Expert Destroys Darwin’s Theory in 5 Minutes

How does a simple mouse trap prove Darwin’s theory wrong? Listen to Dr. Michael J. Behe, professor of biochemistry, explain why Charles Darwin’s theory is inadequate to explain the origin of life. Behe reveals how new scientific discoveries about DNA challenge evolution and point to powerful evidence for intelligent design rather than randomness.

#intelligent #design

[LarryTownsend]

"Why Charles Darwin’s theory is inadequate to explain the origin of life."
Darwin's theory doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life.

[newthrash]

"destroys theory". Man, i'm 30 and just went back to community college and even i know that's not how theories work.

[wallymayer]

I understand what you’re trying to say but there are very clear differences between a living organism and a mouse trap.

[diggers]

The fundamental flaw in his argument is that the mouse trap was always a mouse trap and only a mouse trap.

[michaelshort]

Did I miss something? I didn't hear anything that debunks Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

[appletrader]

So his argument is that mutations within cells can’t occur because “that would be silly”?

[Atomchild]

Just because the mechanism for something is beyond his comprehension does not make it impossible.

[cycleunknown]

I'm still waiting for the part he destroys the theory

[mirandahotspring]

We all know one mousetrap that evolved naturally. It's called a cat!

[patrykpiwowar]

My favorite part is where Leigh University actually commented how they support his right to his beliefs while not supporting the belief.

[FrederickTheGrt]

So, he is proving that inanimate objects don't grow and evolve? Ok, good point, i guess, for those who didn't know that.

[milescoleman]

His mousetrap analogy is hopelessly flawed. The mousetrap has a function that was decided upon before all its parts were put together.
The function of all living things are simply to survive. Most living things found it necessary to develop reproduction to do so. ( not all )
Sexual reproduction allowed for mutations in the gene pool. The ones that made the simple chemicals survive and allowed them to reproduce were kept and the ones that didn’t work. Died.
Darwin didn’t attempt to answer how life started. Just how it developed.
He didn’t attempt to explain how the mousetrap was designed either.

[christianityisunstoppable]

I wonder what the first mouse trap looked like before it evolved into the one he’s holding

[WWTormentor]

What he fails to realize is that the same mouse trap that he is holding went through many until they particular model was made. There were lots of parts added or removed from the original mouse trap to get to the current one and many other more advanced ones.

[cronos]

A metaphor suggests a comparison between two things, while an analogy uses comparison to explain or clarify a complex idea or phenomenon.

You're using a mouse trap to explain evolution.

Why are you using a non-living object to describe an event that happens only to living objects?

[appleturnover]

He makes his point by comparing a mousetrap, which obviously cannot be the result of self-mutations, to living organisms that can. This Behe is playing to morons

[satisfiedatheist]

They must have edited out the part when he debunks evolution. What a waste of air.

[foxo]

‘There are aspects of this proposition that are difficult to understand. Therefore, the Universe was created in a week, 6000 years ago.’

[jeancorriveau]

Intelligence is needed to build a mousetrap because nature can't do it for us. The wooden platform is manufactured in shop W; the spring, in shop S; the hammer, in shop H, etc. Then a delivery guy from each of these shops takes them to a manufacture where the parts are assembled. A living cell didn't evolve that way: the DNA didn't come from region R1; the mitochondria didn't come from region R2; the cell membrane didn't come from region R3, etc. Otherwise, nature, by pure magic, would need to know where those regions are, bring these parts to the 'manufacture' where assembling is done. The appearance of pre-life (abiogenesis) started in one specific location on earth, where the chemical structures eventually converged. A mousetrap missing one part can't work, but still exists. A living cell can't *exist* without all parts present due to the convergence I mentioned. Likewise, any part of the living cell can't exist without the cell. So, the living cell is *not* an assembling of parts, so, no design. Extrapolation to complex life forms, like animals, leads to realize that a live leg, for instance, can't exist without the body. So, the body evolved as a unit. In nature, what doesn't work can't exist. So, everything in nature just works. No intelligence involved! Except in a brain.

[UniqueCarsChannel]

Only on YouTube you can “debunk” something.

Go ahead and publish your mousetrap research and let the peer review tear you a new one