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

You're quite wrong here. Intelligence set up the methods of information recording, selection, mutation and reproduction, but once that's done, and the information recording system has been initialised, the systems just operate and generate 'specified complexity' without any guidance from anyone. In other words, the solutions are not known in advance, no intelligence guides the process and no active information is supplied to get to the desired goal.What this means is that evolutionary systems, once set up, have been demonstrated to do what you claim is impossible, that is generate 'specified complexity' without intelligent guidance.If you still don't believe this, I will supply you a link or two.You could validly ask - could such an evolutionary system arise naturally? But that would be a separate question. Would you like to debate it in a separate thread? I think it's a very interesting topic where there actually is something to debate.

[qs]Not really. You should read Wolpert's work on NFL theorems.quote:The inability of any evolutionary search procedure to perform better than average indicate[s] the importance of incorporating problem-specific knowledge into the behavior of the [search] algorithm.He basicly explains how for any kind of algorith, including evolutionary algorithms, you need to input information first to get any information out. An algorith by itself is useless unless it uses an intelligent input.[/qs]Sorry Smooth Operator, one of the authors of the original no free lunch paper you quote has written an explicit refutation of the use made of NFL theorems by Dembski. Note that he is also quite critical of some evolutionary biologists so he is clearly not biased in their favour.He says in essence that Dembski's use of the NFL theorems is so vague and imprecise that he actually demonstrates nothing. Here's a link.Talk Reason: arguments against creationism, intelligent design, and religious apologeticsYou are also misunderstanding what the NFLs claim. They say that if you want the best results when searching a specific space you need a tailored search algorithm. This is not the same as your claim that you need intelligent input for the algorithm to work on. You can see this by reading your own quote above.Edited by Richard Townsend, : added 'the best'

No that's not correct. In fact, in some robot control system evolutionary algorithms, I know for sure that the initial movements of the robot are generated purely randomly. There are no initial parameters! I'm not sure about some of the other examples I quoted, but I don't believe the initial parameters are critical to the end result. Maybe others have knowledge here....

You are incorrect.*sigh* There's no possibility of your mind being open to evidence, based on what I've seen of your behaviour so far.

So the original author of the paper is not in a position to judge when it has been misused? You're on very weak ground here. You are showing strong confirmation bias. Again, not true. How can every algorithm apply to all search spaces?Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.

No, I'm telling you that the initial movements of the robots are generated purely randomly. You seem not to believe this. I'm saying your behaviour shows you are not interested in evidence that contradicts your current beliefs. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.

On this point you are quite right. I do admit it. It was not a rant - that's why I accuse you of confirmation bias. You're not willing to consider his arguments. You misunderstand the the concepts of algorithm and parameters. The initial parameters are the INITIAL INPUTS TO to the algorithm. You're right that the algorithm is pre-defined before the evolutionary process starts. But this is irrelevant to my original point, which is that 'specified complexity' can be generated (and has been generated) by the purely automatic execution of this kind of evolutionary algorithm, with no or very basic specified input parameters.This is an indisputable fact.That's why I think the more interesting question is - can such an evolutionary system arise without human intervention. Do you see the difference? Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.

No, not always. The generation of random numbers is programmed into an algorithm, but the output of the algorithm is a genuine set of (very nearly) random numbers. Random number generators often 'measure' things to generate the seeds for random number generation, eg the system time, or mouse movements on a PC. So the behaviour of a machine can be genuinely random. Then the selection / mutation / reproduction algorithms are applied, so that the most effective random movements are kept,combined and varied. In this way the random start point rapidly coverges on effective movement for the robot.

except that we don't! good, hopefully I'm laying some evidence out for you post by post. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.

If no algorithm can generate it, then it's non-computable. That's the definition of non-computable. But the main problem is, your claim creates problems for the very existence of CSI.We don't know whether humans run algorithms in their brains (most AI researchers believe so but some thinkers, such as Roger Penrose disagree).This means there is NOTHING we can definitely point to as CSI. Nothing created by humans can be called CSI. Nothing created by any 'intelligent designer' can be called CSI - unless you can show they did it non-algorithmically.Tracking back, I believe the mistake in your reasoning is when you say that algorithms can't create CSI. They can. The NFL theorems, curiously, do not say this, no matter how many times you claim that they do. Here's a quote from the Wolpert paper.

Thanks for explaining your thinking on this. I think you are misinterpreting the theorems. The theorems apply when considering a search across the space of ALL possible cost functions. They don't rule out more effective algorithms across narrower scopes than this.See this..... Christensen and Oppacher (2001)Secondly, you're wrong to say that random search can create no information. The search for your keys, for example, would create information about the location of your keys even if it were purely random.In fact, randomness (as you know) is a key element in many evolutionary algorithms. It's not something we want to get rid of

I don't know much about the CSI concept. Does it have this non-material / non algorithmic element built into the definition of it?

Think this through. I'm saying that the search creates the information - clearly it does, because we know something at the end we didn't at the beginning. This meets the Shannon definition of information (decrease in uncertainty of a receiver). The same information is created no matter how we get there. You almost acknowledge that in your paragraph above - see last sentence.

Not so. As Nosyned says, a flagellum (or dog) is clearly not designed by human beings. There is no evidence of any other designer.Therefore both sides need to produce evidence. ID proponents must, if they are to have a theory worthy of the name, produce evidence of a designer. By which I mean evidence of a designer, not of so-called design. They don't even try, because the secret is that this designer is really God. Edited by Richard Townsend, : No reason given.