TONY: Not at all. I am saying that survivors were the ones that stayed within their pre-defined limits, whereas non-survivors were exposed to environments that exceeded their limits, and thus were unable to adapt. > >DHW: Thank you. Perhaps, then, “unprogrammed-for” was misleading. The above certainly leaves ample room for the hypothesis of autonomous cellular intelligence, which would vary immensely between different organisms. Those whose intelligence - whether incorporated in the first cells (common descent) or in the prototypes (separate creation) - was too limited to find ways of coping with environmental change would naturally perish. I trust then that you remain open-minded, since we “don't understand the process or the mechanism so a definitive statement is premature” - a beautifully balanced approach which, as I noted earlier, can be applied to so many other fields besides our evolutionary/non-evolutionary hypotheses!-The issue with autonomous intelligence is still the generation of new information, as opposed to working within pre-defined limitations. If I saw concrete evidence of invention on the part of a cell, I would lend the autonomous cellular intelligence theory more credence.