Joe Felsenstein- Still Clueless about Complex Specified Information

-
This fatass may be good at population genetics but that would be his limit. Joe Felsenstein sed:

With Dembski’s previous (pre-2006) definition of CSI (what Sal once called CSI1), CSI was intended as showing that the degree of adaptation was out of reach of “chance” processes such as pure mutation, unaided by natural selection. The Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information was then supposed to guarantee that CSI could not be achieved by other evolutionary forces, such as natural selection.

That is incorrect. CSI is about origins. Once natural selection kicks in we already have what needs to be explained.

The LCCSI turned out not to prove any such thing, so there was no guarantee that CSI1 could not be put into the genome by natural selection.

There isn't any evidence for it, either.

Enter CSI2. It has the additional condition that it’s not CSI unless there is no natural process that can achieve it. At which point CSI became, not a way to show that natural processes could not achieve the adaptation, but an after-the-fact designation that you could only use if you had some other method of proving that natural processes could not do the job. From a central tool, CSI became an after-the-fact add-on of no importance.

That is just Joe's ignorance talking as CSI does not have any such quality. It does not matter how it arose, it is just that no one has ever observed unguided processes producing CSI. We don't have any experience with such a thing. It would be like saying nature can build cars, produce artifacts, and everything else normally left to solely to intelligent agencies.

CSI exists REGARDLESS of how it came to be. There isn't any criteria that says CSI only exists if an intelligent agency did it. Joe Felsenstein is blissfully ignorant of CSI, ID and all ID concepts.

Felsenstein is confusing the fact that there isn't any known processes other than intelligent design that can produce CSI with "that it’s not CSI unless there is no natural process that can achieve it." That's an elementary school mistake from a university professor.