A and BC may still be working and the others are just some corrupted copies. But A+, B+ and C+ will make together a profitable gene ABC+. So your definition of IC is a proper subset of evolutionary processes.
All of which may well be the case, once you understand how those six genes work and how they got there. That's why the questions raised by IC are useful to evolution. For every IC candidate that doesn't pan out, you've got a better understanding of an evolutionary process, correct? At the core, IC will go around identifying things that haven't been explained yet, inviting their explanation.
But to focus on your example, instead of begging the question and assuming that the six hypothetical genes have useful precursors in some combination, assume that once their interaction and development is fully understood, science can't figure out the precursors. Suppose there was no useful beneficial "A". Suppose any BC gene combination is always fatally detrimental without the specific mutation of "A" in combination with specific mutations of BC. Whether you believe we'll actually find such a combination or not is irrelevant. Such combinations can be imagined. What's the harm in searching for them?
Therefore we can reach an IC status with just using evolution. So your definition of IC is nice but can in no way lead to any detection of intelligence except you say evolution is intelligent.
What it will detect is "not naturally explainable". Things that are not natural tend to be artificial. Things that are artificial tend to be created. It's a leap, yes, but not an unreasonable one.
Well, as I have shown you your IC definition can be explained by natural selection.
With an example that doesn't allow for the possibility that IC is searching for. All you really said was that you don't believe that a gene combination that can't be explained by natural processes exists. I don't find them all that difficult to imagine, regardless of whether I think anybody will ever find a real example, because I know that all combinations of genes are not viable. Therefore, I don't find it all that difficult to imagine a non-viable path between two combinations of genes. Bear in mind that I'm not saying that I know for certain such a situation exists in nature. I'm simply saying that it could, and that's what ID is looking for with IC.
No, I claim we knew what characteristics we can expect from signals with frequency modulation (FM) or amplitude modulation (AM). The physical characteristics implied by these techniques are observable and therefore very likely intelligent.
Likely but not definitely. Unless they can decode clear message information from such a signal, they'll still have a mystery for which the believers can look to as proof and the skeptics can wave away as an unexplained natural phenomena.
I think this is quite a good guess because em-signals are the fastest we knew for communication.
I don't. Like I said, it's entirely possible that intelligent aliens develop on a planet with lots of interference, develop in the oceans of their world, are blind to the EM spectrum, and so forth. They might not be curious, might not be adventurous, and might not care what happens beyond their own world. For much of their existence on Earth so far, intelligent humans neither sent EM signals nor had the capacity to receive them. If a planet has a dwindling atmosphere like Mars, intelligent life could evolve and die out before they ever discovered how to use electricity. I think that real aliens, if they exist, will likely be so alien that we'll have difficulty finding a common frame of reference in which to communicate. We won't be finding Mr. Spock, ET, or Jar Jar out there.
So if they use em-signals the aliens will leave physical traces.
Suppose SETI searches 100% of the sky and finds no EM signals of the sort they are looking for. Then what? Do they give up or look for something different? Would anything have been proved either way?
The next step after detecting an ET-signal would be a call back. This step is impossible for IC.
I think many religious people would disagree with you on that point. For a religious person, the presence of God can be as real as those signals. If you are an atheist or agnostic, I don't expect you to get it. Just accept that ID advocates don't consider God hypothetical.
I suspect that if they found good IC candidates, they'd try to find "purpose" or "meaning" in those genes just as SETI would look for "purpose" or "meaning" in any signals that they detect. Assuming intelligence, that's the logical next step.
Maybe it would take a long time to get an answer.
There is no guarantee of any answer, even if there were aliens responsible, especially if the signal has travelled for tens of thousands of years and it takes tens of thousands of years for our signal to get back to them. If you don't get an answer, then what? Maybe they wren't looking. Maybe they've died off while the signals were travelling. Maybe it was just a natural signal that looked like a created signal. Suppose SETI get's a good candidate signal, sends a reply, waits the prerequisite number of years, and hears silence. Then what?