbes residing in and on our bodies, has a profound impact on cellular communication, particularly in areas like immune function, metabolism, and mental health. These microbes produce a variety of molecules—such as short-chain fatty acids, neurotransmitters, and vitamins—that influence the cells of the digestive tract, immune system, and brain. Recent studies reveal that gut microbiota can shape immune responses by interacting with dendritic cells and T cells, which in turn influence inflammation and pathogen defense. Moreover, changes in the microbiome are linked to conditions like autoimmune diseases, obesity, and even neurodegenerative diseases. The microbiome is a perfect example of how cellular communication is not limited to human cells but extends to the microbial residents that live symbiotically within our bodies. Aside from the gut microbiome, there are also skin, oral and respiratory microbiomes. • Internal Cellular Communication: Within individual cells, communication between organelles is crucial for maintaining homeostasis. For example, mitochondria not only produce energy but also communicate with the nucleus to regulate processes like cell growth, apoptosis, and response to oxidative stress. This communication is essential for cellular health; disruptions in this internal network can lead to diseases such as mitochondrial disorders and cancer. The endoplasmic reticulum also communicates with the rest of the cell to maintain protein folding and calcium balance, and its dysfunction can lead to diseases like Alzheimer's. Organelles like the Golgi apparatus and lysosomes coordinate with each other to transport proteins and eliminate waste. Without these intricate systems of internal cellular communication, cells would be unable to maintain function, adapt to stress, or carry out their specialized roles. Life as a Web of Communication: At its core, life is about the constant exchange of information across cells, tissues, organs, and the environment. These interwoven networks shape the behavior of cells, influencing everything from how tissues develop to how they respond to injury or infection. Cellular behavior is not driven solely by a set of genetic instructions or chemical signals; it’s a continuous flow of information that comes from interactions between cells and their environment, as well as feedback loops between the body’s different systems. Things become even more complex and much more fascinating when the act of thinking—an intangible process—creates neuronal links, a tangible physical change. This intricate process involves thinking, molecular signaling, glial cell participation, feedback mechanisms, plasticity, and cognitive integration—though such a topic deserves a deeper exploration in another post. As our understanding of biology deepens, it becomes increasingly clear that life is governed by extraordinarily sophisticated systems, far more intricate than previously recognized. Cellular communication is a prime example of how these systems work together, creating a highly coordinated, adaptive network that sustains life. This interconnectedness challenges the traditional mechanical models of biology, which often see living systems as merely the sum of their parts. Rather, biology appears to be governed by principles of coordination and something akin somewhat to thought—the ability of cells to process, interpret, and respond to signals in ways that are adaptive, purposeful, and dynamic. A New Paradigm for Life: Could the emerging complexity of cellular communication suggest a deeper level of organization than we’ve recognized in biology? The more we study cellular behavior, the less it seems that life is merely the result of reactive processes. At the very least, the complexity inherent in nature makes it significantly harder to explain everything away with simplistic "just because" reasoning. Rather, biology points toward the involvement of complex, coordinated systems that exhibit behaviors. If cells can collectively make decisions, respond to environmental cues, and adapt to challenges in ways that appear to reflect some sort of action with an intended consequence, might there be something more to life than mere autonomic reactions?

1- Will get to that one later 2- They do naturally select, but also do evolve throught the aid of cognition 3- Disagree! more that that. Trees and plants are not passive—they actively perceive and respond to environmental stimuli to optimize their growth and survival. They can detect the direction and intensity of light through specialized receptors, and research shows that plants can "learn" from light patterns and adjust their growth accordingly (Sauer & Simpson, 2017). Plants also respond to touch and mechanical pressure by changing their growth patterns, like climbing plants that wrap around structures for support (Hickok, 2018). Plants can "learn" from experience, a phenomenon called "plant memory." For example, Gagliano (2014) showed that plants can modify their behavior based on past experiences, such as stopping the defensive leaf-folding response when repeatedly exposed to harmless stimuli. They also have memory for stress; plants exposed to mild stress can "remember" it for several days and respond more effectively to future stress (Bruce, 2007). Plants communicate through various methods: they release VOCs to signal other plants (Karban), use chemicals in their roots to interact with neighbors (Bever), and send electrical signals within their tissues (Pickard, 2008). They also make decisions about resource allocation, adjusting growth between roots and shoots based on environmental conditions (Farrar, 2011). Many plants form symbiotic relationships with other species, cooperating by releasing compounds that encourage beneficial plants to grow or suppress harmful ones (Simard, 1997; Callaway, 2007). Plants don’t have brains or nervous systems exhibit complex behaviors that mimic cognitive processes like perception, memory, learning, decision-making, and communication. These abilities allow them to adapt to their environment, survive, and interact with other organisms, which ultimately influences their evolutionary success. The growing field of plant cognition is revealing that plants are far more complex and dynamic than we once thought. I can prove that turtles are not stupid and will do just that once I get the time. And I will do insects also. And agree that your thing about moths is not cognition, but they do have cognitive abilities.

