Evolving Evolution

[Luc Turpin]

If correct, the following article would be a significant departure from conventional thinking on evolution. It would inject some form of control into the process. With culture at hand, especially for humans, we may no longer be able to claim that we are but meagre innocent bystanders holding on to an anywhere ticket to nowhere, but accreditable participants in a bi-directional, self influenceable and self-perpetuating dance.

Excerpts from the article:

• “It has become clear that many organisms influence their own evolution by creating non-genetic traits that can become subject to natural selection. This challenges traditional Darwinian thinking, which sees evolution as a process rooted in random genetic mutation.”  
• “Until now, research has focused on genetic change, and genes undoubtedly are part of the explanation. But emerging evidence indicates that extragenetic processes are important, too.”
• “A variety of processes are involved, but here I will focus on three of the most important and intriguing: epigenetics, symbiotic inheritance and culture. These phenomena aren’t just analogous to biological evolution: they are biological evolution. They allow organisms to invade new environments, cope with change and stress, evolve new phenotypes and resist extinction until adaptive genetic mutations appear.”
• “This adds a whole new dimension to the evolutionary process because the things organisms do that influence their evolution have themselves evolved through natural selection – making the Darwinian evolutionary algorithm cyclical. From the origin of life, through continual interactive cycles of causation, organisms have channelled and directed their own evolution, and evolution has sculpted them in turn.”

From a New Scientist article titled “The extraordinary ways species control their own evolutionary fate” by Kevin Lala.

Finidings in the aforementioned article are not the only discoveries that makes us question the conventional wisdom of evolution. Some new findings disqualify earlier notions of evolution; other findings significantly distill the importance that was originally attributed to some precepts of the theory; and, others still infuse so much more complexity than anticipated into the theory that it renders the original-conventional picture of evolution almost unrecognisable.

Step by step incremental modifications to evolution over many years might have blinded us to the fact that we may no longer be dealing with exactly the same theory.

Change in theory might have occurred to some, but change in mindset and implications of theory in many others have not.

If there is control over our evolutionary destiny, is there then direction in evolution?

The article was accessible only through a “pay wall”, so I am printing it here. Apologies for the length of the post. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

Living in the desert is a challenge. But the Mojave Desert woodrat has an ace to play: it can eat poison. This allows the rodent to survive and thrive by feeding on toxic creosote bushes. Remarkably, it hasn’t evolved the genes required to do so. Instead, it eats the faeces of other woodrats and thereby inherits detoxifying bacteria that take up residence in its gut.

The desert woodrat is an example of how the things organisms do can affect their evolution. And it is far from a one-off: in recent years, it has become clear that many organisms influence their own evolution by creating non-genetic traits that can become subject to natural selection. This challenges traditional Darwinian thinking, which sees evolution as a process rooted in random genetic mutation. But that’s not all. These non-genetic ways of adapting may also help explain another puzzling aspect of evolution – evolvability, or why some organisms have a greater capacity to evolve than others.

I am one of a growing group of evolutionary biologists who believe that non-genetic inheritance plays a vital role in evolvability. The new thinking has implications for how we view our own evolution, too. Our complex culture makes the way humans evolve very different and far more rapid than the evolution of most other species. This unusual, supercharged evolvability gives us more control over our evolutionary future than we might think.

 (remaining article snipped owing to copyright concerns)

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

If correct, the following article would be a significant departure from conventional thinking on evolution.

What would 'conventional thinking' be ?

 

 

[Luc Turpin]

11 minutes ago, studiot said:

What would 'conventional thinking' be ?

 

 

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

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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

So, the best we can do is a ticket to nowhere? 

I'm currently alive, isn't that somewhere?

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

No direction in the process.

Direction, that's the word that make me suspicious of a hidden agenda again.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

The article was accessible only through a “pay wall”, so I am printing it here. Apologies for the length of the post. 

!

Moderator Note

Then it was presumably copyrighted, so reproducing it in full is a violation of the rules and copyright law. 

Which means post a summary and provide a link.

 

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

If there is control over our evolutionary destiny, is there then direction in evolution?

What is this "control"? I see multiple mentions of "influence" but then there's nuance in what that means. Control implies making a choice. Influence means involvement. I influence the level of water in a pool when I get in - it changes - but if I'm just floating there I do not control it.

Pick an example and discuss it.

