Darwin & Wallace (Evolution)
We have left humans, dogs and oxytocin behind, hence the new thread.-dhw: We believe evolution began when single cells combined. Bacteria survived, but the new forms led to improvement. DAVID: I don't think you mean what the sentence says. There was evolution among the first single cells. Archaea came first. Multicellularity came after cyanobacteria and common bacteria appeared in many species.-Thank you for the correction. -DAVID: I don't believe in his [Darwin's] theory. [DAVID, 21 September: I accept evolution. I have my own theory as to how it works.] dhw: I presume you mean you do believe his theory of common descent, but you do not believe his theory of gradualism and random mutations. DAVID: Yes, I accept evolution through a form of common descent.-The distinction is important. You believe in parts of Darwin's theory, and you do not believe in other parts. Me too.-DAVID: The concept of evolution was bandied about for most of the century before Darwin. He did not invent the concept that we evolved. dhw: That does not invalidate the theory. DAVID: His theory doesn't explain evolution. He popularized the idea as a chance mechanism while Wallace, who did most of the observation work for him at least recognized the probable need for design. I simply accept the probability of evolution because of the fossil record following a progressive time line. dhw: Darwin was travelling the world, observing species and working on his theory long before he knew Wallace. He joined HMS Beagle in 1831, when Wallace was eight years old! In fact it wasn't until 1858 that Darwin realized through their correspondence that Wallace was coming to the same conclusions as himself! Origin was published in 1859. This is not a very fruitful line of discussion, is it?-DAVID: Yes it is. You know they had much correspondence up to 1858. if I'm correct, Darwin did just three years of observation, Wallace many more. And Darwin finally got around to publishing in 1859 to beat Wallace to the punch. I must repeat, Darwin popularized the concept of evolution, a theory which had been around for years. The method of evolution he proposed has never been proven, and remains a tenuous hypothesis to this day. You've agreed to not accepting chance mutation and natural selection. What is left of his proposal is common descent, nothing else.-I don't know what you are referring to by “three years of observation”, and the claim that Wallace “did most of the observation work for him” is probably libellous! Darwin spent most of his life “observing”. The Beagle adventure lasted 5 years, and as you will see from the article I am about to post, he had already conceived his theory of “natural selection as the cause of evolution” by 1838 - when Wallace would have been 15. You and I have agreed, however, (a) that natural selection is not the CAUSE of evolution; and (b) that the method he proposed is dubious. However, I have not rejected natural selection - only the creative powers Darwin and others attribute to it. Natural Selection remains an important element of the theory in so far as it sums up the process that leads from innovation (the real driving force) to the survival or extinction of species. The theory of common descent as Darwin presented it created a furore at the time. You and I and millions of others now take it for granted. Its acceptance is his triumph. In Origin, Darwin acknowledges Wallace several times, along with dozens of other “observers”. That is what we call research. However, your posts have set me googling, and I have found an account of the events that led up to the joint presentation of their work on natural selection in 1858. I find it very revealing and also very moving, and I hope it will give you a rather more sympathetic view of Darwin. It's too long to reproduce here, and so I'll post it separately.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell 
, Wednesday, September 30, 2015, 14:41 (3343 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: In Origin, Darwin acknowledges Wallace several times, along with dozens of other “observers”. That is what we call research. However, your posts have set me googling, and I have found an account of the events that led up to the joint presentation of their work on natural selection in 1858. I find it very revealing and also very moving, and I hope it will give you a rather more sympathetic view of Darwin. It's too long to reproduce here, and so I'll post it separately.-I admit some of my historical facts were fuzzy, but over the years Wallace did much more on-site observation than Darwin. And my favoritism for Wallace is caused by the fact that he is the Father of intelligent Design in an historical sense. The 100th anniversary of his death in 2013 brought out all sorts of stories which I looked at and realized how important his contributions were. I hadn't heard of him before which surprised me. Darwin was upper class and Wallace not. Did that contribute?-Back to Darwin: All I have is evolution by common descent, method unproven. And I think it was guided, as the only explanation for the jumps in complexity that were not required by natural forces at play. Bacteria did not need multicellularity, and apes did not need upright posture and big brains. These appeared without environmental pressure. Therefore the best interpretation of evolution is that there is a built in drive to complexity, as I stated in my first book. Since such an impetus reasonably does not appear by chance, I have accepted design and guidance.
Darwin & Wallace
DAVID: I admit some of my historical facts were fuzzy, but over the years Wallace did much more on-site observation than Darwin. And my favoritism for Wallace is caused by the fact that he is the Father of intelligent Design in an historical sense. The 100th anniversary of his death in 2013 brought out all sorts of stories which I looked at and realized how important his contributions were. I hadn't heard of him before which surprised me. Darwin was upper class and Wallace not. Did that contribute?-I understand very well why you prefer Wallace to Darwin - obviously a theist would prefer a theistic evolutionist to an agnostic evolutionist. But I hope the article will have removed some of your misconceptions about Darwin and about the connections between the two of them. DAVID: Back to Darwin: All I have is evolution by common descent, method unproven. And I think it was guided, as the only explanation for the jumps in complexity that were not required by natural forces at play. Bacteria did not need multicellularity, and apes did not need upright posture and big brains. These appeared without environmental pressure. Therefore the best interpretation of evolution is that there is a built in drive to complexity, as I stated in my first book. Since such an impetus reasonably does not appear by chance, I have accepted design and guidance.-Tony would probably disagree, since he rejects evolution, but for those of us who accept Darwin's theory of common descent, there can be no doubt that evolution is powered by a built in drive to complexity, and I am certainly not going to argue in favour of chance. But “did not need” is not an argument for divine guidance or, above all, your anthropocentrism. Only adaptation, not innovation, was needed if organisms were to survive environmental change. And so if the chain runs from bacteria to humans, the drive to complexity - I used the term “improvement” - explains every single additional attribute that birds, insects, fish and animals (including humans) have developed throughout the history of life. Not one of them was “needed”. And not one of Nature's Wonders was “needed”. So one can hardly single out the upright posture and big brain of humans as if somehow they were an exception just because they were not “needed”.