The aim of this essay is not to prove “Darwinian” evolution, because the writer would be accomplishing a feat already achieved by others, but to examine a certain avenue of thought among the supporters of Creation. Specifically, they note certain improbabilities of evolution's ability to “design.” I will avoid defining the individual concepts because they have all been described before, and far better than I could manage, although I will point out that the distinction between micro/macro evolution is largely creationist jargon, as is “gender” terminology. In the text, I will refer to evolutionary/macroevolution theory as "evolution" and creation/intelligent design as "creation", and the proponents of each as "evolutionists" and "creationists" respectively. If any of this offends either party, please do not hesitate. Also note that creation is a largely moving target, so characterizing their views is difficult, if not impossible, because it is subject to change, unlike the theory of evolution, where many of the original principles stated by Charles Darwin still exist, although some have certainly changed. I do not claim to be an expert in the myriad areas of expertise needed to properly defend evolutionary theory. I also do not hold a degree in any of the relevant fields. Many proponents of evolution or creation have no problem debating across a broad spectrum of expertise. It is common to see theology students debating astrophysics, and vice versa. Those who are tactful build their arguments based on references to the writings of people with this expertise. Since I have not seen the argument I wish to make in any reference material, I do not have this luxury. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Often, creationists present some extreme adaptations such as...... in the middle of the article...... y saying that several modern species of animals sport vicious teeth and yet are vegetarian. Another article that I find enlightening is an article from Answers In Genesis in which it is claimed that the South American Pirahna ate vegetation. We find these claims to be so at odds with mainstream science that it is difficult to reconcile them, especially if you favor a literal reading of Genesis. So, to get out of this impasse, we turn to genetics to find concrete and rapid answers. This is where the layman gives up, grabs a sandwich and watches TV. If a creationist and an evolutionist sequenced the DNA of something, they would both arrive at a genetically identical value, except for laboratory issues which are negligible. This is a useful synergy of facts, since in many other fields, such as archeology and morphology, interpretation bias can be invoked..