https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262546409/evolution-on-purpose/

"A unique exploration of teleonomy—also known as “evolved purposiveness”—as a major influence in evolution by a broad range of specialists in biology and the philosophy of science.

"The evolved purposiveness of living systems, termed “teleonomy” by chronobiologist Colin Pittendrigh, has been both a major outcome and causal factor in the history of life on Earth. Many theorists have appreciated this over the years, going back to Lamarck and even Darwin in the nineteenth century. In the mid-twentieth century, however, the complex, dynamic process of evolution was simplified into the one-way, bottom-up, single gene-centered paradigm widely known as the modern synthesis. In Evolution “On Purpose,” edited by Peter A. Corning, Stuart A. Kauffman, Denis Noble, James A. Shapiro, Richard I. Vane-Wright, and Addy Pross, some twenty theorists attempt to modify this reductive approach by exploring in depth the different ways in which living systems have themselves shaped the course of evolution.

"Evolution “On Purpose” puts forward a more inclusive theoretical synthesis that goes far beyond the underlying principles and assumptions of the modern synthesis to accommodate work since the 1950s in molecular genetics, developmental biology, epigenetic inheritance, genomics, multilevel selection, niche construction, physiology, behavior, biosemiotics, chemical reaction theory, and other fields. In the view of the authors, active biological processes are responsible for the direction and the rate of evolution. Essays in this collection grapple with topics from the two-way “read-write” genome to cognition and decision-making in plants to the niche-construction activities of many organisms to the self-making evolution of humankind. As this collection compellingly shows, and as bacterial geneticist James Shapiro emphasizes, “The capacity of living organisms to alter their own heredity is undeniable.”

ID's answer:

https://evolutionnews.org/2024/04/design-without-a-designer-new-book-says-yes/

"Teleonomy is “internal teleology” — goal-directedness that comes from within a system, not from outside. Under this theory, there need be no God (or aliens, or Platonic or Aristotelian forms, or anything of the sort) guiding the development of living systems; the living systems themselves set the goals.

***

"Corning is saying that all sorts of evolutionary theories contain the hidden assumption of purposiveness, i.e., design. This is an important admission, since it’s what ID theorists have been saying.

"Of course, he differs on where this design comes from. But it’s worth noting that the thesis of teleonomy implicitly acknowledges the validity of the design inference. If you can infer design in nature, you can infer design in nature. Period. Then you can decide whether it comes from within or from without.

"That means that if the teleonomic explanation (“living systems actively shape their own evolution”) doesn’t hold up, the old alternative hypothesis will be there, waiting.

***

"...teleonomy is “not simply a product of natural selection. It is also an important cause of natural selection and has been a major shaping influence over time in biological evolution.” Conversely, natural selection “has been both a cause of this purposiveness and an outcome.”

"This is not, in itself, illogical. You could have two forces at work — purpose and natural selection — that synergistically encourage each other, in a sort of positive feedback loop. But then, you still have to explain how the feedback loop got started.

***

"The problem with this explanation is not that it is false. As it happens, it is quite true. The problem is that it fails to explain. It does not answer the question that was really being asked.

"Likewise, “teleonomy” fails to explain. The design of nature requires an explanation, an ultimate explanation. Rather than explain, invoking “teleonomy” just dodges the question. If we say that natural selection and random variation cannot explain something, evolutionary biologists can say, “Well, it’s not random variation, it’s goal-oriented.” If we ask where the goal-oriented-ness itself came from, they will say “natural selection.” The question returns to where it began; a final cause for the existence of design in nature has yet to be proposed."

Comment: good old Shapiro is back. Long ago we concluded natural selection is passive. Now suddenly with wishful thinking it is active again. As humans, who plan with purpose, we know a mind must be involved to plan the demonstrated intricacies of living biochemistry!

http://inference-review.com/article/the-last-threshold

Man has been a part of the animal kingdom for more than three million years. Yet many cultures have seen man as quite separate, or excluded man entirely, from nature. We see this among monotheistic societies that nurture theological explanations for the origin of our species.

On the contrary, straightening, with its correlated anatomical and psychomotor changes, is an intrauterine process that took place over the course of more than forty million years. It resulted from a growth in complexity of the embryonic nervous system and its rotational dynamics, and led to a succession of threshold effects incompatible with the nested hierarchy of Linnaean classification.

The identification of the first hominids is flawed.

***

On the Linnaean system of classification, it should be possible to distinguish a structure that elevates Homo sapiens to the rank of genus when compared to the characteristics of the species. Homo anatomy must appear gradually before any sapiens characteristics. For obvious scientific reasons the genus Homo must be rigorously defined. The defining characteristics of the skeleton of Homo sapiens are, in fact, linked to the degree of verticality in the brainstem and spinal cord. Homo corresponds to a verticalization now visible only in sapiens.

