And every hand anyone is dealt in every game of poker objectively consists of the five cards that comprise it.
Just what point do you think you are making?
For what reason could such a thing not exist if the history of card games created by humans was different?
For what reason could such a thing not exist if evolutionary history was different?
Much of what you said is completely irrelevant to my point so I’m gonna ignore it.
completely agree. That’s not what ID does though. In fact, it is IMPOSSIBLE (Unless the designer comes to you in a vision or something and tells
You what the plan is in twenty years) to know what the objectives are from a design Perspective
Can you tell me what is a future design objective and how you know that it is an objective?
We know objectives of cells such as producing energy, repair and self replicating. We can infer the specification from observation in the same way we can infere a winning hand by observing by observing the game being played.
Why do you think it is impossible to infer the specification of a cellular function? We can observe the DNA sequences, the amino acid sequences and we can observe the function through experimentation. I can very rapidly obtain the actin amino acid sequences required for muscle function in mammals.
Why is this relevant? Your claim is that it is impossible to infer the specification of observable biology.
Jesus H. You’re contradicting yourself. How do you know certain sequences were the objective from the very beginning? How do you know that the way cells operate were the objective from the very beginning? You are begging the question.
It is nothing like cards. Where we actually know the objective beforehand.
My point, which you haven’t shown you have grasped, is you can make anything specified after the fact. I can make this gibberish: jdndjdkeldjxjdnelwlzjxjfneksjxnrmslJxnrkekzjfnekxjd Specified if I sat down and took the time to create a new language.
That’s what you are doing. You are creating a language after the fact.
Five royal flushes in a row would be surprising. Because we know the rules and objectives! We don’t for design. We have no reason to believe a certain sequence or function was thought of beforehand.
You are taking a function and then assuming that’s the way it had to be. That that was the objective all along.
I have to go to work.
That’s all they have, that’s all they ever do. Find something, observe what it does, assume that is it’s intended purpose that had to have been designed otherwise it would never have come to exist. That’s ALL of ID in a nutshell.
You aren’t inferring a before-the-fact specification Bill. You’re observing a function and creating an after-the-fact description. You might as well find a rock, measure its dimensions and mass and call the measurements a “specification”, then claim the rock must be designed because it was specified. 
Thanks for making it more clear than I did
@colewd I just invented a new card game. The hands are ten cards. That’s the only rule
I’m telling you. Here’s your hand:
1H,5D,6C, Kh,As, 5H, 2C, 8D, 9H, 10S.
Is this specified or not?
Yes, and you inability to answer the question shows this claim is true.
Do you think the hypothesis that it is specified is testable? If I am able to observe a reasonable amount of hands I could then infer specification if that set had a positive outcome to the game as a straight flush does to poker. You as the designer of the game may have assigned specification to either part or all of the sequence that you just posted. Again with time and observation I can infer specification.
In biology we are looking at sequences or arrangements that have a function. In your case the function is defined as a sequence that can win a hand. The more tightly arranged parts and the more complex the function the stronger the specification inference .In your case the more hands the sequence wins the higher the specification. In the case of gpuccio’s research he has been looking for similar function or the same function across different animal types. He then has been essentially measuring the sequence variation of both DNA and amino acids. When that variation is small over many animal types separated by different origins he can infer a high level of specification measured in bits.
Every single species has a feature that no other species has.
The point is that some outcomes are remarkable, whereas other are not. In poker, being dealt with a royal flush is remarkable whereas being dealt with most other combinations is not. Analogously, that a prehuman ancestor has given rise to Homo sapiens instead of some other new but unremarkable primate species is truly remarkable, given the absolute singularity of mankind compared to all other living being.
We are looking at the hand that was dealt, just as you are looking at the mutations that did occur. You didn’t specify that humans would evolve 5 million years ago. You are trying to calculate the odds of humans evolving after they have evolved. Therefore, we calculate the odds of a specific hand occurring after it has been dealt. In this case, you get a hand with a 1 in 3 million chance of occurring on the first try, and every try thereafter. This is what happens when you calculate probabilities in hindsight.
The fact that you still don’t understand this obvious logical fallacy is beyond me.
No! The gears in the planthopper is an objective specification for it conforms to an independently given pattern. This has nothing to do with your rock example.
I perfectly understand this logical fallacy that I do not fall into. It is you who don’t understand the point I am trying to make, which is described here: Creationists' Dismantled Film - #479 by Giltil
If you can produce stamped engineering details which were provided to the shop floor for planthopper gear production, I’ll be on board with objective specification.
The winning hand in every game of poker has a 1 in 3 million chance of occurring. How is that possible?
You keep asking the probability for the mutations that did occur and the species that did occur. It is the exact same fallacy.
I expect it isn’t really beyond you. This misunderstanding is so typical of creationist thinking, that you must have encountered it many times.
I think he understands your assumptions which he believes are flawed. The evolutionist assumption is that we could have turned out to be anything and the fact we ended up observers of the cosmos was a lucky accident. Gil and I are skeptical of that assumption.
@Giltil have I represented you ok here?