-In so far as your acceptance of design relates to the inbuilt drive - which might be equated with an autonomous, inventive intelligence - then our hypotheses coincide. But once we get on to the divine design of every single innovation, natural wonder and individual lifestyle, all for the purpose of producing and/or feeding humans, my scepticism exceeds even that towards Darwin's theory of random mutations.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Thursday, October 01, 2015, 14:31 (3342 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: I understand very well why you prefer Wallace to Darwin - obviously a theist would prefer a theistic evolutionist to an agnostic evolutionist. But I hope the article will have removed some of your misconceptions about Darwin and about the connections between the two of them.-It did. > > dhw: But “did not need” is not an argument for divine guidance or, above all, your anthropocentrism. Only adaptation, not innovation, was needed if organisms were to survive environmental change. And so if the chain runs from bacteria to humans, the drive to complexity - I used the term “improvement” - explains every single additional attribute that birds, insects, fish and animals (including humans) have developed throughout the history of life. Not one of them was “needed”. And not one of Nature's Wonders was “needed”. So one can hardly single out the upright posture and big brain of humans as if somehow they were an exception just because they were not “needed”.-I interpret the process of natural selection as a response to environmental pressures, i.e., challenges which appear that may adversely affect survival of a given type of organism. The organism responds with adaptations, mostly likely epigenetic. Fine so far, but with this approach we still don't see a way to new inventive speciation, only improvement of an existing species. The 'drive to complexity' is apparent when looking at evolution's history. I combine these two thoughts: the 'drive' somehow creates new species at a time when the environment does not seem to require the improvement in complexity. Bacteria are one prime example, humans another as arrivals against need. -Advances require new genetic information. Information cannot be generated by chance or by materialistic naturalism. Therefore, guided evolution becomes my choice. > > dhw: In so far as your acceptance of design relates to the inbuilt drive - which might be equated with an autonomous, inventive intelligence - then our hypotheses coincide.-You may not think so, but an 'autonomous inventive intelligence' begs for a source. Not by chance, not out of thin air. Once again, origin of life and evolution are intimately connected. They cannot be separated. First life had to have the built in drive to complexity, or please explain it.-> dhw: But once we get on to the divine design of every single innovation, natural wonder and individual lifestyle, all for the purpose of producing and/or feeding humans, my scepticism exceeds even that towards Darwin's theory of random mutations.-Skeptical or not, a drive to complexity may create a bunch of odd twigs on the bush of life, but still achieve the goal of humans; perhaps the drive did not need the direct intervention of God's dabbling to produce the oddities. The thought gives me a different answer about the dabbling issue. Thank you for the stimulation.
Darwin & Wallace
dhw: But “did not need” is not an argument for divine guidance or, above all, your anthropocentrism. Only adaptation, not innovation, was needed if organisms were to survive environmental change. And so if the chain runs from bacteria to humans, the drive to complexity - I used the term “improvement” - explains every single additional attribute that birds, insects, fish and animals (including humans) have developed throughout the history of life. Not one of them was “needed”. And not one of Nature's Wonders was “needed”. So one can hardly single out the upright posture and big brain of humans as if somehow they were an exception just because they were not “needed”.-DAVID: I interpret the process of natural selection as a response to environmental pressures, i.e., challenges which appear that may adversely affect survival of a given type of organism. The organism responds with adaptations, mostly likely epigenetic. Fine so far, but with this approach we still don't see a way to new inventive speciation, only improvement of an existing species. The 'drive to complexity' is apparent when looking at evolution's history. I combine these two thoughts: the 'drive' somehow creates new species at a time when the environment does not seem to require the improvement in complexity. Bacteria are one prime example, humans another as arrivals against need.-If you reread my post, you will see that you have simply expanded on my point that “only adaptation, not innovation, was needed if organisms were to survive environmental change”. However, here you give humans as a “prime example”, whereas elsewhere you have used the “need” argument to suggest that humans are the exception and indeed the purpose. My point, once more, is that EVERY innovation, whether related to humans or not, was “against need”, and so that argument offers no justification for your anthropocentrism.-DAVID: Advances require new genetic information. Information cannot be generated by chance or by materialistic naturalism. Therefore, guided evolution becomes my choice.-Our dispute has always been over the nature of the guidance. See below.-dhw: In so far as your acceptance of design relates to the inbuilt drive - which might be equated with an autonomous, inventive intelligence - then our hypotheses coincide.-DAVID: You may not think so, but an 'autonomous inventive intelligence' begs for a source. Not by chance, not out of thin air. Once again, origin of life and evolution are intimately connected. They cannot be separated. First life had to have the built in drive to complexity, or please explain it.-Over and over again I have conceded the possibility that the autonomous inventive intelligence was your God's invention. I am an agnostic. The discussion between us has always concerned how evolution itself has progressed, and I have pitted this form of “guidance” against your “guiding”, 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or dabbling as an explanation for the whole higgledy-piggledy history of extinctions and what you call the “odd twigs”, which would include every non-human innovation, lifestyle, nest and natural wonder. dhw: But once we get on to the divine design of every single innovation, natural wonder and individual lifestyle, all for the purpose of producing and/or feeding humans, my scepticism exceeds even that towards Darwin's theory of random mutations. DAVID: Skeptical or not, a drive to complexity may create a bunch of odd twigs on the bush of life, but still achieve the goal of humans; perhaps the drive did not need the direct intervention of God's dabbling to produce the oddities. The thought gives me a different answer about the dabbling issue. Thank you for the stimulation. -This is where you have to decide whether the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle, the wasp's egg-laying required your God's preprogramming/dabbling or not. “Guidance” won't do. If we follow your hypothesis, God did it and it was part of his plan for humans; if you follow mine, the prototype weaverbird/monarch/wasp did it for their own purposes, using their (possibly God-given) intelligence. And if you opt for the latter, you open the door to all the innovative complexities being the product of that same (possibly God-given) intelligence. The thanks are reciprocated. These discussions have arisen out of the marvellous array of scientific articles that you provide us with, and long may the exchanges continue!
