If that's their objection, than the "ID" folks, and the "growing number" (read "miniscule handful") of "non-ID investigators" are scientific illiterates when it comes to evolutionary biology, and deserve no respect on the subject.
Needless to say, evolution proceeds by many more stochastic changes than just "a single random mutation". In any given population it does not take long for literally millions of mutations to occur, and furthermore natural selection (and other types of selection) are the "more" in the (overly simplistic) description of the rise of complexity "requiring more than" mutation alone.
And no, the observation that this often occurs by "fits and starts" doesn't invalidate traditional mechanisms either. I often see "fits and starts" in the increase in fitness (and the pace of novel functional innovations) when I'm doing problem-solving by genetic algorithms (which are just another instance of evolution). Evolution will "stumble upon" a quantum improvement every once in a while, followed by a short period of rapid "capitalization" upon the breakthrough, followed by longer periods of relative stasis until the next breakthrough. In short, using nothing but random variation and selection, "punctuated equilibrium" occurs automatically as a result of the interplay of chance processes.
I really wish people would bother to learn more about the evolutionary *basics* -- and what's already known about them -- before they go leaping about insisting that there "must" be additional forces at work because they "know" that Darwinian evolution "can't" account for [fill in the blank], and then go flying off in a unicorn hunt.
Can these folks hope to discover new paradigms if they can't even grasp the old one at a basic level of competency?
Behe, Dembski, Spetner, et al -- and almost all of their ID disciples -- may be conversant in their own fields (although frankly I haven't been too impressed with the level of their work even there), but in all honesty they really don't know squat about evolution, despite their self-appointed roles as the leaders of a "new movement" in evolutionary biology. They keep making elementary mistakes that reveal that they don't even have as good a grasp of basic evolutionary fundamentals as the average grad student in some evolution-related discipline.
Has science observed and documented time vs. number of mutations? If so, what is the size of the sample and the duration of time that the sampling took place? Just say it simply in your own words, please. Just set forth the figures, and I will attempt to do my own research to verify them.
Thank you, and remember, there are only two facts I am asking you to submit for verification:
1.) size of sample WRT the population.
2.) period of time for observation.
And I'm curious. Can all these mutations take place in the amount of time it takes me to chug a brew? I know the answer, but I want to see if yours comes close to mine.