Further, Darwin spoke of inherited traits; he did not know about genetics. So finding that there are other channels for inherited traits has no effect on Darwinian thought. And the suggestion that epigenetics are somehow a new surprise to biologists is an interesting notion. I'm not a biologist and have been aware of epigenetics for a while. I presume biologists are more aware of their field than I am.

The theory of evolution has evolved over time as we learn more, but that's true of any theory. So casting this in a sensationalist light doesn't reflect reality.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

So, the best we can do is a ticket to nowhere? 

I'm currently alive, isn't that somewhere?

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.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Direction, that's the word that make me suspicious of a hidden agenda again.

I reiterate, as the article indicates, if there is a sense of control, is then direction not far behind?

 

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Then it was presumably copyrighted, so reproducing it in full is a violation of the rules and copyright law. 

Which means post a summary and provide a link.

 

 

So, I provide the link to an inacessible article?

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

 

What is this "control"? I see multiple mentions of "influence" but then there's nuance in what that means. Control implies making a choice. Influence means involvement. I influence the level of water in a pool when I get in - it changes - but if I'm just floating there I do not control it.

 

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Direction, that's the word that make me suspicious of a hidden agenda again.

"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".

 

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

Further, Darwin spoke of inherited traits; he did not know about genetics. So finding that there are other channels for inherited traits has no effect on Darwinian thought. And the suggestion that epigenetics are somehow a new surprise to biologists is an interesting notion. I'm not a biologist and have been aware of epigenetics for a while. I presume biologists are more aware of their field than I am.

Epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer were surprises when discovered. Never said they were new. Horizontal gene transfer significantly reduces the effects of random mutations.

47 minutes ago, swansont said:

!

 

The theory of evolution has evolved over time as we learn more, but that's true of any theory. So casting this in a sensationalist light doesn't reflect reality.

Theories evolve over time, true. But, let's admit that major changes have occurred to the theory without change to its implications.

Edited Sunday at 03:19 PM by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

So, I provide the link to an inacessible article?

Yes. It’s inaccessible if you aren’t a subscriber, but some people might be.

 

39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

"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".

If all you can do is provide quotes, it suggests you don’t understand the article well enough to discuss it. How, then, can you draw any conclusions? And yet you do, rather than ask what the author meant.

 

39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

Epigenetics, horizontal gene transfer were surprises when discovered.

A lot of discoveries are surprises.

39 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

What implications are you referring to? That we descended from earlier forms of life? No, that seems unchanged. That species change over time, affected by the environment? That seems fine. That some individuals will be better suited to the prevailing conditions, and have a better chance to survive and reproduce? No, that still seems to hold.

What this looks like is looking for instances of certain phrasing, trying to twist a discussion to make it sound like support for an agenda

 

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

in recent years, it has become clear that many organisms influence their own evolution by creating non-genetic traits that can become subject to natural selection. This challenges traditional Darwinian thinking

Ev bio has moved past Darwin over a century ago.  Epigenetics, selective pressure on improvised behaviors, etc are not new concepts.  A desert woodrat isn't "controlling" its evolution when some individual species members try eating poop and it happens to confer resistance to creosote toxins, and therefore an adaptive advantage.  That may be NS acting on individuals who incline to less discriminating palates.  And epigenetics can play a role.  Momma rat lives through food shortages, which stress triggers epigenetic change in the next generation towards coprophagy.  We may project direction onto all this, but the woodrats may be following a very simple "times were hard, so when hungry, I'll try anything" algorithm.  

Remember that NS can affect greater epigenetic plasticity, meaning that environment can induce epigenetic changes in a population, and if those changes provide a phenotypic advantage, NS can favor individuals with those beneficial epigenetic modifications, leading to a more adapted population over time - and one that flips epigenetic switches more easily in future.

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Just now, studiot said:

Direction, that's the word that make me suspicious of a hidden agenda again.

1  "This unusual, supercharged evolvability gives us more control over our evolutionary future than we might think."

2  "From the origin of life, organisms channelled and directed their own evolution"

3  "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."

4  "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."

5  "and we control our own evolution to a much greater extent"

6  "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".

Does it ?

Let's take a look at evolution as far as we currently know it and see if these claims stack up or if we can point to any instances of this happening.

Our knowledge of evolution is greatly influenced by our knowledge of geology.

This was true even at the beginning of our knowledge of evolution.

Quote

Letter from Wallace to Darwin  1858 on studying the differences between flora and fauna in Bali and Lombok.

