> dhw: By my theory the plover, just like humans, felt the need for a change of scenery and went exploring. It didn't set out to discover Hawaii. Once it had found a suitable place to live, like the terns it passed the information on.-You make a good travel agent. How did you supply the muscle power for the plover to fly over 3,000 miles over an uncharted ocean to have the plover find paradise? yours is a good non-answer.-> 
> dhw: ”The ability to migrate” is no more than the ability to move from one place to another. If there's winter or no food in X, the organism may look for summer or food elsewhere. The trigger, I would suggest, is not some special programme built into the first cells, but the need for survival. -You are ignoring that both the monarch and salmon go back to the same spot each migration. Not programmed, huh? -> dhw:Do you still insist that God preprogrammed the first cells with 40 different mechanisms to enable the E.coli to live happily ever after in your gut when you appeared 3.7 billion years later?-No, I think the E. coli was given basic genetic patterns in the beginning of its life and did some modest alterations of metabolism on its own. It also got some brotherly bacterial horizontal transfers to help out. God arranged for that transfer mechanism, remember? Horizontal transfers are part of the overall basic patterns.-> 
> dhw: You've forgotten that the plover didn't exist. Now apparently your God preprogrammed the first living cells not only to produce the plover and its mates, but also to give them all a compass.-So how do you explain the magnetic compasses in so many types of animals? Luck?-> 
> dhw: Which do you think would be harder for God? To provide the first living cells with a few billion programmes for every innovation from bacteria to humans,....or to provide the first living cells with mechanisms to do their own inventing as and when required?-I don't think God's programming ability is as weak as you seem to suppose. What is a major issue for your inventive proposals is the issue of 'search space' when looking for functional proteins to line up a sequence of cooperating molecules to create a new function or a new phenotype. A 100 amino acid protein (really a very small protein)has 10^700 shapes. Most enzymes which are necessary for every reaction are 1,200 amino acids or larger. I don't see how your fanciful IM's can do it without guidance.

dhw:I'm NOT suggesting the migratory lifestyle is by chance. This is your constant escape route. The whole point of the inventive mechanism hypothesis is that organisms deliberately devise new ways of coping with or exploiting the environment. You claim that God preprogrammed the first cells with a route map for every single migratory organism. I suggest that the organisms found their routes by themselves. (It remains open whether a god designed the inventive mechanism.)-Thank you for accepting that chance does not work. The terns follow coast lines. They might have figured it out and from habit patterns taught their DNA to pass it on to the chicks. But the plover had to discover the specks of Hawaii in the midst of the Pacific, and by your theory without preparation. I envision, which you can't seem to do, that the ability to migrate in general is a pattern, but the exact routes may have been worked in part by hunt and peck. Again the issue is general starting patterns, as Tony points out in computer programing, and then refinement. The IM refines. Tony explained this to you very clearly. I hope he comes back to help pound it home.
> 
> dhw: I am not disputing the idea of planning, but am suggesting that the E.coli worked out its own digestive mechanisms as and when needed, instead of God preprogramming them 3.7 billion years ago. You have not commented on the 3.7-billion-year scenario I have outlined above. Do you or do you not find such a hypothesis pretty absurd?-We are still at the same point. Wagner may be on to something in the protein search theory he has developed. It maybe that God incorporated such a search mechanism, but it had to contain information as to how to line up the molecules in order to carry out a function, since we know through Shapiro that organisms can modify their metabolism. Again, remember, all we know from DNA research at this juncture is how proteins are produced, what genes control what function, but we know nothing of how function is created. Lumber does not make a house function. It must have heat, water, electricity to function as a dwelling.
> 
> DAVID (under Review of Spetner): We are arguing autonomous vs. semiautonomous. I prefer the latter. That is our only difference.
> 
> dhw: The difference between us is indeed the degree of autonomy, and I would like to pin you down. For instance, in the case of the golden plover, you have argued that the “first” plover was incapable of knowing where Hawaii was or if it even existed. This means God must have put a route map in the very first cells. Please explain in concrete terms which part of its migration process is semi-autonomous. -I have no idea and neither do you how the plovers found it on their own, but my concept of the general pattern of migratory ability from the beginning allows for modifying routes later. Here's a way it could happen: God put a compass point into the plover. I've flown a route by compass during my flight lessons. It is easy if the plover can read the magnetic field ( and probably can). Think of all the animals I've pointed out that use a compass arrangement in travel. This is another initial pattern undoubtedly used in the first DNA programs. Once they found the islands, the establishment of instinct was easy. God does not do things the hard way.


