dhw: You simply cannot compare these automatic actions to the planned strategies, complex engineering, inventiveness, efficient communications etc. that characterize both ant and human societies.-I'm simply showing you the power of unreasoned instinct. The ants are pure instinct.

dhw: Human babies also act instinctively (and a lot of our adult actions remain instinctive), so does this prove that human plans and strategies, engineering skills, inventions and meaningful communications are "all instinct"?-Human babies suckle instinctively. What does that prove? Your further discussion avoids our enormous intellect and consciousness. Very little of what we humans do after early childhood is instinct.

dhw: For further examples of ant intelligence, please read:
> 
> http://quotations.hubpages.com/hub/Intelligent_Ants-I've seen most of this ant work in action, and I still think it is all instinct.-> dhw: Won't you at least adopt an agnostic stance on the subject rather than keep repeating baseless assumptions?-Not baseless. you are ignoring my example of the newborn foal. No thought involved in suckling.

dhw: So let me ask you again whether you would accept that cells (and ants) are intelligent, with the proviso that your God invented their intelligence and occasionally guides it.-To repeat: God gave the cells and ants information and generally automatic responses to received information. This is not really intelligence. The ant looks for landmarks to find his way home to the nest. This has been shown. Does he automatically respond to the landmark or does he proceed with some thought? My guess is it is all automatic. He processed a memory of landmarks and responded to them to return. This is not intelligence. On the other hand, reported in the last couple days, orangutans appear to plan out the next day's travel. Higher organisms have a degree of intelligence, no doubt.


> dhw; So ants use information intelligently, but they are not intelligent. You have no idea how ants can make decisions and plan and implement strategies, but they are not intelligent. They are just wonderful. And smart. But smart does not mean intelligent.-Their built in responses are guided by existing intelligence in their DNA
> 
> dhw: But they do have the information which gives them the ability to solve problems, plan, adapt, communicate, invent etc. (not a bad definition of intelligence, is it?). -Automatically. Let me admit that I do not understand how instinct works, and neither does anyone else. When a newborn foal is born, it gets up on its feet and suckles within an hour. It can barely see but it finds a teat. I have no idea how DNA tells it to do that. Ants work at that same level. They are intelligently programmed. Nothing more.

dhw: note that you continue to ignore my questions about why one large ant decided to block the jaws of the mantis, and how other ants devised and implemented the strategy to decapitate the attacker. My point is that any organism that can solve problems, plan, innovate, adapt to different environments and situations has to be intelligent. That doesn't mean every organism has the same level or kind of intelligence as a human being!-It doesn't mean inteligence. It means the DNA has information given to it by intelligence. the cells and the ants use information. How thatmantis scenario developed I have no idea,but it falls under the subset of Natures Wonders forwhich i have gvien many examples, but not explanation. The point is life's forms can do wonders, and we should wonder why. How did they get that smart or were they given smarts.
> 
> dhw: The hypothesis of the intelligent cell (whether invented by your God or not) as the driving force of evolution seems to me to explain all the problems thrown up by Darwin's theory. You yourself have actually accepted the concept several times, with the proviso that your God invented it and sometimes guided it. But although you can find no rational argument to dismiss it, you still keep trying to do so. I wonder why.-The difference between us remains. I agree the cells act intelligently because they have been initially given information to use to solve problems. The issue is still where does the information come from? They do not develop that information on their own.

dhw: I also have information in my DNA which I inherited (i.e. I did not "initially develop it"). ...... But I know how to use the information I have, and that is why I am able to solve (some) problems, invent (a few) things, (sometimes) adapt to different environments and challenges. If I do so, I'm regarded as intelligent (at least by me), but if cells and ants do it, apparently they're not.-Apples and oranges. You can solve problems, plan, think through inventions. the ants and cells are not working at your level. You can't equate the levels.

dhw: I'm trying to understand why you think the ability to solve problems, invent useful organs, adapt to different environments and different challenges, shows that the cells and cell communities concerned have no intelligence of their own. -They have planted information in the DNA which allows them to follow certain paths. They know to use information. They do not initially develop the information.-
> 
> DAVID: Again, no. God put information into the DNA so it can take needed action. The intelligence is at the level of God. The new epigenetic findings show this.
> 
> dhw; I suspect that this does not mean quite what it says. Do new epigenetic findings really show that God put information into DNA? Or could it be that "you are assuming too much", and in fact new epigenetic findings only show that DNA acts intelligently?-You are correct. My answer is above. DNA follows the information it has.


> dhw: You seem to be suggesting that your God preprogrammed six different sets of cells to produce six different types of eye.-You are assuming too much. DNA has the ability to solve problems, such as producing useful sight, and in different organisms, depending on their environment, produces different results. My view of God is tahat He does not intervene much.-> dhw: , your only alternative is to believe that six different sets of cells acted independently and intelligently, whether God created their intelligence or not.-Again, no. God put information into the DNA so it can take needed action. The intelligence is at the level of God. The new epigenetic findings show this.


> 
>bbella: David, why is it, from your view, pre-programming is more likely to be the "man behind the curtain" or causation of similarities within differing species than say, something like Sheldrake's Morphic Field's?-Because the fields are a result of the 'man-behind-the-curtain's actions. I think Sheldrake is right on about species consciousness, but I think DNA guidance is more important that possible field formation.