Intelligent design and "design detection"

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Giltil

It matters with respect to ID theory, which state that high FI cannot be produced by blind natural processes from an unrelated state, not that blind natural processes such as RV+NS cannot increase FI from a related state.

I see you changed your post and added this new qualifier after I responded to it. Suddenly this new and never before seen qualification has been added(I could not find the idea in any of Gpuccio’s posts on the 500 bits stuff that it has to be “from an unrelated state”). Moving the goalposts in an ad-hoc fashion are we?

Edit: Here’s Gpuccio saying he would infer design for a sufficient amount of changes in a single protein:

@Gpuccio

Because in the biological world, a lot of objects (in this case, proteins) exhibit FI well beyond the threshold of 500 bits, that can be conventionally be assumed as safe for any physical system to infer design. So, when I get a result of 1250 bits of new FI added to CARD11 at the start of vertebrate evolution, I don’t really need absolute precision. The true FI is certainly much more than that, but who cares? 1250 bits are more than enough to infer design.

Okay, then explain the difference between a related and an unrelated state? By chance, any two randomly generated DNA sequences are expected to have 25% sequence similarity on average(5% for protein sequences). Is an unrelated state supposed to be one that has zero sequence similarity (to some arbitrarily decided distant ancestor)? Does it become a “related state” as soon as the similarity between two sequences rises above 0?