You say,"...natural evolution with occasional supernatural tweaking, ...".

Is cognition, thinking and intelligence reasoning capabilities considered apart of this "possible " supernatural?

The director of my question is not the topic of supernatural. But, the fact of cognition, thinking and intelligence reasoning capabilities does in fact have its hand in view of evolutionary processes.

A common story I have heard numerous times I paraphrase here: an animal in the wild that is "smart" enough to keep itself safe from predators is then capable of reproducing passing on its Gene's. The not so smart animal got caught and eaten before it could reproduce.

Or, the predator smart enough to catch its prey and not starve to death so it can reproduce or feed its young.

I know, smarts is not the only factor but it still plays its part in some situations.

Then, you get into D.N.A. being a form of intelligence itself. The intelligence of D.N.A. powered by chemical reactions creates life forms by its intelligence code.

@Word No I think that the term "directed evolution" as normally used, refers to an external probably supernatural intelligence. Though it is certainly true that intelligence and genetic evolution, will probably have effects on one another in naturally occuring feed back loops, but that is not included in the normal , or my in this case, definition of "directed evolution".

@Fernapple ...an external probably supernatural intelligence.

Considering the fact of cognition intelligence capabilities such as people and animals have: what would anything "supernatural" be if it didn't have intelligence cognition capabilities?

Natural is full of hierarchy. Size hierarchy of mass from a single atom or rock to largest black hole to cognition capabilities themselves being greater thru animals and observed in such as pecking order in some observations.

So, what then is the "most high" on the natural hierarchy continuum? I say the fact of cognition intelligence capabilities.

If something is above nature(supernatural)with out cognition, what is it? We have cognition capability and it is considered natural.

Just pointing out, biblical god of old testiment was like a cognition of the environment that wanted a "temple " body to have its cognition in. Cognition intelligence capabilities is viewed as natural phenomenon. Consider the small scale hierarchy cognition capabilities of the brainless slime mould. Then, think of a cognition intelligence capabilities operating across many multicellular organisms rather than a single celled organism.

@Fernapple or, let me ask the question: what seperation is there from observable nature cognition and something supernatural cognition?

Natural cognition hierarchy appears to be dependent upon mass, chemical reactions and physics.

Dead brain would not appear to have cognition.

So, this supposed super natural cognition is not dependent upon mass, chemistry and physics but supposedly interactions into the nature would give for natural observation of.

So, if we cannot "see" or observe this supernatural into natural interaction, what on the natural side of this purported interaction can we see in natural observation, if any thing?

If supernatural can think "taco" and we can think "taco" the information is the same.

@Word We can not see anything, that is the point.

@Fernapple where does the information of your thoughts that just pop into you thinking come from? Are you sure you can see all your thoughts are completely of natural causation?

@Fernapple is it an all natural meme organism as purported by illogical atheist Richard Dawkins and the precognative brain activity antecedent to your cognitive awareness as observed by illogical atheist Sam Harris.

Almost 2000 years ago, the biblical "philosophy " was viewed as recorded: for, “Who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ. 1 Corinthians 2:16

Jesus style natural meme organism or, it could be observation of supernatural into natural?

@Fernapple if sam Harris can show that all anticede brain activity occurs every time for all arbitrary stimuli , that may lean toward all natural causation.

I still think with mitochondrial dna being in cells along with dna in nuclei, I think we have possible 2 different cognition capabilities causation of natural sort.

That’s an interesting idea

@antman That's more in line with Eastern religions that the universe was created, existed, and then destroyed in an eternal cycle.
The Big Bounce is being worked on right now, and someday it'll probably replace the Big Bang.
When you think about it, it makes more sense than that the universe just exploded out of nowhere.

@Gwendolyn2018 Something quantum happened. When in doubt, blame quantum.

@Gwendolyn2018 It does. For every possible outcome, a different quantum universe must exist (the Everett-Wheeler-Graham many-worlds theory of quantum mechanics). If your tire goes flat, another quantum universe exists in which it did not go flat. All quantum events must happen, in a greater or lesser number of universes corresponding to the probablity of the measurable event happening. (And all events can be reduced to quantum measurements.) [en.wikipedia.org] There are, logically speaking, an almost infinite number of such universes, because of the near-infinity of events either happening or not happening. This extends to every decision we make; each choice produces a new set of universes.

To see this principle in action, I recommend reading Robert Anton Wilson's Schrodinger's Cat Trilogy. But not before reading the Illuminatus! trilogy, because the former has many references back to the latter which greatly add to one's appreciation of the story.

I've almost certainly badly misstated the physics involved, but, as it has been said, "If you think you understand quantum physics, you don't understand quantum physics."

@Gwendolyn2018 Quite right Parallel is a misnomer in the many worlds' theory in string theory, though the word does actually fit, the mathematical and geometrical connotations lead to confusion.
Para-universal or para-typical universes would be more appropriate, perhaps.

On the subject of "the Big Bounce" it is my opinion that there need never have been a "first" instance of a universe since "time" and hence cause and effect, are an in-universe phenomenon and combined with that the idea that since "nothing" is only a conceptual word describing an absence (in the same sense that cold and dark are) and for nothing to be something would be self cancelling ALL possible universes are existent concurrently not consecutively.

