[js1138]

Besides, I think that proposing such a "designer" wouldn't help the ID folks in their quest to appear "scientific" enough to slip their conjectures into the classroom as a realistic alternative to evolution.

I'm sure that the effects of allele change are predictible to some extent. Afer all there are companies making money in genetic engeneering.

I really have two questions: One is, why isn't this the central focus of ID research? The second, and more troubling is, how can you predict the effects on reproductive success in a complex ecosystem?

That is precisely the conumdrum that natural selection addresses. I agree with you that anything other than an omniscient (in all four dimensions) being could not make that prediction.

Now for the nitty gritty. Even if you have the computational horsepower to make predictions of reproductive success, it doesn't change the fact that natural selection works just like Darwin said it does.

[Alamo-Girl]

xzins, I wanted to bring js1138's post at 651 to your attention. The post brings the question into sharper focus as you requested.

[Doctor Stochastic]

One question might be: if an allele change would be beneficial according to the designer, would she cause that change to occur? Another would be: why were things designed to look as if they were cobbled together at random?