> dhw: It is not beyond the bounds of credibility that for whatever reason the first tern got fed up with its environment and went off exploring (just as humans must have done).-You seem to forget that I used the tern in my book (chapter 8) to illustrate why natures wonders call guidance by God to mind. I was mixed up yesterday, but the tern flies from Arctic to Antarctic each year, the Golden Plover does the Alaska/Hawaii trip each winter. So the first bird just took off for warmer climes and kept flying until he found a nice spot thousands of ocean miles away, without any proper muscle or fat-storage preparation. It is beyond credibility which is why I used the fact. the entire chapter is beyond development by chance which is exactly what you are suggesting. -I repeat, migration is a part of the original patterns as life was programmed.
> 
>dhw: So 3.7 billion years ago your God designed 40 different mechanisms to enable the E. coli to enjoy life in the guts of animals that would appear a few billion years later, and this would provide a constant source of energy, much to the delight of the humans for whose benefit he created the E. coli in the first place. I wonder what Wagner (and victims of E. coli) will have to say about that hypothesis.-What Wagner says is that life has many survival mechanisms so as to defeat challenges. Backup systems are present, not just a single inflexible approach. It all looks planned to me.

David: No, there appears to be a specified complexity to require this life style. From that reasoning it appears designed to me. Designed by God or his proxy, the IM or NREH. I accept nothing else, because it makes no sense.[/i]
> 
> dhw: you're prepared to accept the possibility that the inventive mechanism designed it (hallelujah). That would indeed be progress, but your next paragraph shows that there has been no progress at all:
> 
> DAVID: I don't think the IM is in any way autonomous. I never have. That we have a 'partial glimmer' is true for current knowledge, but for my reasoning, semi-autonomy is all I can predict, based on the comments above.-What I have said in the past is more than likely God developed a pattern for migrating animals and they follow those patterns. Tony and I have both discussed this and it sets up an easy follow-up for modifications by an IM or an NREH.
> 
> Not "in any way autonomous" but maybe "semi-autonomous" (whatever that means) is another example of linguistic blurring. .... and you dismiss the idea that he could design an inventive mechanism with which migrating and non-migrating butterflies and birds might have worked out their own lifestyle.-I'll keep repeating a complex migration requires advanced planning. It requires a conscious mind to work it out. An IM works on established patterns with some modification. Tell me how the first Arctic Tern decided to winter in Hawaii. How did he/she even knew that Hawaii existed? If I could explain this naturally I would. I know you can't
> 
> dhw: You are right. The fact that organisms need food is obvious. I'm not sure why you felt the need to state the obvious.-Because the bushiness of life provides a constant source of energy throughout all sorts of environmental changes. Wagner points out that the lowly E. coli has about 40 different mechanisms to metabolize foods so as to handle all sorts of problems and changes. E. coli is that complex and more so, but all of that review later. I'm still working through his presentation.

dhw: But do you really believe that your God preprogrammed the very first cells so that billions of years and organisms later their descendants would produce two types of bird and butterfly to migrate or not migrate, irrespective of conditions? Is it not possible that each species in its own environment took its own decisions for its own particular reasons, and passed the lifestyle on to subsequent generations?-I won't repeat the very complex lifestyle of the monarch. Is it due to chance, law, or design? Considering the body changes, the long flight plan and the eating requirements (milkweed) chance seems entirely unreasonable. Does it follow a required law of nature? No, they could just as well live their entire lives in Mexico, as they thrive here in winter. If they originated in the USA and discovered Mexico why not make life easier and stay there? No, there appears to be a specified complexity to require this life style. From that reasoning it appears designed to me. Designed by God or his proxy, the IM or NREH. I accept nothing else, because it makes no sense.. 
> 
> dhw: I am not doubting that DNA imparts information and instructions. My point is that you use the terms “information” and “guidelines” to blur the issue of autonomy. The fact that we have only a “partial glimmer” should stop you from insisting that the scope of the IM is limited to minor adaptations.-I don't think the IM is in any way autonomous. I never have. That we have a 'partial glimmer' is true for current knowledge, but for my reasoning, semi-autonomy is all I can predict, based on the comments above. -> 
> dhw: Of course nature contains a vast number of organisms, and of course life requires energy, and of course they get it from one another. You have said that 99% of species that ever existed are now extinct. I don't know if the figure is correct, but it shows you that the bush and the balance keep changing as conditions change, climate and catastrophe being only two of the relevant factors. The latest is human intervention. Please tell me what you are trying to prove.-Only the point I keep repeating: everyone who is an animal needs to eat something. Plants need to thrive and supply needed nutrients to the animals. A very large bush is needed to provide that requirement. It is obvious. There is nothing more to the concept. By the way, the 99% lost species comment is what the literature presents.