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Friday, October 02, 2015, 14:13 (3341 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw:If you reread my post, you will see that you have simply expanded on my point that “only adaptation, not innovation, was needed if organisms were to survive environmental change”. However, here you give humans as a “prime example”, whereas elsewhere you have used the “need” argument to suggest that humans are the exception and indeed the purpose. My point, once more, is that EVERY innovation, whether related to humans or not, was “against need”, and so that argument offers no justification for your anthropocentrism.-You are missing my point, and perhaps I'm not expressing it well: evolution advances by speciation, and we are not sure simple epigenetic adaptations result in speciation. Therefore if new species arise when 'need' is not there, to my way of thinking this is why a God-guided process is required. Theistic evolution, a form of Tony's view, is my view.-> dhw: Over and over again I have conceded the possibility that the autonomous inventive intelligence was your God's invention. I am an agnostic. The discussion between us has always concerned how evolution itself has progressed, and I have pitted this form of “guidance” against your “guiding”, 3.8-billion-year computer programme and/or dabbling as an explanation for the whole higgledy-piggledy history of extinctions and what you call the “odd twigs”, which would include every non-human innovation, lifestyle, nest and natural wonder.-Your view wants to give some credence to God in control, but not completely in control. He has the power to fully control if He cooked up this life-permitting universe, and your approach does not tell us where the new genetic information needed for new species comes from. > > dhw: This is where you have to decide whether the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle, the wasp's egg-laying required your God's preprogramming/dabbling or not. “Guidance” won't do.-I don't have to decide, and guidance will do, because I don' see how species arrive for no good reason of need. > > dhw: The thanks are reciprocated. These discussions have arisen out of the marvellous array of scientific articles that you provide us with, and long may the exchanges continue!-As long as I can think to counter your objections.
Darwin & Wallace
dhw:If you reread my post, you will see that you have simply expanded on my point that “only adaptation, not innovation, was needed if organisms were to survive environmental change”. However, here you give humans as a “prime example”, whereas elsewhere you have used the “need” argument to suggest that humans are the exception and indeed the purpose. My point, once more, is that EVERY innovation, whether related to humans or not, was “against need”, and so that argument offers no justification for your anthropocentrism.-DAVID: You are missing my point, and perhaps I'm not expressing it well: evolution advances by speciation, and we are not sure simple epigenetic adaptations result in speciation. Therefore if new species arise when 'need' is not there, to my way of thinking this is why a God-guided process is required. Theistic evolution, a form of Tony's view, is my view.-Your first point is the same as mine: speciation advances by innovation, not by adaptation. We do not know how or why this happened, since there was no need for ANY innovation. If you are now dropping your oft repeated argument that “no need” bolsters your case for humans as God's purpose, I shall be delighted. If you think “no need” bolsters the case for guidance, we are back to the question of what sort of guidance. The ‘autonomous inventive mechanism' does not preclude God - it merely precludes God's preprogramming or direct creation of all the innovations, lifestyles, ‘odd twigs' and natural wonders that make up life's history. -DAVID: Your view wants to give some credence to God in control, but not completely in control. He has the power to fully control if He cooked up this life-permitting universe, and your approach does not tell us where the new genetic information needed for new species comes from.-We are not discussing your God's power - though according to you, he probably doesn't control the environment - but the way he chooses to exercise his power. My approach entails organisms using their (God-given?) intelligence at cellular level to process the information from the environment and alter themselves accordingly, instead of your God altering them directly or preprogramming them to do so 3.8 billion years ago. Nobody knows how it works (I agree with your chemistry professor), and that is why we come up with our different hypotheses. -dhw: This is where you have to decide whether the weaverbird's nest, the monarch's lifestyle, the wasp's egg-laying required your God's preprogramming/dabbling or not. “Guidance” won't do.-DAVID: I don't have to decide, and guidance will do, because I don't see how species arrive for no good reason of need.-Quite right, you don't have to. Badly phrased. You can remain agnostic on the question. However, once we accept that there is a drive to complexity or “improvement”, we look at the Turellian theory that humans are God's purpose for this drive, and we ask why God would need to personally design the weaverbird's nest or - if we want to focus on species - the long extinct Jabberwockus Carrolliensis in order to produce or feed humans. And, with my theist hat on, I can't help feeling it doesn't add up. Whereas the idea that the prototype weaverbird designed its own nest, regardless of the need to produce/feed humans, seems to me to make more sense. -dhw: The thanks are reciprocated. These discussions have arisen out of the marvellous array of scientific articles that you provide us with, and long may the exchanges continue! DAVID: As long as I can think to counter your objections.-I'm sure you will do so, if only because you are as stubborn as me!
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Saturday, October 03, 2015, 15:36 (3340 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: Your first point is the same as mine: speciation advances by innovation, not by adaptation. We do not know how or why this happened, since there was no need for ANY innovation. If you are now dropping your oft repeated argument that “no need” bolsters your case for humans as God's purpose, I shall be delighted. If you think “no need” bolsters the case for guidance, we are back to the question of what sort of guidance.-I really have no way of knowing what sort of guidance, nor do I care. Since there are huge gaps in the fossil record and I believe in theistic evolution, God may well have produced each jump in speciation.-> DAVID: I don't have to decide, and guidance will do, because I don't see how species arrive for no good reason of need. > > dhw: Quite right, you don't have to. Badly phrased. You can remain agnostic on the question. However, once we accept that there is a drive to complexity or “improvement”, we look at the Turellian theory that humans are God's purpose for this drive, and we ask why God would need to personally design the weaverbird's nest or - if we want to focus on species - the long extinct Jabberwockus Carrolliensis in order to produce or feed humans. And, with my theist hat on, I can't help feeling it doesn't add up. -Your analytical brain won't let loose. We humans are here against all odds. Life is a wildly convoluted bush of lifestyles. So? We ARE HERE. That fact is not all explained by Darwin. I see purpose. You see confusion. And when you approach God and ignore purpose, your 'theistic brain' gets all muddled, in my view. That is your problem when you try to be theistic. We do not know if God's logic is 'our' logic. Try looking for purpose.