Facts like these can only be explained by the bold acceptance of enormous changes on the Earth's surface.

 

From the origin of life...

a)

The most enormous change,  brought about by life on Earth, we now know was the total reconstruction of the composition of the atmousphere by early organisms (stromatolites)

Since the remnents of these organisms still exist today in a few isolated places please explain how this is compatible with 'directed their own evolution' you mention in 2

b)

Possibly the most detailed change we know about was the sudden demise of the life form that had dominance for 250 million years.

How did the dinosaurs control their demise and how did the mamals that coexisted with thyem gain ascendance ?

 

[Ken Fabian]

A kind of rat evolved that was "smart" enough to adapt it's behavior by eating another animal's faeces because it made creasote bush edible (probably because it was hungry, other food was not available and those are what it could findbut instead of being poisoned, it gained nutrition)? It's young learned to do so from parental example. Sounds like "conventional" evolution to me.

Humans evolved the ability to pass on complex knowledge about tools and working collectively that enhanced their abilities to obtain food and defend against predators. Again, sounds like conventional evolution.

 

[exchemist]

7 hours ago, Luc Turpin said:

If correct, the following article would be a significant departure from conventional thinking on evolution. It would inject some form of control into the process. With culture at hand, especially for humans, we may no longer be able to claim that we are but meagre innocent bystanders holding on to an anywhere ticket to nowhere, but accreditable participants in a bi-directional, self influenceable and self-perpetuating dance.

Excerpts from the article:

• “It has become clear that many organisms influence their own evolution by creating non-genetic traits that can become subject to natural selection. This challenges traditional Darwinian thinking, which sees evolution as a process rooted in random genetic mutation.”  
• “Until now, research has focused on genetic change, and genes undoubtedly are part of the explanation. But emerging evidence indicates that extragenetic processes are important, too.”
• “A variety of processes are involved, but here I will focus on three of the most important and intriguing: epigenetics, symbiotic inheritance and culture. These phenomena aren’t just analogous to biological evolution: they are biological evolution. They allow organisms to invade new environments, cope with change and stress, evolve new phenotypes and resist extinction until adaptive genetic mutations appear.”
• “This adds a whole new dimension to the evolutionary process because the things organisms do that influence their evolution have themselves evolved through natural selection – making the Darwinian evolutionary algorithm cyclical. From the origin of life, through continual interactive cycles of causation, organisms have channelled and directed their own evolution, and evolution has sculpted them in turn.”

From a New Scientist article titled “The extraordinary ways species control their own evolutionary fate” by Kevin Lala.

Finidings in the aforementioned article are not the only discoveries that makes us question the conventional wisdom of evolution. Some new findings disqualify earlier notions of evolution; other findings significantly distill the importance that was originally attributed to some precepts of the theory; and, others still infuse so much more complexity than anticipated into the theory that it renders the original-conventional picture of evolution almost unrecognisable.

Step by step incremental modifications to evolution over many years might have blinded us to the fact that we may no longer be dealing with exactly the same theory.

Change in theory might have occurred to some, but change in mindset and implications of theory in many others have not.

If there is control over our evolutionary destiny, is there then direction in evolution?

The article was accessible only through a “pay wall”, so I am printing it here. Apologies for the length of the post. 

____________________________________________________________________________________

Living in the desert is a challenge. But the Mojave Desert woodrat has an ace to play: it can eat poison. This allows the rodent to survive and thrive by feeding on toxic creosote bushes. Remarkably, it hasn’t evolved the genes required to do so. Instead, it eats the faeces of other woodrats and thereby inherits detoxifying bacteria that take up residence in its gut.

The desert woodrat is an example of how the things organisms do can affect their evolution. And it is far from a one-off: in recent years, it has become clear that many organisms influence their own evolution by creating non-genetic traits that can become subject to natural selection. This challenges traditional Darwinian thinking, which sees evolution as a process rooted in random genetic mutation. But that’s not all. These non-genetic ways of adapting may also help explain another puzzling aspect of evolution – evolvability, or why some organisms have a greater capacity to evolve than others.

I am one of a growing group of evolutionary biologists who believe that non-genetic inheritance plays a vital role in evolvability. The new thinking has implications for how we view our own evolution, too. Our complex culture makes the way humans evolve very different and far more rapid than the evolution of most other species. This unusual, supercharged evolvability gives us more control over our evolutionary future than we might think.