***

These embryological details have dramatic consequences. The emergence of upright hominid posture need no longer be linked to habitat changes. Its origin must be attributed to the increasing complexity of the nervous system. The embryonic body plan was reorganized through a series of threshold effects which are still in evidence in every human embryo.

***

The sole vertebrate embryo in which the dorsal cord extremity is almost verticalized is that of Homo sapiens. This is a process that began around thirty-nine million years ago in an Asian species of prosimian that underwent a contraction in the base of its skull and a declination of its brain stem. This produced the first degree of neural straightening and cranio-facial contraction in the simians. Twenty-three million years ago, at least one African species of small gibbon-like simians underwent further contraction and declination. This produced the second degree of neural straightening. The embryonic dorsal cord was almost vertical among many species of great apes, remaining so until adulthood. This was presumably the case, at least, with respect to Australopithecus (4.5–1.977 mya).43 Thereafter the process accelerated, at an unprecedented rate. The lowered cerebellum and straightened brain stem is that of Homo sapiens, which Linnaeus named in 1758 and which emerged in East Africa 160,000 years ago. The evolutionary trajectory follows the straightening of the dorsal cord, but during the first stages of verticalization there was no dramatic accompanying increase in brain volume. Cranial volume is thus no longer the benchmark, or rubicon. The benchmark is, in fact, the straightening of the skull base.

***

The trajectory of evolution from the first primates to Homo sapiens is defined by the increasing complexity of the nervous system. But this process was not gradual and not limited to the cerebral hemispheres. Neural embryogenesis increased in complexity, while the supporting tissues that would become the skeleton were transformed. Hence the thresholds and angular discontinuities. This is the process at the origin of neural straightening, in particular that of the cerebellum.

***

Considering the relevant parameters, it appears that Homo embryogenesis could not have been derived from australopithecine embryogenesis:
The earliest angular values of the embryonic contraction (the accordion phase) of the Homo base are identical with those of australopithecines.

As can be seen in Paranthropus, further evolution of the australopithecine skull base occurred 1.8 million years ago (mya), separately, in eastern Africa (Paranthropus boisei) and South Africa (Paranthropus robustus), exhibiting a maximal embryonic accordion-like compression.

The Homo and sapiens embryonic thresholds are separated by at least 3 million years.

***

In Homo sapiens, the connections between the cerebellar and cerebral neocortex are known, and it appears they participate in high-level cognitive functions, for example memory, dexterity, language, and reflection. Gestures such as walking and grasping become conscious with psychomotor development.

The great novelty here is the sudden change in posture of the cerebellum, and a new neuronal complexity; the cerebellum had to control its own balance.

Comment: this article presents that preparation for H. sapiens began over 23 million years ago in the base of the skull. I note another area of research in my book, The Atheist Delusion , on page 258 which notes lumbar vertebral changes in a monkey 23 million years ago in preparation for upright posture. Pre-planning. God in control.


> dhw: Here is an alternative explanation for the weaverbird's nest: early birds had the intelligence to realize it would be safer to make their homes in trees, and they used the available materials to build simple nests. The weaverbird has a particular flair for intelligent design, and his nest is therefore a lot more complex. It is not unusual in Nature for different species to come up with variations of greater or lesser complexity. They use what may be their God-given intelligence to work out their own solutions to problems.-Neat just-so story. Did Wally Weaver really need something so complex, which takes great time and energy? Perhaps he was the Frank Lloyd Wright of bird architects. No efficiency here.
> 
> “He doesn't work that way” suggests you know how he works! ..... I have offered a different interpretation of the way God may work. What is wrong with that? If God exists, every attempt to explain the nature of our world has to be an attempt to understand his intentions and his methods.-But you want very specific intents and I prefer to draw with a broad brush.
> 
> dhw: According to you, evolution has proceeded in accordance with what your God wanted, and so the concept of live creatures eating other live creatures was his invention. (In passing, I didn't know lions had the freedom of will and/or action to become vegetarian if they wanted to.)-Their guts and metabolism are built for meat, I'm sure/-> dhw: You have given me your explanation, and so I will simply express my surprise and regret that he could not have found a less horrific means of balancing Nature.-I admire that you are a softy at heart. Have you become a vegan ? That would be consistent with your wishes for carnivorous evolution.