Darwin & Wallace
DAVID: I really have no way of knowing what sort of guidance, nor do I care. Since there are huge gaps in the fossil record and I believe in theistic evolution, God may well have produced each jump in speciation.-God producing each jump in speciation = creationism, as opposed to evolution. That's a big jump in the evolution of Turellian thinking, though it is neatly balanced by your response on 1 October to my scepticism: “...perhaps the drive did not need the direct intervention of God's dabbling to produce the oddities. The thought gives me a different answer about the dabbling issue. Thank you for the stimulation.” Well, fortunately, you care enough to have written two brilliant books on the subject, and to have kept this website buzzing for nearly eight years, so don't switch off now! DAVID: Your analytical brain won't let loose. We humans are here against all odds. Life is a wildly convoluted bush of lifestyles. So? We ARE HERE. That fact is not all explained by Darwin. -Of course my analytical brain won't let loose. I opened this website because I am looking for explanations The brontosaurus was also here against all odds, and the duck-billed platypus is here now against all odds, and I find that the explanations offered by atheistic Darwinism as epitomised by Richard Dawkins, and theistic evolutionary anthropocentrism as epitomised by David Turell, are full of huge gaps which I try to point out. I'm afraid your “So?” does not fill the gaps.-DAVID: I see purpose. You see confusion. And when you approach God and ignore purpose, your 'theistic brain' gets all muddled, in my view. That is your problem when you try to be theistic. We do not know if God's logic is 'our' logic. Try looking for purpose.-The only purpose you have offered me so far is the production of humans. But with my hypothetical theistic hat on, I have several times suggested a hypothetical purpose that fits in with the higgledy-piggledy history of life on earth, but then I am told not to try and read God's mind! Once more: God, in his infinite boredom, created an autonomous, inventive mechanism for life, reproduction and evolution, to provide himself with some entertainment. Unpredictability is essential to entertainment - we'd soon walk out of the show if we knew exactly what was coming. So no plan, he just let it all happen. He could intervene if he felt like it, though, to beef things up a bit. Humans would certainly provide more variety than, say, brontosauruses munching the grass for 160 million years. He may have walked out already, or he may still be watching...-How does this compare to God personally designing the brontosaurus, the duck-billed platypus, the weaverbird's nest and the monarch's lifestyle in order to produce or feed humans, and then hiding himself behind a curtain of quantum uncertainty? Perhaps it might help if you told us what you think was God's purpose in producing humans.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Sunday, October 04, 2015, 23:53 (3339 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: I really have no way of knowing what sort of guidance, nor do I care. Since there are huge gaps in the fossil record and I believe in theistic evolution, God may well have produced each jump in speciation. > > dhw: God producing each jump in speciation = creationism, as opposed to evolution. That's a big jump in the evolution of Turellian thinking, though it is neatly balanced by your response on 1 October to my scepticism: “...perhaps the drive did not need the direct intervention of God's dabbling to produce the oddities. The thought gives me a different answer about the dabbling issue. Thank you for the stimulation.” -It is not a big jump in Turellian thinking. I've always thought of the process as theistic evolution, and yes, as I've noted before, I am a form of creationist.-> dhw:I find that the explanations offered by atheistic Darwinism as epitomised by Richard Dawkins, and theistic evolutionary anthropocentrism as epitomised by David Turell, are full of huge gaps which I try to point out. I'm afraid your “So?” does not fill the gaps.-These are gaps you create by your analysis. Why do I have to explain how God did it? We see common descent and we see the pinnacle of evolution as complex humans. We also see the challenges of nature do not require humans. For me it is an easy jump to presume that God guided evolution to create humans, and not worry why the weaver bird nest is so complex. > > DAVID: I see purpose. You see confusion. And when you approach God and ignore purpose, your 'theistic brain' gets all muddled, in my view. That is your problem when you try to be theistic. We do not know if God's logic is 'our' logic. Try looking for purpose. > > dhw: The only purpose you have offered me so far is the production of humans...... Perhaps it might help if you told us what you think was God's purpose in producing humans.-Simple. God is sentient. He wanted sentient beings to converse with, to relate to Him. As you do, I can imagine God's wishes. I really doubt He did his out of boredom.
Darwin & Wallace
dhw: I find that the explanations offered by atheistic Darwinism as epitomised by Richard Dawkins, and theistic evolutionary anthropocentrism as epitomised by David Turell, are full of huge gaps which I try to point out. DAVID: These are gaps you create by your analysis. Why do I have to explain how God did it? We see common descent and we see the pinnacle of evolution as complex humans. We also see the challenges of nature do not require humans. For me it is an easy jump to presume that God guided evolution to create humans, and not worry why the weaver bird nest is so complex.-The challenges of nature do not require the weaverbird's nest either, and you have said that it is too complex for the bird to have designed. It had to be “guided” by your God. You use this simple example to argue against the alternative concept of organisms other than humans and, to a lesser degree, their fellow animals having an autonomous intelligence of their own. If I then ask why God would specifically guide the weaverbird when his intention was to produce humans, I don't think I am "creating" a gap. However, perhaps I am opening a can of worms for your hypothesis. If the nest is not relevant to the production of humans, might it not mean that your God did indeed give organisms the wherewithal to do their own designing? If so, and you add that to your view that God did not control the environment, evolution will begin to look more and more like a free-for-all than the planned or “guided” process you have made it out to be. The gaps in your hypothesis create space for mine.-dhw: The only purpose you have offered me so far is the production of humans...... Perhaps it might help if you told us what you think was God's purpose in producing humans. DAVID: Simple. God is sentient. He wanted sentient beings to converse with, to relate to Him. As you do, I can imagine God's wishes. I really doubt He did his out of boredom.-Loneliness, then? Need for love? I'm not sure how the conversation (though we can hardly converse with him as equals) is meant to work when according to you he deliberately keeps himself hidden, but it is true that many people think they are in contact with him. The consequences of this assumed contact vary from comfort and good deeds to mass murder, but that may be attributed to our autonomous intelligence. The dichotomy is strangely reflected in Nature, where at even the lowest levels of life we find a mixture of cooperation and competition, construction and destruction, survival and extinction...But you would have us believe that humans are different: only humans have the autonomous intelligence to pursue these choices as they wish, whereas God “guides” other organisms to go one way or the other.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Monday, October 05, 2015, 14:05 (3338 days ago) @ dhw
edited by David Turell, Monday, October 05, 2015, 14:17
> dhw: The challenges of nature do not require the weaverbird's nest either,-And how do you know this?-> dhw: If the nest is not relevant to the production of humans, might it not mean that your God did indeed give organisms the wherewithal to do their own designing?-Again you avoid my contention that balance in nature is critical. Everyone has to eat. Ask Australians about their imbalance! I think the nest may well be relevant on that basis. And look at this article about invasive species messing things up:-http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/10/151003135017.htm-"Goldenrod, Himalayan balsam, Chinese windmill palm: three plants, one problem. All are native to continents other than Europe, but were introduced to Switzerland as garden or ornamental plants. At some point they "escaped" into the wild, where they now threaten the native flora.-"This phenomenon isn't limited to Switzerland: biological invasions happen on every continent every day. A major driver of this is global trade, which is increasingly shifting to the internet and being conducted on auction platforms like eBay. As a result, one click is all it takes to spread potentially invasive plants from continent to continent -- and unintentionally encouraging biological invasions."-> dhw: If so, and you add that to your view that God did not control the environment, evolution will begin to look more and more like a free-for-all than the planned or “guided” process you have made it out to be.-I've only said that I don't know if God controls the environment or asteroids. I have no way of knowing. -> > dhw: Loneliness, then? Need for love? I'm not sure how the conversation (though we can hardly converse with him as equals) is meant to work when according to you he deliberately keeps himself hidden, but it is true that many people think they are in contact with him.-Like your boredom approach, my invented suggestion only points out the silliness of trying to read God's mind, which silliness you are now portraying! See your statement below.-> dhw: The consequences of this assumed contact vary from comfort and good deeds to mass murder, but that may be attributed to our autonomous intelligence. The dichotomy is strangely reflected in Nature, where at even the lowest levels of life we find a mixture of cooperation and competition, construction and destruction, survival and extinction...But you would have us believe that humans are different: only humans have the autonomous intelligence to pursue these choices as they wish, whereas God “guides” other organisms to go one way or the other.-I've never said the more sentient organisms don't have freedom of action.
