It’s been explained to you ad nauseum. Just because a mind CAN create information is not evidence a mind DID create some specific information. Especially since there is plenty of positive evidence a mind is not required to create information in any quantity in genomes.
Everyone can see you’re pretending to not understand, unless you want everyone to think you really are that dim witted.
Sure as we use a person as a test vehicle. You are nit picking Neil.
I am not sure where you are going with this.
It’s not the cell having meaning its the cell being able to generate meaning.
All you can test with that is the hypothesis a human can create information. THAT’S ALL.
All this time and Bill still confuses information with meaning.
The hypothesis that a mind can generate large quantities of functional information. Or the competing hypothesis that a cell can generate large quantities of functional information.
That doesn’t test the claim a mind did create the information in genomes.
That has already been tested and conclusively demonstrated to be true. The cell per se doesn’t generate the information - evolutionary processes parts of which which occur in the cell generate new information.
No matter how many times that is explained to you and the evidence provided to you you’ll continue with your knee-jerk denials.
The eclipse experiment does not test that space time curvature curvature will create black holes. Please make meaningful argument beyond nit picking.
Non-sequitur which has nothing to do with your IDC “hypothesis” dismal failure.
Again, a meaningless comment.
Again a cowardly dodge to avoid the fact your IDC hypothesis “test” is a dismal failure which doesn’t actually test your IDC claims.
Please show how a mind can created a functional DNA sequence, in the absence of a brain or body whose existence requires DNA.
Ah. And by the same reasoning, just because a mind can put together a string of meaningful symbols does not mean it explains the data.
And Bill kicks another one into his own goal.
This is as succinct and powerful a takedown of Bill’s whole “mind hypothesis” test as you’ll find. Which is why Bill is avoiding it like the plague. 
If that is your hypothesis, then it has already been falsified. You measure FI by sequence conservation, and natural selection is already known to conserve sequence.
Very cleaver 
Why is natural selection conserving sequences?
FFS Bill why do you need every last bit of evolutionary theory explained to you a hundred times? 
.
I’m inclined to suspect that “generate meaning” is meaningless.
Quite the materialistic spin but cleaver
Interesting, given that I am not a materialist. I’m also not much into cleaving.
I agree you not. I was surprised you made the claim you did.
Deleterious mutations are selected against.