Another Test for Intelligent Design Proponents

Kind of depends on what you mean by "unevolved".Do you mean a life form which has never gone through an process of evolution? - No, there is no model for that.Do you mean a life form which has not gone through less evolution than another life form it's compaired to? -- Sure. Look at more "primative" forms of existing animals for the answer there

I would suggest any life form on Earth which is silicon based instead of carbon based. Or a higher life form not using DNA/RNA in it's construction.

Well, you're misunderstanding evolution.For a life form to be completely "free" from evolution it would have to appear on the planet and remain EXACTLY AS IS since it's creation.Evolution is not about how the thing got here. It's about what happens to it once it gets there.If a bacteria snuck aboard the Mars Rover and somehow survived on Mars it would be going through Evolution right now, even though it didn't "evolve" there.

Jaywil, you seem very aggitated Which I find a little odd since Para wasn't attacking you, or even your beliefs.From what I've read, you seem very reasonable in comparison to some people on the threads.Your opinion that the whole shows inteligent design even if the smaller parts do not is one I've heard before. Yet you say your a computer programmer.I deal with computer programs all the time (and yes they are intelligently designed for the most part O.o). You could say to me, you know that Adobe Photoshop, it's made up entirely of 1s and 0s.I might reply - "Get outta here! I'm familiar with 1s and I'm familiar with 0s. Neither is anything like Photoshop."We'd then start down a long long path of explaination where you showed me how chips work, how early program language worked, how it's been built upon.In the end, I should agree with you about the 1's and 0's, but I could just as easily say - "Nah, Photoshop doesn't look like a 1".Proving the component parts is not some little victory, it's intregal in understanding the whole of the theory. And even when we succeed in proving the component, it still seems to make no difference to believers in the whole. This sounds a lot like the "Monkey's typing Hamlet" argument. How hard would it be for a monkey banging away on a typewriter to come up with Hamlet? Very. But, set up a program that keeps any correct letters - takes surprisingly little time to succeed.

The point is to determine if a neutral bit of evidence (the two charts) can be said to show signs of intelligent design or not, and if so, how is that determined.It is another in a long string of threads asking the proponents of Intelligent design to articulate their theory.

Prophex,I've noticed something. In at least 5 posts, probably more like 20, you accuse people of "setting up traps". How is a direct question like this a trap?Is it a trap because you can spot where the conversation is going?It seems like every time you are on a thread relies on any sort of fact or reasoning, it's declared a trap.If you don't want to participate, that's fine. But don't come onto a thread just to announce you aren't going to participate. That's lame.

Ooh, she's a tricky one, trying to get people to own up to what they believe before they ask that it be taught in schools.

Keep in mind, Prophex is a high school student.Speaking of High School - Let's talk about graphs.Seems we've gone over a hundred messages and not a single IDer has risen to the challenge, with the exception of stuff like "both are graphs on a computer obviously the work of design".It seems like they either know they are beat at the outset, or they don't have a good way of differentiating between the two.So, I'll raise a challenge. Can any of the IDers come up with a test for evolution?