Getting there, slowly but surely.

I’ve recently received some feedback in this thread that could have been presented more constructively. The two main criticisms were: 1) cognition plays such a minor role in evolution that it can be ignored, and 2) I haven’t provided enough evidence for the connection between cognition and evolution. Let me address these points. Cognition has a direct impact on survival, reproduction, and adaptation. There is substantial evidence that cognitive traits like memory, learning, decision-making, and problem-solving significantly influence evolutionary outcomes. Cognitive abilities are essential in natural selection. Research by Sherry & Schacter shows how spatial memory in birds aids in foraging, a critical factor for survival and reproduction. Similarly, predator recognition and avoidance are vital for survival. Species with superior cognitive abilities to avoid predators live longer, improving their chances of passing their genes to offspring. Cognition also plays a key role in mate selection. A study by Catchpole found that female starlings prefer males with more complex songs, which may indicate higher cognitive abilities. Dunbar’s "social intelligence hypothesis" suggests that primates evolved larger brains due to the cognitive demands of social living. Being able to navigate social relationships and form alliances provides reproductive advantages. Cognition is also crucial for adapting to changing environments. Crows and octopuses use tool-making and problem-solving to exploit new ecological niches. This adaptabilityis linked to advanced cognitive capacities and contributes to evolutionary success. Griesser’s research on birds shows that cognition helps species adjust their strategies for predator avoidance more effectively. In humans, cognitive abilities have been pivotal to our evolutionary success. Complex traits like language, abstract thinking, and problem-solving offered definite advantages in survival. Tomasello argues that the evolution of language, for example, enabled better communication, knowledge-sharing, and cooperation, providing humans with a distinct evolutionary edge. In conclusion, evidence demonstrates that cognition plays a crucial role in evolution. It drives survival, reproduction, and adaptation, influencing both natural and sexual selection.

Trillions upon trillions of cognitive interactions, spanning billions of years and countless species, yet almost no influence on evolution?, should have been my statement. So why almost no mention of it in the theory of evolution as one of it's fundamental elements? As for evidence, I have provided some and will get much more to share. Also, single-celled organisms have cognitive abilities as well as being influenced by random mutations. So why call one out and not the other? When is cognition talked about with random mutations in a conversation on evolution?

Cognition is a fundamental aspect of all living organisms, yet it has often been overlooked as a driving force in the natural sciences. From cellular cognition—such as sensing and cooperative behaviors—to plant cognition, which includes environmental sensing, communication, and decision-making, to animal cognition, encompassing spatial memory, problem-solving, tool use, and social behaviors, the cognitive processes within living systems are far-reaching and complex. Yet, despite the trillions upon trillions of cognitive interactions that have occurred since the emergence of life, I must ask: why would it not have had an impact on nature and why science has ignored this? Nothing to add here

Some evidence seems to suggest, at the very least, that both baguettes and marmalade nourish the violinist playing music and the construction worker building churches. I may be mistaken, but I am certainly not a crackpot. My goal is not to overturn anything, but to offer new information or a different perspective of things that could enhance our understanding of what we already know. The recent posts clearly demonstrate that we are not engaging in scientific inquiry, but rather resorting to character assassination.

Yes, not a doctor, but a pretentious S.O.B I am! 😊

I am making a strong effort to expand both my own and others' understanding of current knowledge, but I admit I'm struggling to convince anyone that there may be more to it than what science currently reveals.