> dhw: Perhaps there is a stage missing from this exchange. ...you said losing four toes means a loss of information. What does that have to do with the horse's autonomous ability to switch itself from pentadactyl to unidactyl? (And, in parenthesis, why bring "information" into the discussion?)-Loss or deletion of information is an easier task than gaining or inventing information which is a problem is evolution, searching among trillion protein molecules to find the right ones for the function desired.-> DAVID: Of course birds know how to build their own style of nest. The issue is how they developed that knowledge, weaver or otherwise.
> 
> dhw: So are you saying that other birds were able to design their own nests, but weaverbirds needed God's private tuition? -Neat twist of my words. I've simply said all birds know how to build their own. How they learned initially is the separate issue. We have no answer. The weaver nest is exceptionally complex, a woven bag with the entry at the top, so it becomes a prime example of the general issue, an extreme case to make the point.-> dhw: That's good news for the weaverbird, except that there is a direct contradiction you have not seen, or prefer not to see, in my analysis. The weaverbird was God's evolutionary goal, but God's only evolutionary goal was humans.
> 
> DAVID: I ignored that point, since it is patently obvious you are poking fun.
> 
> dhw: I am not poking fun. It is essential to your anthropocentric view of evolution that God “guided” it towards humans. I am suggesting that perhaps you might have misinterpreted what God was doing.-Very likely. What you have done in our conversation is to demand that we delve into God's methods, looking at His most intimate operative details in producing evolution. I can only make the most simple of guesses, following my general and I think logical conclusion that if I accept evolution, and I have, God guided it. You want to understand God's methods exactly before you decide to accept Him. He doesn't work that way.
 
> DAVID: The dinosaurs also had plant eaters. Lions don't nibble the savanna's grass. Meat eating is built in to some, plants to others. Humans make choices as free will omnivores or haven't you noticed.
> 
> dhw: I have noticed. And I have noticed that some animals are vegetarian and some are carnivorous and some are both. I have also observed that life is possible without carnivorousness, and so - with my theist hat on - I do not wonder WHETHER your God invented the horrors of carnivorousness, but WHY.-Another example of your attempt to justify every aspect of the bush of life to fit your form of logic, before moving forward to some type of conclusion. You have just questioned God's motives. We might as well discuss why terrorists kill people. By your lights God could forbid it and stop them. I think lions have free will or at least freedom of action. And back balance of nature, it works best with both herbivores and carnivores. Wolves have been re-introduced to parts of the American West because the balance was way out of whack.


> Bbella: There are ancient pictographs and rock glyph's showing man coexisting with dinosaurs.-Where? Do you have pictures?

Nobody has to eat anybody. Meat-eating is not essential to life. I've often wondered why your God would deliberately have invented the sheer horror of carnivorousness. -I wondered the same. ->I'm not sure that dinosaurs would agree with your criteria for ”improvement” or indeed how they served the purpose of providing a food supply for humans since we weren't around at the time.-There are ancient pictographs and rock glyph's showing man coexisting with dinosaurs.->But perhaps you are assuming that a leg of lamb is more nourishing than a leg of brontosaurus.

DAVID: You don't see the point. Many mutations cause a loss of information. Losing four toes is such a loss. Evolution works tis way, so the horses may have done it on their own.
> 
> dhw: No, I don't see your point. Whether the modification is a loss or gain, it still requires cooperation among the cell communities in their response to the environment. (And I would call the loss of four toes “the loss of four toes”, not “a loss of information”.) -You still don't understand information. Each toe requires information for its existence and that information disappears when the toe does. In this case phenotypic information. 
> 
> dhw: Birds build nests, but they don't actually know how to build nests? This leads straight to the unanswered question which was the whole point of my response here: “So are you saying that other birds (like, say, pigeons) have been intelligent enough to produce their own simpler variations, and only the weaverbird needed God's private tuition (or computer programme)?”-Of course birds know how to build their own style of nest. The issue is how they developed that knowledge, weaver or otherwise.
> 
> dhw: IF humans were the goal right from the start, they would certainly have required guidance, but according to you not even the weaverbird could build its nest without “guidance”, so the weaverbird must also have been the goal. In fact, apart from minor modifications like the horse's hoof, ALL innovations, complex lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant required God's “guidance”, and yet his only goal was humans.
> DAVID: I see nothing wrong with your analysis.
> 
> dhw: That's good news for the weaverbird, except that there is a direct contradiction you have not seen, or prefer not to see, in my analysis. The weaverbird was God's evolutionary goal, but God's only evolutionary goal was humans.-I ignored that point, since it is patently obvious you are poking fun.->> DAVID: Somebody has to eat somebody. The current animals are a vast improvement over dinosaurs. What is wrong with losing 99% to create progress in evolution? What is here is complicated enough and there is just so much room for life on Earth.-> 
> dhw: Nobody has to eat anybody. Meat-eating is not essential to life. I've often wondered why your God would deliberately have invented the sheer horror of carnivorousness. -The dinosaurs also had plant eaters. Lions don't nibble the savanna's grass. Meat eating is built in to some, plants to others. Humans make choices as free will omnivores or haven't you noticed.