dhw: Do you really believe that the decision to migrate is unconnected with changing climates and is simply the result of God preprogramming the first cells with two kinds of birds/butterflies (along with countless millions of other organisms and lifestyles) - migratory and non-migratory, regardless of conditions? Butterflies have been around for at least 40 million years. Do you think the climate has remained stable in all that time? (Parts of Mexico still have severe winters.)-What you seem to forget is that migration is not entirely related to climate. Turtles migrate around the Atlantic and return to Florida, salmon migrate back and forth from ocean to inland streams. Migration ability is part of the original patterns IMHO. And I don't think you know Mexico. I've toured all over and except for the high mountain ranges it is quite warm and tropical in many areas. 
> 
> dhw: Yesterday you agreed that no one knows how much autonomy the inventive mechanism might have. Today you're back to your adaptations prescribed by your usual nebulous “information” and “guidelines”. ... Do you not find the concept of the very first cells being preprogrammed with every single species (broad sense), innovation and “complex lifestyle” - along with all the information necessary to cover every environmental change that chance throws at them - just a teeny bit fanciful?-You are the one that does not understand 'information', which is not nebulous and is accepted by all Darwin and non-Darwin commentators. I've discovered that even Wagner has two brief sentences mentioning it, stating that the code contains the information needed to make phenotypes and function. I'll repeat this until you recognize that DNA imparts information and instructions, just like when you got your computer and set it up. That we have only a partial glimmer of all that information is very obvious from the current state of research.-> 
> dhw: Not “the” balance, but “a” balance. A balance is indeed required for life to continue, and that balance is constantly changing..... If we didn't have it, we wouldn't survive, whereas other organisms would. The history of life is the history of changing conditions, whereby some species survive and some don't, because there is no constant balance. What does that prove?-I realize I have not explained clearly that I view the balance in nature as requiring a vast number the organisms, both animal and plant. When I wrote about the need for life to have a constant supply of energy, I was pointing out that the top of the heap, humans, eat those that are not at the top, and those eat others below until one gets down to bacteria at the bottom. Plants of course don't eat each other, but there must be a large variety to supply animal needs. We don't make vitamin C, but the Royal Navy discovered the need to carry limes to take care of that, hence the nickname. There are many examples. The bush has purpose through balance. You keep looking at climate balance and catastrophic events and that is a side issue.


> dhw: Some birds and butterflies migrate and others don't, depending on the climate. Therefore the only basic pattern is the butterfly/bird deciding for itself whether to migrate or not, and deciding for itself where to go. In other words, your God provided the butterflies and the birds with an inventive mechanism which enabled them to create their own “complex lifestyle”, to be passed on to succeeding generations. -How do you know that God only developed generic butterflies, and not two kinds of butterflies, ones that migrate and ones that don't. Note that Mexico is mild. why should the monarchs fly north at all? 
> 
> dhw: You have left out the main thrust of my argument! I repeat: Unless it has been given ALL the information (preprogrammed) right at the very beginning to cope with or exploit (= adapt or innovate) every single conceivable environmental change, either it has to exercise its own inventiveness, or your God has to dabble.-That is the point of Spetner and my view: most of the information is on board from the beginning. An IM or NREH can provide adaptations as nature and environment challenge because they have the information and guidelines to do so. I'm accepting the idea that God doesn't have to dabble.-> dhw; My point here was that the balance of life argument is a tautology, which is a different subject. -You view the 'balance of life' issue differently than I do. Of course it goes in and out of balance, but the balance is required for life to continue. Tautological, not really, required since all but the highest forms eat or are eaten, and the lower forms must be available in proper ratios. -Still working on Wagner. He writes with broad knowledge of everything not really related, with a conversational tone that makes for easy perusing, and glibly ignores what he needs to ignore to declare that his approach is wonderful and will answer Darwin's dilemmas, faster mutation rates being the major problem faced. More later.

dhw: Step-wise evolution from basic patterns makes perfect sense, as do variations on basic patterns, but your scenario leaves out the environment.-I understand about environment. Of course it an other factors are involved.-> dhw: Are you now prepared to reconsider the statement quoted above, and accept the possibility that initially the creative mechanism of the monarch enabled it - unpreprogrammed and undabbled with - to create its own ”complex lifestyle”, to be passed on to succeeding generations?-I think it is best to state that a pattern of migration was established in the beginning of patterns for birds and butterflies. Each species then made its own adaptations of the exact routes, etc.
> 
> DAVID: And it is interesting that both come from very fundamentalist religious backgrounds. And they solve my issue of how complex the IM might be. Again it revolves around how much information is implanted in the beginning of life, and perhaps in early stages. And I think probably most of the information is implanted early, since latter developments (mutations) reduce information, while causing adaptation.
> 
> dhw: I don't think they have solved the issue at all, though you can try to gloss it over by focusing on the word “information”. If evolution proceeds through the interaction between organisms and their changing environments, the inventive mechanism will need to work out ways of dealing with new information from outside itself. -My focus on information is a key issue. Of course the organisms receive information about the environment. They respond using information in the genome.
 