Darwin & Wallace
dhw: The challenges of nature do not require the weaverbird's nest either,-DAVID: And how do you know this?-You wrote: “We also see the challenges of nature do not require humans.” You use this as an argument for your anthropocentrism but, as we keep reminding each other, the challenges of nature did not require anything beyond bacteria. ALL innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., including the weaverbird's nest, from bacteria onwards were therefore not required by the challenges of nature. dhw: If the nest is not relevant to the production of humans, might it not mean that your God did indeed give organisms the wherewithal to do their own designing? DAVID: Again you avoid my contention that balance in nature is critical. Everyone has to eat. Ask Australians about their imbalance! I think the nest may well be relevant on that basis. And look at this article about invasive species messing things up [...]-Balance in nature is critical for what? Long before humans started interfering with nature, every major and minor extinction was the result of natural changes in the balance, and you don't even know “if God controls the environment or asteroids”. However, if you truly believe God deliberately designed the nest and the millions of past and present wonders in order to balance nature so that he could produce/feed humans, then I can only explain to you why such anthropocentrism stretches my own credulity way beyond its limits, which is why I try to explore alternative explanations for evolutionary variety and history.-You criticized my suggestion that evolution might be a free-for-all, and you wrote: “I see purpose. You see confusion....Try looking for purpose.” The only purpose you had mentioned was the production of humans, so I asked you what was the purpose of producing humans.-DAVID: Simple. God is sentient. He wanted sentient beings to converse with, to relate to...I really doubt He did this out of boredom. dhw: Loneliness, then? Need for love? I'm not sure how the conversation (though we can hardly converse with him as equals) is meant to work when according to you he deliberately keeps himself hidden, but it is true that many people think they are in contact with him.-David: Like your boredom approach, my invented suggestion only points out the silliness of trying to read God's mind, which silliness you are now portraying! See your statement below.-I'm sorry you now regard your answer as silly. As a theist, how can you possibly conduct a search for purpose without trying to read God's mind? Why is it not silly to believe that God designed the weaverbird's nest and a billion other organisms, lifestyles and natural wonders because what he had in his mind was to produce/feed humans, and yet it is silly to ask why he might have wanted to produce humans? Please tell me what other purpose you want me to look for without trying to read God's mind. -dhw: The consequences of this assumed contact vary from comfort and good deeds to mass murder, but that may be attributed to our autonomous intelligence. The dichotomy is strangely reflected in Nature, where at even the lowest levels of life we find a mixture of cooperation and competition, construction and destruction, survival and extinction...But you would have us believe that humans are different: only humans have the autonomous intelligence to pursue these choices as they wish, whereas God “guides” other organisms to go one way or the other. DAVID: I've never said the more sentient organisms don't have freedom of action. I have included the “lowest levels of life”, which you insist have no freedom but have been programmed by your God to follow the same patterns - all apparently because they are necessary to fulfil God's purpose of producing/feeding humans (though it is silly to try to read God's mind).
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Tuesday, October 06, 2015, 20:06 (3337 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: ALL innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., including the weaverbird's nest, from bacteria onwards were therefore not required by the challenges of nature.-Then why did it happen? Chance or underlying drive for complexity. 'Drive' appears most likely. Where did that come from? Again chance seems very unlikely. tniks is why I see purpose. > > dhw: Balance in nature is critical for what? -Survival. Everyone has to eat.-> dhw: However, if you truly believe God deliberately designed the nest and the millions of past and present wonders in order to balance nature so that he could produce/feed humans, then I can only explain to you why such anthropocentrism stretches my own credulity way beyond its limits.-But if we accept that humans appeared without demands of nature, as you now say you do, I have to ask why they appeared. All I can see is purpose, not accident, because it took too many purposeful modifications to leave 'monkeydom' over a 20 million year period when he first lumbar modifications began.-> dhw: As a theist, how can you possibly conduct a search for purpose without trying to read God's mind? ..... Please tell me what other purpose you want me to look for without trying to read God's mind.-I can't see any other purpose than humans. Nothing else makes sense. > dhw: I have included the “lowest levels of life”, which you insist have no freedom but have been programmed by your God to follow the same patterns - all apparently because they are necessary to fulfil God's purpose of producing/feeding humans (though it is silly to try to read God's mind).-I repeat, nothing else makes sense. It is the only purpose I see. Why are we here? It is like 'why is here anything?'