DAVID: ...The hoof is an onboard modification of an existing body form. I can see epigenetics playing a role here. 
> 
> dhw: The onboard modification of existing forms still requires the cooperation of cell communities as they respond to the environment (which as I understand it is the basis of epigenetics). You have avoided actually saying yes, but I'll take this as meaning that proto-unidactyl horses were free and able to vary an existing pattern by themselves,...-You don't see the point. Many mutations cause a loss of information. Losing four toes is such a loss. Evolution works tis way, so the horses may have done it on their own.-> 
> DAVID: The nest on the other hand requires intricate design of an object. I think that needs intelligent planning.
> 
> dhw: Most birds build nests, and even the most complex weaverbird apartment block is a variation on the pattern, like the horse varying the pattern of the foot.-Not the same as explained.-> dhw:You have rightly pointed out that cells do not have brains, and cellular intelligence is still controversial, but there is no controversy over the problem-solving intelligence of certain birds.-They solve simple problems, not specialized nest building.-> 
> dhw: IF humans were the goal right from the start, they would certainly have required guidance, but according to you not even the weaverbird could build its nest without “guidance”, so the weaverbird must also have been the goal. In fact, apart from minor modifications like the horse's hoof, ALL innovations, complex lifestyles and natural wonders extinct and extant required God's “guidance”, and yet his only goal was humans.-I see nothing wrong with your analysis.-
> dhw:I'm afraid I have always had great difficulty figuring out how the lost 99% of species, lifestyles and natural wonders - have served merely to provide a food supply for us humans. I can see why you understand my doubts.-Somebody has to eat somebody. The current animals are a vast improvement over dinosaurs. What is wrong with losing 99% to create progress in evolution? What is here is complicated enough and there is just so much room for life on Earth.

DAVID: OK. We agree. Now, do organisms arrive at this ability on their own through evolution. I believe it was implanted.
> 
> dhw: The ability is the autonomous inventive intelligence, and I have always accepted the possibility that God “implanted” it. Your argument (with nebulous modifications, as below) has always been that organisms do not have the ability at all: either God has to preprogramme the innovations, or he has to dabble.-You seem to forget that we have discussed an inventive mechanism many times in the past.-> 
> dhw: We have argued over and over again about the meaning of “guidelines”. I am trying to find out what degree of individual inventiveness you will accept, if any at all. We both accept natural and environmental limitations, and you say your God establishes the patterns (e.g. the prototype appendages). So is it possible in your estimation, without evasion, that God left the horse with the freedom to develop its own unidactyl hoof, and the weaverbird to design its own nest?-The nest and the hoof are not equivalent. The hoof is an onboard modification of an existing body form. I can see epigenetics playing a role here. The nest on the other hand requires intricate design of an object. I think that needs intelligent planning. If God guides evolution as I propose, I don't know why I have to define how much guidance for you. I've said I don't know, but to get humans as the goal, there has to be guidance. We humans are not required by environmental pressures. Our development is well beyond necessity.
 
> DAVID: Let the goading continue! I am not blinkered. I simply don't see things as you do. You are still insisting that evolution follow your logic.-> dhw:... whereas you have a fixed belief. .... I see the higgledy-piggledy bush, which you struggle to explain, and I ask how this fits in with the “arrow of purpose” you think you can see, and I suggest that the lack of neatness might mean God did not have your “arrow of purpose”. And so I look for other possible explanations.-I don't see a lack of neatness. I've explained to you the balance of nature, to fit the issue of food supply. Someone eats the platypus, etc. I'm sure God knew what he was doing, but in your position I can understand your doubts.


