What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Well obviously the first cells wouldn't have been that complex, but when making statements like that about the past, you have now left the evidence and gone into speculation. That's fine, but when a scientist speculates, it can wrongly get associated with the empirical science that we all agree is where we should base our views. And I agree, it is not fun to watch someone who disagrees with evolution do such a poor job at attacking it like Ray Comfort or whatever. But just because they use weak arguments doesn't mean there view is completely wrong. I've seen some pretty bad atheist arguments too. 

The problem I have with these biosynthetic pathways evolving is the mechanism. I don't like the mechanism of mutation as the source of variation. It's a weak force. I think that most of the observed variation is explained by changes in gene expression due to epigenetic factors. The environment induces a change in the phenotype without damaging the genotype. Evolution is our capstone course though, and I'm only a junior, so I'll be taking it next year.

While I agree that it's speculation, it's speculation based on what we have observed, and doesn't quite meet the "just-so" criticism so often leveled at biologists who try to come up with hypotheses on how things could have happened based on the factors of which we're presently aware. What you're doing is getting the cart before the horse and saying, "Well, what we see operating today can't have just happened because reasons", and we point out that it's highly unlikely that life started out as "highly evolved" (I hate that term, and I know you must as well) as the living species today. I feel comfortable making such a speculation because it would be most surprising--to say the least--if we, the living species today and thus the victors in 4BY of Natural Selection competition, were no more complex than that which began reproducing, all those years ago. So when I see arguments that point out the complexity of current DNA structures and cellular assemblies stated as if this is a winning argument for Intelligent Design, I'm tempted to laugh but am too busy fearing for the future of my country.

I actually agree with you that mutation is only one of the factors involved in producing variation, especially in light of new research into epigenetic factors of gene expression. That said, we know how gene pools diversify and then streamline their variation: genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, recombination, and of course Natural Selection.

The question here is whether epigenetic factors can have a significant impact on the gene pool (if they are not produced by genes, themselves, then they cannot be acted upon by Natural Selection in terms of shaping said gene pool, and thus producing a "direction" in the evolution of that species). I'd say that mutation still produces the primary driving force behind the complexity of DNA to which you frequently refer, and epigenetics provides a "cushioning pad" in which alterations to the genetic programming, per the environment (or hormonal factors in the mother or individual, as influenced by that environment), can confer a survival advantage on that individual within the population, making that individual's genes more likely to be transmitted.

I recall your previous objections to mutation as a primary driving mechanism for evolution, but honestly I don't see why you think it's incapable of accomplishing everything we see in the gene pools of earth over a trillion generations.