You are good at pointing out things that are yet unknown, but unknown things are not disproof of anything. If they were, we would have to reject both relativity and quantum theory, because they cannot both be right across the whole universe of experimental results, nor is there any precise demarcation at which one passes authority to the other.
This is precisely why ID is lethal to scientific inquiry, because it posits permanant blockades wherever naturalistic explanations reach an "under construction" zone.
I pointed out a known. Harmful mutations were found in a wild species. The unknown conjecture was a conclusion made by the scientists, that these harmful mutations must have been compensated for in a yet to be discovered way. I merely pointed out that harmful mutations were, therefore, fixed in the genome(passed on). That is counter to what Darwin states. I clearly show that with the citations.
Those are theories that have a basis in observed processes, and they, too, are still under construction. ID is hardly "lethal to scientific inquiry." It is the very foundation of existence and the ability to inquire intelligently about it. It does not need to assert itself into the foreground and prove itself before we begin to ask questions and test what has been placed before us. It is operative before the observer has a first thought about the whole puzzle. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees!
To the extent arguments for ID draw attention to themselves they look bad. It's like grabbing a beer out of the refrigerator and then trying to prove "scientifically" to anyone who might be paying attention that it is cold and is about to be consumed.