[Erik Latranyi]

"do we have documented instances of mutations across a variety of living species that are sufficient to establish a factual basis that, given the postulated length of time required to form a new species, evolutionary development is plausible?"

But Darwin asserts that these mutations are random in nature and not "programmed". Unfortunately, we do not see random mutation since that would quickly lead to the extinction of every living thing on the planet.

Intelligent Design (ID) asserts that the mutations are programmed in and somehow intelligent in their direction.

[WildTurkey]

But Darwin asserts that these mutations are random in nature

No. He says that it is through selective adaptation.

[StJacques]

"But Darwin asserts that these mutations are random in nature and not "programmed". Unfortunately, we do not see random mutation since that would quickly lead to the extinction of every living thing on the planet.

Intelligent Design (ID) asserts that the mutations are programmed in and somehow intelligent in their direction."

What we see are mutations. What we argue about is whether they are random, a response to environmental stress, or something else. As I stated in my first post in this thread, there is a difference between the Theory of Evolution and the "engine of evolutionary change," which to Darwin is Natural Selection and that there is a real scientific debate over Natural Selection, which your point about mutations brings into focus. So I have no argument with that.

I have to be honest about "Intelligent Design" and admit that I have not read enough about it to speak authoritatively on the matter. I do know that some evolutionary biologists have argued that certain mutations can be "predicted" due to "Entropic Relationships within an Ecology," which is another way of saying that species are "programmed" to maximize the resources of their environment. I do not know how this relates to "Intelligent Design," but at least on the surface, the theory seems to merit further observation.