Darwin & Wallace
dhw: ALL innovations, lifestyles, natural wonders etc., including the weaverbird's nest, from bacteria onwards were therefore not required by the challenges of nature. DAVID: Then why did it happen? Chance or underlying drive for complexity. 'Drive' appears most likely. Where did that come from? Again chance seems very unlikely. This is why I see purpose.-As always, you pointed out that the challenges of nature did not require humans, and as always I pointed out that the challenges of nature did not require the weaverbird's nest either, since bacteria did not NEED to evolve into other organisms. You now switch back to chance, which we both dismiss, and to the drive for complexity, which we both accept. The purpose of this, you say, is to maintain the balance of nature, which is critical. -dhw: Balance in nature is critical for what? DAVID: Survival. Everyone has to eat.-Let me get this straight. You “can't see any other purpose than humans. Nothing else makes sense.” So God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder from bacteria onwards to ensure that the balance of nature would enable humans to be produced and to eat. However, prior to the arrival of humans he continually changed the balance of nature (extinctions) so that millions of these innovations, lifestyles and wonders would be eliminated, even though he only designed them to enable humans to be produced and to eat. Furthermore, we don't know how much control he had over the environment, which is a key factor in the balance of nature, although the balance of nature was and is essential for his one and only purpose of producing and feeding humans. And it is “silly” to try and read God's mind, but you have read his mind because his intention in designing all the innovations, lifestyles and wonders, extant and extinct, could only have been to produce/feed humans. -I'm glad the above makes sense to you. Try this for a theistic hypothesis: God created an autonomous inventive mechanism which would allow cells to produce a vast variety of life forms in their quest for survival and/or improvement. Changes in the environment allowed for a continual stream of extinctions and innovations. Different forms of life dominated at different times. Currently the dominant form - if one discounts bacteria, which have survived from the earliest days - is humans, whose intelligence far exceeds that of all other known species. We have no idea what might happen during the next few billion years. It is “silly” to try and read God's mind, so we cannot know why he created the autonomous mechanism in the first place. Does that make sense or not?
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Wednesday, October 07, 2015, 20:42 (3336 days ago) @ dhw
dhw: Let me get this straight. You “can't see any other purpose than humans. Nothing else makes sense.” So God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder from bacteria onwards to ensure that the balance of nature would enable humans to be produced and to eat. However, prior to the arrival of humans he continually changed the balance of nature (extinctions) so that millions of these innovations, lifestyles and wonders would be eliminated, even though he only designed them to enable humans to be produced and to eat.-No, everyone who evolved on the way to humans had to eat. That is obvious. Balance of nature was required all along.-> > dhw: I'm glad the above makes sense to you. Try this for a theistic hypothesis: God created an autonomous inventive mechanism which would allow cells to produce a vast variety of life forms in their quest for survival and/or improvement. Changes in the environment allowed for a continual stream of extinctions and innovations. Different forms of life dominated at different times. Currently the dominant form - if one discounts bacteria, which have survived from the earliest days - is humans, whose intelligence far exceeds that of all other known species. We have no idea what might happen during the next few billion years. It is “silly” to try and read God's mind, so we cannot know why he created the autonomous mechanism in the first place. Does that make sense or not?-Make it a semi-autonomous IM and it makes sense to me.
Darwin & Wallace
dhw: Let me get this straight. You “can't see any other purpose than humans. Nothing else makes sense.” So God designed every innovation, lifestyle and natural wonder from bacteria onwards to ensure that the balance of nature would enable humans to be produced and to eat. However, prior to the arrival of humans he continually changed the balance of nature (extinctions) so that millions of these innovations, lifestyles and wonders would be eliminated, even though he only designed them to enable humans to be produced and to eat.-DAVID: No, everyone who evolved on the way to humans had to eat. That is obvious. Balance of nature was required all along.-The balance of nature was needed so that they could eat, but when the balance of nature changed, they couldn't eat and so they died, which shows that they were all necessary for the balance of nature which was necessary for the production and feeding of humans, who arrived millions of years later. I'm afraid I still find it very confusing. -dhw: I'm glad the above makes sense to you. Try this for a theistic hypothesis: God created an autonomous inventive mechanism which would allow cells to produce a vast variety of life forms in their quest for survival and/or improvement. Changes in the environment allowed for a continual stream of extinctions and innovations. Different forms of life dominated at different times. Currently the dominant form - if one discounts bacteria, which have survived from the earliest days - is humans, whose intelligence far exceeds that of all other known species. We have no idea what might happen during the next few billion years. It is “silly” to try and read God's mind, so we cannot know why he created the autonomous mechanism in the first place. Does that make sense or not?-DAVID: Make it a semi-autonomous IM and it makes sense to me. -We'd need to define semi-autonomous in relation to the nature and degree of your God's participation, which you like to gloss over as “guidance”. But no matter how you define it, I'm glad you now appear to agree that we cannot know why God created an IM in the first place, and so it is “silly” to say his purpose was to produce humans.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Thursday, October 08, 2015, 14:43 (3335 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: The balance of nature was needed so that they could eat, but when the balance of nature changed, they couldn't eat and so they died, which shows that they were all necessary for the balance of nature which was necessary for the production and feeding of humans, who arrived millions of years later. I'm afraid I still find it very confusing.-Evolution advanced to humans because everyone along the way could eat. Not confusing. food supply is food supply. > > DAVID: Make it a semi-autonomous IM and it makes sense to me. > > > dhw: We'd need to define semi-autonomous in relation to the nature and degree of your God's participation, which you like to gloss over as “guidance”. But no matter how you define it, I'm glad you now appear to agree that we cannot know why God created an IM in the first place, and so it is “silly” to say his purpose was to produce humans.-Your two thoughts don't follow logically. A semi-automatic IM has created all sorts of wonders of nature while guiding evolution to humans.-And pre-planning takes a role in this if you have noted my latest article about algae.
