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

Of course not. The very reason genetic algorithms are utilized is that they are able to find unspecified solutions. If you had to specify the solution beforehand, it would be a pointless exercise, wouldn't it?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Do you mean by this that if the researcher sets up an evolutionary process to evolve, say, designs for electronic oscillators - so the constraint would be "make me an oscillator" - we should not expect it to evolve, for example, a radio receiver, correct?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

So the evolutionary process set up by the researcher would evolve ordinary oscillators just like those the researcher probably could have thought of himself? No novelty would come out of this process?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Or this:"MY HOUSE IS BIG"
"MY MOUSE IS BIG"A doubling followed by a small mutation can easily result in new information. This is how it can and does happen in genomes. It has been observed and documented. Repeatedly negating this fact doesn't make it go away. It makes one look ignorant.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

In your example we get to know that the place where you live is a big place. Saying it twice does not teach us anything new. I think we can agree on that.But in my example, first we learn that the place where you live is a big place, and next we learn that your rodent is a big rodent. These are two completely different pieces of information.If we started out with "MY HOUSE IS BIG", got a duplicate of that, after which the duplicate acquired a small mutation - "HOUSE" becomes "MOUSE" - we genuinely do have some new information.My example models exactly what can and does happen in genomes. Could you please explain how this is not an example of new information?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

No, no, no! You don't get it. I'll put it in a different format, maybe you'll get it then.First we have:"MY HOUSE IS BIG"By duplication we get:"MY HOUSE IS BIGMY HOUSE IS BIG"Then the second H is replaced by an M:"MY HOUSE IS BIGMY MOUSE IS BIG"This sentence is longer and contains more information. Moreover, it contains new information. I'd say that random mutations cause the genome to change, not necessarily to deteriorate. And next, selection kicks in, selecting those changes that do well, while weeding out those that do not.In your response to Percy, you gave some examples of changed sentences: My sentence "MY MOUSE IS BIG" would fit in there nicely. If the selection pressure was about correct sentences, then most of them would not be selected, but "MY MOUSE IS BIG" most certainly would. ("MA HOUSE IS BIG" might also be selected for, if we happened to be in, say, Arkansas.)Do you now understand what I mean?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

We don't often see this from creationists/ID-proponents. Well done.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

That's because our side is always right.But seriously, I think it's more praiseworthy if it concerns creationists because they have dogma's and infallibility to overcome. The other side usually prides itself in being able to admit fault.

Good for you. That's the attitude I complimented you for. You had said something like that before somewhere else, and I was thinking of complimenting you then, but hesitated. This time I did not. That may be so, but if they cannot honestly admit their faults, then I'd rather debate you, who can. I may be missing some of the finer nuances of the English language here - it's not my native language - but I think "moving one's goal posts" is not the thing to do in polite conversation. If you wanted to say that you are prepared to review your position, then I commend you.Meanwhile, this is all rather off topic, so I will say no more about it.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

I suppose you must have overlooked a good few publications that describe, in detail, just this kind of mutation. Gene duplication is a very common occurrence in nature, it's been observed in genomes that have been sequenced. These genomes have been found to be riddled with duplicated genes, sometimes even multiple versions of the same original, which were subsequently altered by yet more mutations, making the original and the copy (or copies) diverge. It definitely happens, and you can read about in the literature. Your denial of it is as ridiculous as denying that the moon exists. I don't know which textbooks were used to teach you, but they can't have been about biology, that much is clear. Evolution isn't "supposed" to pick anything. It simply happens that the fittest have a better chance to procreate than the less fit. Anything that gets you among the fittest will better your chances, and new information is no exception to the rule. For example, if all your siblings can only digest leaves of one type, and you develop a mutation that enables you to digest leaves of another type, which would constitute new information in your genome, then you stand a good chance of doing better in life than your siblings.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

Species of Antarctic fish have evolved antifreeze in their blood. The gene that codes for the antifreeze protein originates from a copy of another gene that codes for a digestive enzyme. We know this because there are large parts of the antifreeze gene that are too similar to the digestive enzyme gene to be coincidental. So a copy that was subsequently altered by mutation has given rise to a new biological function not present in the fish before: antifreeze in the bloodstream. It's been OBSERVED and DOCUMENTED (note the capitals). When you use the word 'fit', are you still writing in English?

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.