@Gwendolyn2018 To say if somebody gets a flat tire in this universe, someone DIDN'T get one in another universe, is so ridiculous it sounds like a joke, if it weren't being said with a straight face by someone citing quantum physics.

@Storm1752 Also, concrete, rock, steel, the ground we walk on, you and I are made of mostly nothing. All the atoms in everything consist of basically empty space with a few subatomic particles zooming around. If it weren't for electrical bonding effects everything would be nothing. But to say that sounds silly, so we rely on the evidence of our senses instead of physics.

@Gwendolyn2018 Aha, so it WAS a joke! Thank you.

@Gwendolyn2018 I want to make a joke about "electrical bondage" here, but I shall refrain.

@Paul4747 I need to remember these book recommendations. Are they heavy reads?

@antman They're somewhat long, but they read fast due to being comedy satires, Illuminatus! dealing largely with various conspiracy theories (and a fair bit of sex), and Schrodinger's Cat jumping between alternate quantum universes (in which the characters also have a fair amount of sex). There's also a lot of libertarian philosophy in both, and the first actually makes several predictions about the direction of society which have come depressingly true (increased surveillance, the renewed rise of fascism, people willing to surrender freedom in the name of security... and more).

@Paul4747 Excuse me for jumping in, but these "alternate universes" where I presume there are smoothly-functioning libertarian societies? Neither one of them is THIS universe, right?
Because if it were, and specifically on THIS planet, things would be even more screwed up than they already are, unless you know something I don't, which is entirely possible.
I mean, all the coercing we're doing--designed to stop US from doing bad things--doesn't seem to be working so well;
So if there were no laws at all? I don't even want to think about it...

@Storm1752 It's rather idealistic, admittedly. But no more so than those who believe the Free Market is the solution to all ills, etc. (Money per se is also abolished, in the most idealistic universe.)

On the other hand, some of it is quite sensible; for instance, defining drug offenses, polyamory, and homosexual sex (which, at the time, was illegal in many states) as merely "crimes against convention", with the "punishment" generally being telling whoever reported the "crime" to mind their own business.

@Paul4747 The Free Market, you mean laissez-faire capitalism? That IS a pure libertarian economy, isn't it? Which is what our fascist righties want and have been ceaselessly inching us toward forever, all the while screaming, "socialism" at the top of their lungs!
I'm all for libertarianism when if comes to personal choices (drugs, sex, etc.) but the food supply? The environment? Workplace safety?
A libertarian, laissez-faire economic system is exactly the OPPOSITE of what's needed, leading as it would to even MORE income inequality than we already have, if that's possible! Agreed?
Well, I know you've heard this all before. Besides, it has nothing to do with what we were talking about, which was how the universe came into being, IF it wasn't always here.
But you're right. As Ralph Waldo Emerson once famously said, "The best government is no government at all, and, when men are ready for it, that's the kind of government they shall have." Beautiful, idealistic words, and maybe that WILL happen someday. But if so, it'll be a long, long time from now in the distant, far off future.

@Storm1752 But we don't have a laissez-faire free market right now. We have a system rigged to benefit certain businesses and enterprises at the expense of others. A true free market would subject everyone to the exact same rules, instead of granting tax abatements to big-box retailers, imposing tariffs on some goods and not others, artificially subsidizing some businesses at the expense of others; frequently with good intentions, but horrible effects.

In a truly free market, "A" woud not operate with a constant advantage over "B", resulting in money flowing disproportionately in one direction.

The problem (one of the problems, for there are many) is that we have operated in this mixed socialist-capitalist system for so long that it's already rigged so that, even if we ended all corporate welfare tomorrow, there would still be huge disadvantages built in. BUT, and this is my point, they would be lessened.

There's also the issue of a worldwide race to the bottom of tax rates theoreticaly to attract businesses and jobs, but really just attracting shell companies; that's a whole 'nother topic, probably.

Asking if this type of system has always existed, since the first caveman sold a chipped piece of flint to his neighbor for a chunk of mammoth steak, is akin to asking if the universe has always been here...

@Paul4747 Yes, theoretically, IF everyone did the right and moral thing all the time, as Emerson said, we wouldn't need a government at all, no laws, no regulations, or police, armies, nothing. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way, as we both know.
For that matter, the ultra-rich would pay their fair share of the tax burden. A lot of things would be MUCH better IF a lot of things didn't require a referee to make sure everyone played by the same rules, including sporting events!
So libertarianism can only help by telling us what we already know: in a perfect world, if human nature was different, laissez-faire capitalism would be the right system. The mistake Republicans routinely make is to slash regulations indiscrinately (or at the behest of big donors), causing a lot of distortions in the market. If the regulations were fair, there'd be no problem.
Sure, sometimes regulations are manipulated to favor some at the expense of others, but that doesn't mean, get rid of regulations!
Some people look for simplistic solutions to complicated problems. If it WERE that simple, we would have done it a long time ago.