[tortoise]

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).

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.

[Southack]

"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."

What, Man design something or use gene-splicing to program DNA?! Sshhhh... Don't give the game away just yet!

[Southack]

"It is sufficient that we know such a process is possible, both for intelligent design and evolution."

For science per se, yes, but not for Occam's Razor. Post #194 deals with Occam's Razor. Most of the rest do not.

[Southack]

"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 have no problem with scientific results. How do we verify a designer of Life? We look in the lab. Have we physically observed an intelligent designer creating a new variety of Life? Yes, for instance in the case of genetically-modified pig organs for human transplants. What process was used? DNA programming. What physical mechanisms for speciation were used? Gene-splicing.

Is this an actual example of Intelligent Design creating Life, rather than new life self-Evolving? Yes. Can Evolutionary Theory predict it or explain it? No.

Does this mean that Intelligent Design is possible, and therefor Evolution is no longer the "only game in town"? Yes.