What exactly is ID?

You are the one misunderstanding the argument.Back in Message 108 you said:

quote:

---

You see, by modifying the already existing protein with mutations, untill it loses all function we can know which sequences would corespond to the original working specification.

---

If it doesn't lose all function then you don't know if another specification would work or not. And allowing for another working specification gives it something to evolve from.

Dembski's method is wrong because its trying to calculate the flagellum forming just by random chance alone and doesn't account for selective pressure so it isn't ruling out evolution.And the working specification is wrong because it assumes that all function was lost.SO is wrong about not being able to determine info about a designer from its design. He thinks that we'd have to be able to determine the name of the factory worker who stitched the soccer ball to know anything at all about the designer when we would be able to some things about the designer, and their mechanism too, by looking at the ball.