 (remaining article snipped owing to copyright concerns)

This is not new. Lala (someone of Parsee descent whose parents anglicised the family name to Laland) is a prof at St. Andrews and a prominent exponent of the “extended evolutionary synthesis”. Details here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis

Nothing about this implies “control” by populations of organisms over how they evolve, in any conscious sense. However it does propose that environmental factors can affect evolution through means other than simple natural selection.

For example, I was fascinated to read some years go of research suggesting that at times of environmental stress, organisms may reduce the normal corrective mechanisms that correct the errors in genetic material that lead to mutations. It’s as if they go off to the casino and spin the wheel, to see what novelties they can create, some of which  might be helpful.

Not everyone buys into the extended synthesis, but it has been for some time a live hypothesis in conventional evolutionary theory.

[Luc Turpin]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

If all you can do is provide quotes, it suggests you don’t understand the article well enough to discuss it. How, then, can you draw any conclusions? And yet you do, rather than ask what the author meant.

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.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

A lot of discoveries are surprises.

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.

4 hours ago, swansont said:

What implications are you referring to? That we descended from earlier forms of life? No, that seems unchanged. That species change over time, affected by the environment? That seems fine. That some individuals will be better suited to the prevailing conditions, and have a better chance to survive and reproduce? No, that still seems to hold.

 

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.

3 hours ago, TheVat said:

Ev bio has moved past Darwin over a century ago.  Epigenetics, selective pressure on improvised behaviors, etc are not new concepts.  A desert woodrat isn't "controlling" its evolution when some individual species members try eating poop and it happens to confer resistance to creosote toxins, and therefore an adaptive advantage.  That may be NS acting on individuals who incline to less discriminating palates.  And epigenetics can play a role.  Momma rat lives through food shortages, which stress triggers epigenetic change in the next generation towards coprophagy.  We may project direction onto all this, but the woodrats may be following a very simple "times were hard, so when hungry, I'll try anything" algorithm.  

Remember that NS can affect greater epigenetic plasticity, meaning that environment can induce epigenetic changes in a population, and if those changes provide a phenotypic advantage, NS can favor individuals with those beneficial epigenetic modifications, leading to a more adapted population over time - and one that flips epigenetic switches more easily in future.

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.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

Since the remnents of these organisms still exist today in a few isolated places please explain how this is compatible with 'directed their own evolution' you mention in

2 b.

Simple organisms influence, but have very little control over evolution

3 hours ago, studiot said:

 

Possibly the most detailed change we know about was the sudden demise of the life form that had dominance for 250 million years.

How did the dinosaurs control their demise and how did the mamals that coexisted with thyem gain ascendance ?

 

Dinosaurs did not have enough culture to control their demise while mammals had enough to control evolution and gain ascendance.

54 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

 

Humans evolved the ability to pass on complex knowledge about tools and working collectively that enhanced their abilities to obtain food and defend against predators. Again, sounds like conventional evolution.

 

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.

3 hours ago, studiot said:

How did the dinosaurs control their demise and how did the mamals that coexisted with thyem gain ascendance ?

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.

[swansont]

32 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

That’s not very illuminating. What is it about any one of these that implied control over evolution?

32 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

So what? 

You appear to be trying to sensationalize this as if it’s not business-as-usual for all of science. You’re unlikely to drum up concern from people familiar with the process and progress of science. 

32 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Yup. Science discovers new things. Not really news. Sun rises in east kind of stuff.

32 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

And you need to provide a lot more detail about this so it can be discussed.

32 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Again, you need to provide details.

 

Since you still haven’t learned how to comply with the rules, here’s the link and a relevant passage 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg26435201-500-the-extraordinary-ways-species-control-their-own-evolutionary-fate/

“Living in the desert is a challenge. But the Mojave desert woodrat has an ace to play: it can eat poison. This allows the cute little rodent to survive and thrive by feeding on toxic creosote bushes. Remarkably, it hasn’t evolved the genes required to do so. Instead, it eats the faeces of other woodrats and thereby inherits detoxifying bacteria that take up residence in its gut.”

I don’t see how this is control over its evolution. It’s not like the woodrats decided to start eating poison to build up a resistance to it, and “inherits” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here — there’s nothing here that says this is passed along to its offspring - is that what’s happening? If not, this is a fallacy of equivocation. It’s not what others mean by inherited.

A possibly inherited trait is eating the feces. 

