What is an ID proponent's basis of comparison? (edited)

I'd like to challenge this on two fronts:When you say 'already known' I take it you mean 'we know that all specified complexity must be created by a designer'. But you can't take this as your start point - this is what ID has to demonstrate, based on evidence.Use of evolutionary techniques in generating Robot control algorithms, electronic circuits, animal gait models etc shows that information that specifies these things can be generated by exactly the same methods as evolution itself uses (mutation, selection, reproduction). This shows that the concept of specified complexity is in principle not a problem for the evolutionary approach.So there is good evidence against your position.

It seems that an assertion you're making, Smooth, is that evolutionary algorithms can't produce new complex specified information, because they are programmed in advance by humans, even their 'random' components... ... and therefore the information is already implicit in the algorithm.Now, I disagree with what you say here, but I'll put that on hold until I understand your position better as it may not be important.My question: Does this limitation on evolutionary algorithms, in your view, apply to algorithms more generally? i.e. can any algorithms produce new complex specified information? If they can, which ones can and which ones can't? How do we tell the two kinds apart?If no algorithms can generate CSI, then it would imply that 'complex specified information' is in technical terms non-computable. This would have interesting implications. Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.