> dhw: I have pointed out over and over again that my hypothesis is NOT a response to challenges, which would be adaptation, but the quest for improvement (the same as your drive to complexity) which leads organisms to find new ways of exploiting their (changed) environment.-OK. We agree. Now, do organisms arrive at this ability on their own through evolution. I believe it was implanted.
> 
> dhw; I asked if by “partial” you meant that “your God stuck the first limbs on the protowalker and then gave all subsequent organisms the freedom to develop their own versions”. You replied “Yes, that is my concept.... You replied: ”I've accepted the possibility of individual inventiveness to some degree, but not to the extent you are proposing.” This is a very evasive reply.-Not at all. I believe in pattern planning as I have described over and over. But not evasive, they may be allowed a degree of modification of the basic pattern.
> 
> dhw: And I must say in all honesty that it is both expected and accepted. We tend to goad each other, which is fun and sometimes illuminating. But we can stop beating about the evolutionary bush for a moment and face the brutal fact that while I can afford to be direct, because I have no faith at stake, you need such evasions.-To me, I am not evasive. In my mind the outline I see for theistic evolution to reach humans, it requires guidelines. I fully understand your position on the picket fence. -> dhw: Individual inventiveness means autonomous intelligence, the very thought of which is anathema to you.-No it doesn't. As long as the individual inventiveness follows certain guidelines and limits, I'm happy. You want total autonomy for the inventiveness because it fits your seat on the picket fence-> dhw: ... In response to my point that dead dinosaurs etc. did not fit in logically with your anthropocentrism, you have responded: “They are illogical to you, not to me. That is a major difference. You want everything neatly as you would have planned it. However, you are not God.” Quite right. I need hardly point out to you that you are not God either, and so each of us with our blinkers (you) or myopia (me) can go on groping through the darkness and goading each other!-Let the goading continue! I am not blinkered. I simply don't see things as you do. You are still insisting that evolution follow your logic.


> dhw: Not “of course brains appeared”, but new conditions enabled existing organisms to use their intelligence inventively. The sticking point is whether they have that kind of intelligence. ...If organisms used the new chance conditions inventively, their innovations were not by chance. .... it's a case of organisms using the new environment for their own purposes.-You are now proposing, perhaps inadvertently, a sort 'drive to complexity theory' like mine. Darwin proposed changes or adaptations due to challenges. Many Darwinists still view evolution this way, but we have discussed fossil series leading to current organisms for no apparent reason than advancing complexity. 
> 
> dhw: So if horses were free to work out their own unidactyl variation, let's see how far we can go. -I don't know if hoofed animals did this one their own. Deer use two fingers. it is part of a developmental pattern, as other patterns I've described.->dhw: If God exists, yes, I can certainly see purpose in his bringing us into existence.-Good.-> dhw: There is, however, no need to assume that it was his intention right from the start and the whole of evolution was geared to us. But you cannot bear the thought of your God experimenting, or not knowing what he was doing, or going wrong, so you would rather put up with the illogicality of dead dinosaurs and waddling platypuses and zillions of lifeless solar systems.-They are illogical to you, not to me. That is a major difference. You want everything neatly as you would have planned it. However, you are not God.


> dhw: My hypothesis is based on the idea that organisms respond to (but do not predict) changes in their environment.-We all accept this simple premise.-> dhw: This is known to happen with adaptation. I take it one (giant) step forward, and apply the same process to innovation.... Yes, the Cambrian is an unexplained mystery of colossal proportions, but I do not see my hypothesis (not a belief) as any more unlikely than yours (a belief) or Darwin's.-And the sticking point is the colossal Cambrian. Innovation from nothing to brains in 10 million years, noting that some extra oxygen appeared, is a wild bit of wishful thinking. Your logic: The living use oxygen for energy, brains need lots of energy, so of course brains appeared. Yes a giant illogical step.-> 
> dhw: This is more hopeful. If horses had the freedom to develop their own unidactyl variation, maybe some fish worked out how to survive on dry land, and maybe insects, birds, molluscs and vertebrates worked out their own varieties of senses, appendages and lifestyles,...That would explain the huge variety we find in the evolutionary bush, wouldn't it? Organisms following their own evolutionary paths. -I've accepted the possibility of individual inventiveness to some degree, but not to the extent you are proposing. 
> 
> dhw: Your argument appears to be that humans are here, and therefore humans are the overall purpose, while everything else either is or was here but I shouldn't ask why. So long as I don't ask why your hypothesis doesn't seem reasonable, your hypothesis is reasonable to the point of being "obvious". However, your questions are indeed the major ones that gave rise to this website in the first place. If there is a God, I agree that there has to be a purpose behind his creation of life. If there is no God, we can only make our own purposes. The difference here is that I don't know if God exists and you think you do. But when I put on my theist hat and consider the history of evolution, the difference between us is that I can see a variety of choices relating to God's purpose, whereas you can only see one: the production of humans (which in any case is only half a purpose, the other half of which would be the reason for producing humans).-Excellent summary. But note, if one goes back six/million years we see roughly the same animals and plants we see now. Little is changed except the appearance of highly sentient humans. Relative stasis except for the human line. I see purpose in that. I understand you don't. But you are glad to be here, I'm sure.