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

[AAA]

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.

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.