Earth to Joshua Swamidass- The Specification is an Observation!

-
File this one under the category of "What. The. Fuck?". This is proof that Joshua Swamidass doesn't understand Intelligent Design. In his butchering of CSI thread, he wrongly concludes::

Unless we know the process that constructed a sequence,

We don't need to know the process. We are trying to determine whether or not nature did it or was an intelligent agency required.

 and unless we know the specification, we cannot actually, compute the CSI.

The specification is an observation. As Wm Dembski wrote in "No Free Lunch":

Biological specification always refers to function. An organism is a functional system comprising many functional subsystems. In virtue of their function, these systems embody patterns that are objectively given and can be identified independently of the systems that embody them. Hence these systems are specified in the same sense required by the complexity-specification criterion (see sections 1.3 and 2.5). The specification of organisms can be cashed out in any number of ways. Arno Wouters cashes it out globally in terms of the viability of whole organisms. Michael Behe cashes it out in terms of minimal function of biochemical systems.- pg 148

Proteins are a prime example. Even more so are protein machines requiring multiple proteins, which includes a proper assembly. In that scenario you not only need to make the proteins, you need the proper number of subunits. You need them all at the proper time. You need to get them all to the proper place. And then you need to have them properly assembled.

This follows Crick's lead:

Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein.

This has never been a secret. We have always admitted that we observe something doing something and we investigate. That's the "What's there?" and "How's it work/ what's it do?" questions science asks. Those questions bring us to the third question science asks "How did it come to be the way it is?". Was it nature, operating freely, or was there an intelligent agency involved? That is where the EF and CSI/ SC come into play.

We do not care about the sequences of DNA that don't code for anything. We don't care about random sequences. The only people who care about random sequences are those monitoring communication channels. It may alert them to someone sending secret messages.

So it is true that if we do NOT observe some specification, unless we have reason to believe otherwise, we would not care about any alleged CSI in some apparently random sequences. It is also true that if we don't observe something we won't investigate it.