Was not thinking as usual: now I get it! Yes, it might be me in the same situation or might be me representing others that are not in the same predicament as I. I am not always smart, but most of the time, I am not driven by hubris. Not as smart as you dimreepr, not as smart as many on these forums, but I have ideas, mostly from others, that need to be shared

I don't seem to get the drift of it 😑

If the field of cognitive genomics is so active, why is there little discussion about its role in shaping evolution in the same way as genes, chemicals, and random events? Why has it not been incorporated in some shape or form into the theory? Why is there resistance towards this? The ideas presented here include some of my own, as well as many from others, which I aim to share as accurately as possible. I do not claim to have originated most of them. Additionally, the concepts discussed have been explored by professionals who have faced challenges in effectively communicating their ideas. My only presumption is that a prevailing mindset in science is hindering the consideration of ideas that extend beyond the current scientific paradigm.

1- The theory of evolution primarily emphasizes biological processes.. It does not delve into cognition—the mental processes involved in perception, memory and reasoning. So, how can one claim that it does? 2- My understanding of the topic is irrelevant to the fact that the theory of evolution does not address cognition. 3-Discussing cognition in the context of evolution does not require focusing on where it is coming from. Therefore, the conversation should not be dismissed based on this assumption. My understanding is that humans using technology to genetically modify organisms can be considered part of evolution, but it is a form of evolution that is much more directed than usual with natural evolution.

The question of whether cognition is independent or not is irrelevant; what truly matters is whether cognition plays a role in evolution and whether it has been adequately considered—which it has not. Cognition exists as a fundamental aspect of reality, yet it is overlooked or dismissed within a mechanistic worldview. Therefore, the worldview is vastly defficient and incomplete I named cognition and it is being ignored. That the environment plays a role and that it has been know for century is not new to me. The point remains. Cognition exists and is being ignored by evolution and almost all of science.

Time does not negate the fact that cognition exists and might have played a role in evolution

In this post, I will put forth the idea that evolution is often viewed as an entirely chance-driven process, and that alternative factors, such as cognition or cell communication, might play significant roles in shaping life’s complexity. While evolution is indeed driven by genetic variation and natural selection, it’s important to consider whether the purely mechanistic view of life—which focuses solely on genes, chemicals, and random events—can fully explain the complexity and adaptability seen in biological systems. Regarding cognition and cellular communication: while it’s commonly accepted that genetic inheritance and biochemical reactions drive much of evolution, the role of cellular communication cannot be underestimated. Cells communicate through intricate signaling pathways that determine processes like growth, differentiation, and response to the environment. These processes suggest that organisms are not simply passive reactors to random genetic mutations but are actively engaging with and adapting to their environments through highly sophisticated systems. For instance, when cells in multicellular organisms communicate to coordinate immune responses or repair damaged tissue, they are making decisions based on information, not just reacting mechanically to stimuli. This type of behavior implies that some degree of “cognitive” processing may be occurring at cellular and molecular levels, challenging the purely chemical, deterministic model. To suggest that birds, or any other organisms, are solely propelled by non-intentional autonomic reflexes or randomness also overlooks the adaptability and purposefulness inherent in many biological behaviors. Birds migrate not to random destinations, but with a high degree of navigational precision. They rely on environmental cues for orientation. This suggests that their behavior is guided by a complex system of responses, not merely mechanical reflexes or randomness. Evolution has equipped them with remarkable cognitive tools that aid in these processes, and it’s crucial to recognize that not all biological systems are mere machines operating without intent. Moreover, the focus on randomness and mechanistic processes can limit our understanding of the full range of factors at play in evolution. There might be additional variables, such as emergent (the word I hate to use) properties or even forms of intelligence within biological systems, that are often overlooked when we insist on reducing everything to genetic and chemical interactions. A more holistic view would consider that evolution is not just the outcome of random mutation and selection, but may also involve intricate feedback loops, cooperation among cells, and the “decision-making” of biological systems at various levels. To summarize, while the mechanistic view of evolution driven by random mutations and natural selection is undeniably fundamental, it’s essential not to disregard the potential roles of cognition, communication, and other emergent properties in the evolution of life. These factors do not negate the principles of evolution but may add depth and complexity to our understanding of how life develops and adapts. In embracing these additional variables, we open up the possibility for a more nuanced view of the evolutionary process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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