As many of you have noticed evolution is an "umbrella word" which means that it has many definitions. In the context of biology it usually means one of three things.
1 that organisms change and adapt
Sorta. A more accurate way to put it would be something like "the genetics of populations changing over time".
I point that out because every change in an organism isn't "evolution", such as a person losing an arm. They've changed, but not evolved.
2 that we all share a common ancestor
Only in a colloquial sense. A more accurate term for that concept is "universal common ancestry".
3 that Darwinian mechanisms (mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift etc) can account for all the diversity and complexity of life.
This one seems a bit odd, since "Darwinian mechanisms" don't usually include mutation, genetic drift, and other genetic-related things that weren't known in Darwin's time. You seem to be describing the modern synthesis more than anything Darwinian.
if I where to bet I would probably say that it is true, but there is room for reasonable doubt. The evidence for universal common ancestor is very strong and the model is simple and elegant. But there are a few bits of evidence against it.
That depends. There are certainly competing hypotheses about the very early earth and the nature of the first populations on it, but that's not what I would really call "evidence against UCA".
is a highly speculative and controversial hypothesis. Evudence strongly suggest that it is probably wrong.
Well given that you listed the mechanisms as "
mutations, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, etc.", it's hard to see just what you're talking about here. What other mechanism(s) are you thinking of that you didn't list (and aren't included under "etc.")?
As for the evidence against common ancestry I'll Gene tree discordances, with this I mean genetic material present in 2 distant organisms that is absent in closer relatives. For example dolphins and bats bave genetic material in common (related to echolocation) that is absent in other mammals.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/physiol.00008.2013
Note that I don't deny common ancestry, I am just saying that there is room for reasonable doubt.
I don't quite understand how that material raises "reasonable doubt" about universal common ancestry. Can you explain?
Genetic entropy: mutations on average tend to deteriorate genomes, natural selection is not strong enough to revert this trend.
I've discussed Sanford's arguments with other creationists on other forums, and well.....it didn't really go well for the creationist. So I'm curious to hear your take. Do you have anything to add beyond what you've said already?
Irreducible complexity I am talking about the actual argument presented by Behe , not the strawman that dawinists tend to invent.
Which of Behe's definitions of IC are you using?
I think that's enough material for now, so I'll just wait for your response.