evidence that intelligent design can't explain

I believe in a pre-earth life in which we learned about creation and genetic engineering and in fact were the ones who created the evolutionary steps under God's supervision. God pronounced what was accomplished as "good", not perfect. Perhaps some unimportant imperfections were allowed.
If you claim to be an anthiestic evolutionist, why do you live by faith in assuming that speciation eventually leads to new Genera, Orders etc. while you can give no evidence for it?
William

Only snp mutations evolve by natural selection (which is also part of ID to be influenced by enviornmental factors). Additional new gene complexes come from ID. The chance of new gene complexes to be produced by natural selection is essentially zero.
William

wj
I realize I was a little SNPy not to include nucleotide insertions and deletions, gene duplication, chromosomal inversions, genetic drift and polyploidy. But what sort of delusion is it for you to believe that they can create new gene clusters necessary for evolution beyond speciation. Show me some evidence! Is your logic, phylogenetic evolution must have happened this way? If so, you are living by the faith you deride creationists for having.
Looking at new gene production from a statistical point of view, Stu Pullen, author of "Darwin's Mistake", has concluded that statistical models to calculate the odds of a new gene evolving from a random sequence of DNA show that new gene production by natural selection does not work. He states, "These models presented on his website (http://www.theory-of-evolution.org) change the entire complexion of the evolutionary debate. These models predict that new genes cannot evolve from random sequence of DNA. Since the models are based on math, subjective opinions are no longer relevant. If the models are correct, evolution did not happen under the guidance of naturalistic laws.
Many other scientists have reached the same conclusion. The models developed here are more accurate than previous models developed by other scientists. As it turns out, these more accurate models predict that the odds associated with a gene evolving from random chance are even lower. The probability is so small that scientists like Yockey in Information Theory and Molecular Biology have commented that anyone who believes that a novel protein can arise through chance does so on faith....
There is a point where alternatives must be sought. The evolution of new genes by natural selection does not happen. Any scientist who believes that it can either has not seen the odds or simply accepts the naturalistic axiom on faith."
I am not trying to appeal to authority, I really would like to know if there are errors in his model, I would like some input on what they are.
William