It is a long piece but argues 1) Evolution cannot provide a direct pathway, 2) Evolution has not provided an indirect pathway, and 3) ID makes more sense. If you are truly interested in beating the ID argument, this paper is the best I've seen for irreducible complexity. I've read papers against irreducible complexity that use the flagellum, mousetrap, and other examples that really fall short of the mark.
#2 Does ID predict the continual filling in of gaps?
This is from "Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge." Dembski.
The challenge that here confronts evolution is not isolated but pervasive, and comes up most flagrantly in what’s called the Cambrian Explosion. In a very brief window of time during the geological period known as the Cambrian, virtually all the basic animal types appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no trace of evolutionary ancestors. The Cambrian Explosion so flies in the face of evolution that paleontologist Peter Ward wrote, “If ever there was evidence suggesting Divine Creation, surely the Precambrian and Cambrian transition, known from numerous localities across the face of the earth, is it.” Note that Ward is not a creationist.
So to answer your question, Yes, with substantially the same species. Just like you get. Isn't it interesting that the vast majority of fossils don't fall into the tree diagram? They don't display a common ancestor unless you pick and choose only the fossils you want. That leaves the rest unaccounted for. Unless you have a better theory like ID.
#3 See: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=496 Page 5
Horizontal gene transfer was identified in bacteria and archaea already by 1990. It was thought for the following decade that hgt was not a significant factor for the more complex eukaryotes. Recent studies of complete genome sequences however have identified substantial hgt in many of the branches of the eukaryotic domain. Examples include hgt involving the protists (unicellular eukaryotes) such as the parasite Giardia Lamblia11, flowering plants,12 algae,13 fungi,14 and nematodes, the most abundant of all metazoans, including the worm Caenorhabditis elegans as well as many plant and animal parasites.15 The latter group is especially significant for it involved relatively complex, multicellular organisms, and because some of the transferred genes are critical to the functioning of the recipient species.
Thus horizontal gene transfer must be considered a significant source of genetic variation in all three domains of life. The purely vertical pattern of inheritance axiomatic to Darwin’s theory of evolution from his own writings down to the present clearly is inadequate to explain the observed complexities of the origin of genes.
#4 You said test four is a big loser either way, but that isn't correct. If it confirms the test, then the result credits the theory that devised the test. If not, not. You're mixing it up by saying this way is bad for ID and this way is good for Evolution... At any rate, you may have an interest in: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=496 Page 6.
The third unexpected discovery deals with regions of a genome that do not carry the code for a protein. At the time that the project to sequence the complete human genome began, it was already realized that most of the genome did not code for a protein. As little as 2 percent (and probably even less) of the human genome of some 3 billion base pairs was thought to be in the actual genes. The rest was thought to be largely “junk DNA,” that is, stretches of DNA that had no function. The evolutionary theoretical basis for the idea of “junk DNA” was that if a segment of DNA was not part of a gene that carried the code for a protein, then there was no mechanism for natural selection to act on this segment. The segment would be hidden from the action of natural selection because it would not be expressed in any form that affected the functional properties and hence the survival of the organism. Instead the segment would be affected by periodic random mutations that would scramble any code that originally might have been carried by the segment.
Today the experimental evidence suggests that much, though probably not all, of the non-coding regions of the genome have critical roles in the development and function of an individual. Completion of the human and mouse genome sequences in particular has resulted in useful insights into the function of non-coding DNA.17 There appear to be fewer genes in the human genome than the more than 100,000 that many specialists thought were present before the completion of the human genome project. Most current estimates range from 30,000 to 60,000 genes, with a few going higher. The small number of genes suggests that the non-coding regions must have key roles to play, including even repetitive portions of the DNA.18 As the authors of a recent review point out, “From genomic analysis it is evident, however, that with increase of an organism’s complexity, the protein-coding contribution of its genome decreases....”19 Clearly the non-coding regions must have crucial roles in accounting for this complexity.
So now the challenge goes back to you. It is not good enough to say that evolution is right because ID is wrong.
1)What are the predictions that evolution makes that it hasn't backtracked on--like irreducible complexity, the tree diagram, etc? Do you have any links to anything that actually demonstrates the pathways used when one life form becomes another? Evolution is still just a theory, and it has a lot of holes in it that are better explained by ID. Every time it gets down to the nitty gritty of evolution--the pathways used, you get wishful thinking and the explanation "it evolved."
2)Show me the best example your side has come up with of an actual pathway that could have been used for any transition. It needs to be plausible, step by step, and can't resort to the magic ingredients of "millions and millions of years" and "it just evolved."
Start here:
http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
When you get through that one, here's some more:
http://wiki.cotch.net/wiki.phtml?title=Flagellum_essay_comments
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum
http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?tool=bookshelf&call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=cell.section.3946
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=stryer.section.4894
http://www.cse.ucsc.edu/~hongwang/ATP_synthase.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?tool=bookshelf&call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=cell.section.3505
http://brodylab.eng.uci.edu/~jpbrody/reynolds/lowpurcell.html
http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm
http://www.arn.org/mm/mm.htm
http://www.idurc.org/nofreelunchintro.shtml
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000299
http://www.idthink.net/biot1/flag1/
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html
A few on the evolution of blood clotting:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/clot/Clotting.html
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html
http://www.evowiki.org/wiki.phtml?title=Blood_clotting
http://www.nmsr.org/coral_ic.htm
http://www.umich.edu/~urecord/0304/Apr05_04/10.shtml
This is simply untrue. There's an extensivive pre-cambrian fossil record. Saying there isn't doesn't make it true.
This is despite the rather obvious fact that as you go further back in time, fewer creatures have any hard parts to fossilize. Difficulty finding evidence that has been erased does not change history.
So what? Darwinian evolution sets no limits to the source and kinds of variation.
Go back and read what I said about non-coding DNA. If it has a function then it is subject to selection. If it doesn't have a function it doesn't support ID.
Either way the science isn't finished on this one.