> dhw: Yes, some type of balance is returned to or developed, but it may be a DIFFERENT balance, according to the conditions offered by the new environment, and when these conditions change again, you will again have disruption followed by a new balance, and so on till the end of life. What does all this prove? That if you don't have conditions conducive to certain forms of life, you won't have those forms of life. I'm afraid that won't get us to Stockholm-Nothing I read gets anyone to Stockholm. Wagner very briefly alludes to the fact that the code carries information, has no suggestion as to where it comes from. I'm about 1/3 through his book and gritting my teeth. He admits a 100 amino acid protein has 10^130 possibilities, in a search for new protein function but proceeds to show that there are patterns in the DNA which allow for the appearance of new protein function with simple DNA change. It is a masterful setup according to him, all arriving by chance of course. I'll give a review of what he glosses over in a few days. I don't speed read. My view so far is that he has found that a masterful amount of planning went into the genome.


> dhw: Your thinking is becoming harder and harder for me to follow. Clearly the bush is created by variations. However, you have discounted the possibility that the monarch could be an IM variation: “Complex lifestyles like the Monarch butterfly must be planned and designed. This cannot have come from a generic butterfly pattern. It is beyond the concept of an IM.”-Remember I'm still developing a coherent pattern of thought. In the Tony/ Spetner approach there are basic patterns produced initially. In the case of the monarch, one can suppose that basic pattern butterflies came first with migration as part of the pattern. Then the nuances of complicated migration added later by variation. That would fit the step-wise concept of evolution that Tony and Spetner endorse. And it is interesting that both come from very fundamentalist religious backgrounds. And they solve my issue of how complex the IM might be. Again it revolves around how much information is implanted in the beginning of life, and perhaps in early stages. And I think probably most of the information is implanted early, since latter developments (mutations) reduce information, while causing adaptation.-> dhw: I don't understand the relevance of “having life last for 3.8 billion years etc.” I'm sure this new theory must somehow make sense to you, so do forgive me if I am the one who is being obtuse, but perhaps you could formulate it a little more clearly?-I discussed it in my previous entry. Life requires balance to provide the energy for everyone and everything. Note the production of CO2 by animals and the use of it by plants who produce O2 and food. Note the many species who fill different niches to contribute to the balance, and the wolf/deer balance I introduced from Spetner. Some type of balance is returned to or developed, each time it is disrupted, because it is very necessary. It all has to do with energy production and consumption which life requires.

DAVID (17 November): I think that is the case. See the Spetner review.
> 
> dhw: Gratifying though it is to have converted you from “not at all” on Sunday to “I think that is the case” on Monday, I can't help wondering what you will believe on Tuesday.-Sunday: -> dhw: Then you must argue that all the species, extinct and extant, including the monarch butterfly, were necessary for the existence of humans.-> David: Not at all. I am accepting Tony's pattern approach as well as Spetner's which is similar to my pattern approach. Set the original stages in patterns, and let variation by the organisms supply the bushy look. -I have misled your thinking. My answer was obtuse. Under my thinking, much of the bush is created by variation from the original patterns. If the IM or the NREH is guided and controlled as I think, then monarchs were not completely planned in the beginning of life, but developed at the right moment in time again under implanted guidance in the genome. It is the balance in nature that is necessary to have humans as the custodians, as Genesis states, as well as having life last for 3.8 billion years until our arrival.
> 
> dhw: I'm also surprised that anyone could go less far than you in theorizing about the IM, since you believe it to be capable of nothing more than minor adaptations.-Once the basic patterns are established adaptations will make the bush, as pointed out by Tony, in his progressive computer program analysis. I agreed with that in the past as you noted then.-> 
> dhw: (Thank you for the review. I really appreciate the way you keep updating us on the latest research and publications - and I'm sure there are plenty of others who follow these posts of yours.)-Thank you.
> 
> dhw: Since the earliest forms of life were able to reproduce and must have contained the potential for evolution, it stands to reason that the information (I'd prefer to call it mechanism) for life and evolution must have been there at the beginning of life and evolution. But that doesn't mean God preprogrammed every conceivable innovation and millions of natural wonders right from the beginning!-Codes contain information. I don't know why you want to use the term mechanism. The information runs the mechanisms that create life and evolutions changes in phenotype. I'm into I'll repeat. God planned and created the basic patterns. The rest was later modifications of the basics. Pentadactyl limbs, livers, kidneys, lungs in all mammals as an example. -> DAVID: for me it is irrational to think amorphous energy somehow by chance organized itself into a constructive consciousness.[/i]
> 
> Of course it is. Just as irrational as energy having always had a constructive consciousness that came from nowhere and knew how to make universes and living cells before universes and living cells had ever existed.-Something started all of this. Why is there anything? There has to be a first cause which is capable of 'doing'. Amorphous energy cannot do anything, but exist.