Darwin & Wallace
dhw: The balance of nature was needed so that they could eat, but when the balance of nature changed, they couldn't eat and so they died, which shows that they were all necessary for the balance of nature which was necessary for the production and feeding of humans, who arrived millions of years later. I'm afraid I still find it very confusing. DAVID: Evolution advanced to humans because everyone along the way could eat. Not confusing. food supply is food supply.-And evolution advanced to the dead trilobite and triceratops, and the living wasp and spider, and the weaverbird's nest, and the duck-billed platypus, and we have no idea what else it will advance to in the next few billion years. The balance of nature provides food for them until it changes, and then food supply is no longer food supply and they disappear. 3.8 thousand million years of nature changing its balance - you can't tell us if God controlled that - and of millions of weird and wonderful creatures and lifestyles “guided” by God, appearing and disappearing, just to produce humans (not possible without dead trilobites and triceratops) and provide food for us (we can't eat without the weaverbird's nest or wasp eggs on a spider's back). My belief is beggared! -DAVID: Make it a semi-autonomous IM and it makes sense to me. dhw: We'd need to define semi-autonomous in relation to the nature and degree of your God's participation, which you like to gloss over as “guidance”. But no matter how you define it, I'm glad you now appear to agree that we cannot know why God created an IM in the first place, and so it is “silly” to say his purpose was to produce humans.-DAVID: Your two thoughts don't follow logically. A semi-automatic IM has created all sorts of wonders of nature while guiding evolution to humans.-Alternative hypothesis: An autonomous IM (possibly designed by your God) has created all sorts of wonders of nature while guiding evolution to create parasitic wasps, nest-building weaverbirds,the duck-billed platypus and humans plus xyz times millions, leaving behind trilobites and triceratops plus xyz times millions. (And if we can't read God's mind, it's still "silly" to claim you know his intention for designing the IM.) DAVID: And pre-planning takes a role in this if you have noted my latest article about algae.-Alternative hypothesis: The autonomous IM (possibly designed by your God) within the algae found a way of adjusting itself to life on land and to forming a symbiotic relationship with the fungus. That is how intelligence works: it either finds ways to adapt or it dies. And that is how evolution works, as intelligent cells cooperate with one another to adapt or to create new forms.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Friday, October 09, 2015, 22:10 (3334 days ago) @ dhw
DAVID: Evolution advanced to humans because everyone along the way could eat. Not confusing. food supply is food supply. > > dhw: The balance of nature provides food for them until it changes, and then food supply is no longer food supply and they disappear. 3.8 thousand million years of nature changing its balance - you can't tell us if God controlled that - and of millions of weird and wonderful creatures and lifestyles “guided” by God, appearing and disappearing, just to produce humans (not possible without dead trilobites and triceratops) and provide food for us (we can't eat without the weaverbird's nest or wasp eggs on a spider's back). My belief is beggared!-Stop equating the bush of life as an unreasonable relationship for 'survival by eating' so evolution could proceed. So it is a strange bush. I don't know why it came out that way, but it doesn't matter. We humans are here for no good reason except to produce us, so we could think about all of this. I still look at 'why' we are here and you keep looking at 'how'. Try both as I do. >> > DAVID: Your two thoughts don't follow logically. A semi-automatic IM has created all sorts of wonders of nature while guiding evolution to humans. > > dhw: Alternative hypothesis: An autonomous IM (possibly designed by your God) has created all sorts of wonders of nature while guiding evolution to create parasitic wasps, nest-building weaverbirds,the duck-billed platypus and humans plus xyz times millions, leaving behind trilobites and triceratops plus xyz times millions. (And if we can't read God's mind, it's still "silly" to claim you know his intention for designing the IM.)-There is plenty of evidence for pre-planning, which may be the IM we have been discussing. :-"From The Evolution Revolution by physicist Lee Spetner:-"The proximate biochemical signal evoking the change in beak shape [of Galapagos finches] has been discovered to be a protein growth factor Bmp4. The more Bmp4 that is made, the broader and deeper is the bird's beak. This protein acts as a signal to the development of the craniofacial bones which determines the beak's shape. If my suggestion is correct that the hormones triggered by environmental inputs affect embryonic development, then those hormones induce these growth factors to form the finch beak….The built-in mechanism of the NREH [Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis] enables the bird population to adapt to a new environment quickly and efficiently without having to call upon the slow and wasteful neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection. p. 76-"Note from reader:-"Spetner's Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis proposes that certain genetic traits lie dormant within the genomes of various living things until environmental cues turn them on and they appear in the next generation. In other words, living things are front loaded with a host of options which allow for rapid and specified adaptations for various enviroments. There is neither chance nor selection in this process. Moreover, it also accounts for the rapid return of smaller finch beaks when the drought ceases. It points towards exquisite design and accounts for the variability of Darwin's finches without invoking the confusions of natural selection. If mutations are random, why is it that thicker, larger beaks appear reliably with every drought on the Galapagos Islands? Why don't longer tail feathers or unusual colors appear? If natural selection works slowly and imperfectly, why are the changes in beak size so rapid? If the mutations are embedded in the genomes of the birds, why do they disappear so quickly when conditions change?"-http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/lee-spetner-on-darwins-iconic-finches/
Darwin & Wallace
DAVID: Stop equating the bush of life as an unreasonable relationship for 'survival by eating' so evolution could proceed. So it is a strange bush. I don't know why it came out that way, but it doesn't matter. We humans are here for no good reason except to produce us, so we could think about all of this. I still look at 'why' we are here and you keep looking at 'how'. Try both as I do.-You admit that you don't know “why” the bush came out that way, but you say the “why” doesn't matter. Then you complain that I don't look at “why” we are here, i.e. why the bush produced us! It is you who refuse to look at “why”! And even when I followed the theistic “why humans?” line and suggested it might be to entertain a bored God, you offered the alternative that he wanted someone to converse with, and when I pointed out that it was difficult to converse with someone who kept himself hidden, you remarked that it was silly to try and read God's mind! I have also proposed that the reason “why” the bush produced us and the duck-billed platypus and the rest of all species extant and extinct is the drive of all organisms for survival and/or improvement. But that is not the “why” you want to hear. I also look at the how, and propose an autonomous inventive mechanism, possibly designed by your God. DAVID: There is plenty of evidence for pre-planning, which may be the IM we have been discussing. : "From The Evolution Revolution by physicist Lee Spetner: [...]-Just like the video you recommended, this is an attack on the theory of random mutations, which you and I have long since rejected, and which has been under fire since I don't know when. Pre-planning and the IM as I understand them are not the same thing at all. The IM is what enables each organism to work out in its own way how to adapt or, in my hypothesis, improve in accordance with the demands or opportunities offered by a changing environment. It absolutely does not entail God putting instructions (= pre-planning) into each organism on how to adjust the size of its beak, build its nest, lay its eggs, navigate thousands of miles, spin silk etc. etc.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Saturday, October 10, 2015, 14:58 (3333 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: You admit that you don't know “why” the bush came out that way, but you say the “why” doesn't matter. Then you complain that I don't look at “why” we are here, i.e. why the bush produced us! -The bush provided food to allow evolution to produce us through God's guidance. The bush did not produce us, but was a necessary part of the process. The bush is a side event to the drive to complexity built-in to the evolutionary process-> dhw: And even when I followed the theistic “why humans?” line and suggested it might be to entertain a bored God, you offered the alternative that he wanted someone to converse with, and when I pointed out that it was difficult to converse with someone who kept himself hidden, you remarked that it was silly to try and read God's mind!-My offer of 'wanting to converse' was purposefully silly to make the point that you were obviously off on a silly tangent looking for God's superficial reasons. Frankly, as stated in the past, I have no idea why God did it, and like Adler I believe that the probability of God answering prayers is 50/50. We don't know.- > > DAVID: There is plenty of evidence for pre-planning, which may be the IM we have been discussing. : > "From The Evolution Revolution by physicist Lee Spetner: [...] > > dhw: Just like the video you recommended, this is an attack on the theory of random mutations, which you and I have long since rejected, and which has been under fire since I don't know when. Pre-planning and the IM as I understand them are not the same thing at all. The IM is what enables each organism to work out in its own way how to adapt or, in my hypothesis, improve in accordance with the demands or opportunities offered by a changing environment.-We are back to 50/50 here in a sense as in bacterial reactions. Pre-planning is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like an IM working.
