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

[AAA]

Yeah, but you know the complexity needed for life. Somewhere between 250-400 proteins along with a DNA sequence that codes for them all and can interact with them. This isn't even what we have observed, this IS speculation. So going beyond that is even more wishful speculation. But that is what I don't like about both naturalistic views for life's origin and young earth creationism. Both are similar in that there is a story with which the new data must be shoved into. That is why I like the intelligent design theory. They don't say much about what they think happened, but this leaves plenty of room to accommodate new data. It is less dogmatic. 

Also there has been research showing that histone modifications can actually occur in the parent, and it passes it on to the offspring. This is a heritable form of genetic variation that gives the illusion of a changing genome, when in reality it is just different genes being expressed. 

I don't think mutation can account for the genetic complexities we see because given current mutation rates, which are very low, we would need much more time than a few billion years to get where we are. Also when we do see mutations they almost always have no effect. If they do, it's almost always detrimental to the function of the sequence. So relying on extremely rare events to improve the genome seems irrational.

"Given current mutation rates, which are very low"? Dude, we know the average rate of point mutation so well that we actually use it to track mtDNA sequence divergence, among other things. Do you think you're dropping a "knowledge bomb" on the scientific community by declaring that it's too low for a few billion years of evolution to have produced what we see? Come on, man. Do better!

Yes, we've seen that epigenetic outcomes/alterations may be heritable (with bad implications for smokers!), but as you just pointed out, it's a matter of gene expression. That's the answer to the question we were forced to ask when the Human Genome Project revealed we had far fewer genes than we had protein types in our body. Epigenetic expression, especially the heritable components, add a layer of complexity in how the genes are expressed, and thus how the phenotypes are acted upon by Natural Selection. Why you think this means it could not have evolved without magic, I'll likely never understand.

And please, seriously, stop with the "most mutations are bad". We know that. It's one of the first things you'll learn in your evolution class. But they're not all bad, in an evolutionary sense. Some are detrimental and removed from the gene pool by NS. Some are bad but not deleterious to the individual because of compensating factors, and may become "good" genes when environmental or reproductive environments change. Some are entirely neutral, and many of those eventually become useful in later generations (especially in the case of duplication mutations, which we previously discussed), or simply change the way the proteins are manufactured without changing the function thereof. And no matter how bad most mutations are, in a population of bacteria that is literally millions per mL, even a 1% "good mutation" rate would result in 10,000 good mutations in that single drop of water, every generation.

One of the things I remember learning in my evolution course was that every human being has on average ten novel mutations, most of which are in non-coding locations (95% of the genome), and thus unnoticed. Unfortunately, when they're not in those locations they can result in tendencies for cancer and a host of genetic diseases. But they occasionally result in a unique brain like Einstein's (he had mutant brain architecture and an abnormal number of glial cells which support the neural network; our brains are huge consumers of energy, a limiting factor on our ability to grow ever-bigger brains, and he had the ability to make use of his Abby Normal brain because of this), or speed like Usain Bolt, and so on. It is unfortunate that there are more people with Tay-Sachs disease than brains like Einstein's, but that's just how it works.

It does not mean Magic Man in the Sky messed with our DNA.

It's not new information that mutation rates are too low, but that is always just brushed aside. Also, the greater number of proteins than genes is more due to alternate exon splicing than epigenetic factors (although I suspect we will find that even these two phenomena influence each other). It is another mechanism to control gene expression. 


Also, I never said that all mutations are harmful, you built a straw-man. And I don't think you can say 1% good mutations. That is not likely even close. 

Also just because a mutation occurs in the non-coding region of DNA doesn't mean it won't affect the person. Almost all of that DNA is transcribed, and plays a role in regulation. You change the sequence, you change the ability to bind with specificity, you change the ability to regulate things well.