It is because mutation and selection (in regards to speciation) are hypothetical that one must list them as individual degrees of freedom when working out an Occam's Razor problem for how speciation is achieved (i.e. via Evolution or Intelligent Design).
Post #194 does that. Please refer back to it.
It is sufficient that we know such a process is possible, both for intelligent design and evolution. I've actually been intentionally ignoring the direction you are taking it because you won't like the results. For example, how do we verify this premised designer? By what process was the design accomplished? What were the physical mechanisms used for speciation by the hypothetical designer?
I can construct a very reasonable argument for the possibility of mutation/selection causing speciation without invoking anything that isn't trivially verifiable in chemistry and mathematics. Remember, the hypothesis is whether or not speciation is possible by these various mechanisms, not what actually CAUSED speciation. For the construction of a valid hypothesis we don't need to exhaustively test the outcome (and I am praying that the reason this is true doesn't have to be explained), but only construct a logical sequence from non-false premises. Note that "non-false" does not equal "true", though "true" is a subset of "non-false". All the "non-false, non-true" premises are what count against you in Occam's razor. The designer is a non-verified premise and therefore non-true, though it IS non-false and therefore an acceptable premise. Note that if man started doing serious gene engineering, man as the designer could be a valid hypothesis in some cases with a verifiable designer premise.