Darwin & Wallace
dhw: You admit that you don't know “why” the bush came out that way, but you say the “why” doesn't matter. Then you complain that I don't look at “why” we are here, i.e. why the bush produced us! -DAVID: The bush provided food to allow evolution to produce us through God's guidance. The bush did not produce us, but was a necessary part of the process. The bush is a side event to the drive to complexity built-in to the evolutionary process. -Alternative version: the whole bush, including humans, is the event RESULTING from the drive to complexity built into the evolutionary process.-dhw: And even when I followed the theistic “why humans?” line and suggested it might be to entertain a bored God, you offered the alternative that he wanted someone to converse with, and when I pointed out that it was difficult to converse with someone who kept himself hidden, you remarked that it was silly to try and read God's mind! DAVID: My offer of 'wanting to converse' was purposefully silly to make the point that you were obviously off on a silly tangent looking for God's superficial reasons. Frankly, as stated in the past, I have no idea why God did it, and like Adler I believe that the probability of God answering prayers is 50/50. We don't know.-We can't know the purpose of humans because of what you call "the silliness of trying to read God's mind", but we do know the purpose of every other form of life, extant and extinct, from bacteria to trilobites, dinosaurs, mosquitoes, the duck-billed platypus, the weaverbird, and the parasitic wasp: to produce or feed humans. May I ask how we know THEIR purpose without reading God's mind?-DAVID: There is plenty of evidence for pre-planning, which may be the IM we have been discussing. : "From The Evolution Revolution by physicist Lee Spetner: [...]-dhw: Just like the video you recommended, this is an attack on the theory of random mutations, which you and I have long since rejected, and which has been under fire since I don't know when. Pre-planning and the IM as I understand them are not the same thing at all. The IM is what enables each organism to work out in its own way how to adapt or, in my hypothesis, improve in accordance with the demands or opportunities offered by a changing environment.-DAVID: We are back to 50/50 here in a sense as in bacterial reactions. Pre-planning is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like an IM working.-Alternative version: an autonomous intelligence is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like pre-planning.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Sunday, October 11, 2015, 14:37 (3332 days ago) @ dhw
> dhw: We can't know the purpose of humans because of what you call "the silliness of trying to read God's mind", but we do know the purpose of every other form of life, extant and extinct, from bacteria to trilobites, dinosaurs, mosquitoes, the duck-billed platypus, the weaverbird, and the parasitic wasp: to produce or feed humans. May I ask how we know THEIR purpose without reading God's mind?-I can't read His mind but I can see His obvious purpose: US > > DAVID: We are back to 50/50 here in a sense as in bacterial reactions. Pre-planning is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like an IM working. > > dhw: Alternative version: an autonomous intelligence is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like pre-planning.-When an autonomous intelligence made the genes what do you expect!
Darwin & Wallace
dhw: We can't know the purpose of humans because of what you call "the silliness of trying to read God's mind", but we do know the purpose of every other form of life, extant and extinct, from bacteria to trilobites, dinosaurs, mosquitoes, the duck-billed platypus, the weaverbird, and the parasitic wasp: to produce or feed humans. May I ask how we know THEIR purpose without reading God's mind?-DAVID: I can't read His mind but I can see His obvious purpose: US-Ugh, ugh, speak for yourself! Poor old dhw just cannot see why he couldn't get here or enjoy his chocolate without them thar dinosaurs, the weaverbird's nest and the duck-billed platypus.-DAVID: We are back to 50/50 here in a sense as in bacterial reactions. Pre-planning is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like an IM working. dhw: Alternative version: an autonomous intelligence is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like pre-planning.-DAVID: When an autonomous intelligence made the genes what do you expect!-I don't understand your answer. You say that cells are pre-programmed by God to act automatically, and I suggest that they may have an autonomous intelligence which may have been designed by your God.
Darwin & Wallace
by David Turell , Monday, October 12, 2015, 14:09 (3331 days ago) @ dhw
> DAVID: We are back to 50/50 here in a sense as in bacterial reactions. Pre-planning is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like an IM working. > dhw: Alternative version: an autonomous intelligence is seen in the genes, no question. From the outside it well can look like pre-planning. > > DAVID: When an autonomous intelligence made the genes what do you expect! > > dhw: I don't understand your answer. You say that cells are pre-programmed by God to act automatically, and I suggest that they may have an autonomous intelligence which may have been designed by your God.-Just make it 'autonomous intelligent information' and it works just fine. Codes=information always.