 

Another thing you’ve continued to fail to learn is that one scientist saying something doesn’t make it true. Lots of stuff gets proposed. A fair fraction eventually gets shot down.

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Simple organisms influence, but have very little control over evolution

Which agrees with my point that they made the biggest ever change in Earth's history, but entirely without 'direction' and to their detriment.

Quite the reverse of what you claimed in your words I quoted.

 

 

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

Dinosaurs did not have enough culture to control their demise while mammals had enough to control evolution and gain ascendance.

 

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Yet they lasted 250 million years.
Do you think Man has any better chance of achieving that ?

 

Again this runs contrary to your words that I quoted.

 

Both answers were short and appear to be knee jerk rather than considered and you did not reply at all to my quote from Wallace letter to Darwin.

 

Just now, swansont said:

And you need to provide a lot more detail about this so it can be discussed.

Yes please , Luc a lot more detail.

[Luc Turpin]

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.

Edited Monday at 04:05 PM by Luc Turpin

[swansont]

So it’s cultural evolution, rather than culture controlling evolution. Cultural evolution is a distinct phenomenon from biological evolution. If an individual were raised in isolation, how would cultural effects be passed along to the individual?

Culture can potentially affect evolution; you could, for example, have a population decide to live someplace (e.g. at a high elevation) and over time that could exert selection pressure. But that’s not control.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

In summary, evolution is not just a passive process driven by genetic mutations.

Your argument is a strawman.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

So it’s cultural evolution, rather than culture controlling evolution. Cultural evolution is a distinct phenomenon from biological evolution. If an individual were raised in isolation, how would cultural effects be passed along to the individual?

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.

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Culture can potentially affect evolution; you could, for example, have a population decide to live someplace (e.g. at a high elevation) and over time that could exert selection pressure. But that’s not control.

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.

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Your argument is a strawman.

How so?

[studiot]

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

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.

Lots of assertions.

Not a single shred of supporting evidence.

Just now, Luc Turpin said:

The following text is based on the “culture” portion of the text

I find the idea of 'cultural evolution' intriguing.

But

Evolution of any sort is based upon a causative relationship acting in the appropriate direction.

A correlative relationship is not sufficient evidence to assume this exists, the correct causation must be demonstrated separately.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

But you presented multiple examples of cultural evolution - passing information from one generation to the next.

You also presented no evidence that the indicated behavior is learned and not innate. (it might very well be, but you have not shown that this is the case)

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

I said nothing about avoiding predators, but I guess that would be one reason to do so.

1 hour ago, Luc Turpin said:

How so?

Because you have not accurately described evolution. You have presented an incorrect description in order to discredit it.

[Luc Turpin]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Lots of assertions.

Not a single shred of supporting evidence.

 

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.

1 hour ago, studiot said:

A correlative relationship is not sufficient evidence to assume this exists, the correct causation must be demonstrated separately.

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.

[Luc Turpin]

On 12/15/2024 at 12:18 PM, TheVat said:

Ev bio has moved past Darwin over a century ago.  Epigenetics, selective pressure on improvised behaviors, etc are not new concepts.  A desert woodrat isn't "controlling" its evolution when some individual species members try eating poop and it happens to confer resistance to creosote toxins, and therefore an adaptive advantage.  That may be NS acting on individuals who incline to less discriminating palates.  And epigenetics can play a role.  Momma rat lives through food shortages, which stress triggers epigenetic change in the next generation towards coprophagy.  We may project direction onto all this, but the woodrats may be following a very simple "times were hard, so when hungry, I'll try anything" algorithm.  

Remember that NS can affect greater epigenetic plasticity, meaning that environment can induce epigenetic changes in a population, and if those changes provide a phenotypic advantage, NS can favor individuals with those beneficial epigenetic modifications, leading to a more adapted population over time - and one that flips epigenetic switches more easily in future.

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.

On 12/15/2024 at 3:57 PM, exchemist said:

Nothing about this implies “control” by populations of organisms over how they evolve, in any conscious sense. However it does propose that environmental factors can affect evolution through means other than simple natural selection.

 

Please consider my response to TheVat and my long post on culture above as a response to yours.

 

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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.

In the context of this thread (Does evolution evolve?), "No shit Sherlock"...🙄

 

[Luc Turpin]

4 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In the context of this thread (Does evolution evolve?), "No shit Sherlock"...🙄

 

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".  

 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, Luc Turpin said:

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".  

 

How?