@achzdck Energy = Matter X a really big number. Matter is created and destroyed all the time. The sun turns 4 million tons of matter into energy every second.
Not to defend YEC, but it does looks like that mousetrap wasn't rebuilt without it's base, it was just rebuilt using a section of table as the base. The spring and other materials appear to have been attached to the table to use as a base.
The YEC was still wrong and ridiculous with a silly argument that doesn't work, but in this particular case the mousetrap isn't functioning without a base, it's functioning with a different but functionally equivalent base.
Working through this and thank you but there is a flaw in the mousetrap. I get what you're trying to say but at 5:27 you just created another base, rather than remove it. There's other arguments that would work better.
Soo.. to start with "no pieces, at least not specifically designed to be a part of a mouse trap" well that should be easy enough. in fact, a bucket standing alone in my parents barn acted as a mousetrap on its own accord. Its is quite easy to make a mousetrap out of anything. "No, but it has to be this specific kind" the ID:ers would say. NO! It is the FUNCTION that drives evolution, not specific designs. There are countless ways to get the same function, both a snake and a cat can catch a mouse
I believe in evolution by natural selection, but I agree the mousetrap rebuttal was absolute bullshit. He was right... You just substituted one base for another.
I agree that YECs are a bunch of looney tunesbut I think that this attept to refute Behe's mousetrap analogy fails on the following point: an esential component of any mousetrap is its mobility and replacing the base with a desk or floor would at the very least severly impair its mobility thus rendering it useless.
@jimk47 Ok. Your post is cuite old but anyways... NO, it does NOT render it useless. The analogy could be the first animal on land. It could not move fast and the legs were pretty bad functioning. But since it could get to a new source of food and "outrun" anyone trying to catch it (in the sea) it still was useful. Sure, if "alive" in modern competition this mousetrap would be seen as pretty useless, but if it was the first of its kind, it would be king.
@Hopefulfilment Sorry 4 the delay but u're right. Even an immobile mousetrap could catch some mice. BUT, I have to agree with the other comments that the desk or table still act as a base In the same way, legs are legs, no matter how inefficient and even bad design would still be design. The best way to attack YECs and IDers is to ask them for examples of putative ID and prove them wrong. it's a hard slog but it has to be done.
So now god didn't create Adam and Eve (because Darwin has shown that human beings evolved) and now the creationists have settled on god created cellular life. But there is one great big mistake that they make. Without even a single part, if a cell won't function as it did before, so what?
Life is an inevitable consequence of eons of time and constituent elements being available....eventually, they will combine in such a way as to form simple life.After no doubt billions of failures. Simple.
@Gooberlicious54 I don't go to church because of that very phenomena you speak of. People who go to church are sheep who can't learn anything without being told it. My church is my lazy boy and my Bible. Good day.
@achzdck of course i offer simple minded responses when you shit has been debunked a million times over. ID isnt allowed to be taught in schools because it has been shown to be the same as creationism. with spelling and sentence structure i really dont give a fuck but honestly ....... YOU ....... ARE going OuT OF YOUR .............................................................wAy to .........type the way ..............YoU do.
@achzdck your also wrong about that 99.99% you made that number up off the top of your head. i hope your god exists so hes looking down on you right now facepalming at your stupidity.
@achzdck information as it relates to DNA is a metaphor it is not a mathematical relationship. dembskis paper on information has no application in evolutionary biology. his biggest and most obvious mistake is that he makes the assumption that when something happens due to evolution it was meant to happen that way. to use an analogy evolution can take any path and there is no correct path. this is first year genetics but im not surprised dembski didnt remember it.
@achzdck you gave two facts that every one interested in biology probably knows big deal. if you think that somehow causes a problem for our understanding of how these systems evolved you pwned yourself again. for the record what is your education then? im guessing you either got it from the internetz or maybe from patriot university the way you talk.
@achzdck i dont really like jaguarjones either but pwning is good time for comedies sake. yes science has different definitions for some words but we are not trying to trick you. we invite you to get some education and learn the language so you can be a part of a meaningful conversation. you pwn yourself when you try to pwn concepts you dont understand. this is why i say your a joke.
@achzdck you dont understand what words like observable and replicable mean do you? do you think we cannot make theories about anything using "pure science" before humans were around?
@achzdck laws are not laws only because they cannot be refuted. MY FIRST LAW OF DRAGONS STATES - I HAVE AN INVISIBLE DRAGON IN MY GARAGE............Refute this LAW..shitbirds Pwn that LAW -fuck what you think or feel
@achzdck i do know some things about cells from textbooks i also know that all of science will never figure out all things. humans are not the final product of evolution and i never thought that. so far you have shown you dont understand even the most basic concepts of evolution, theories of abiogenesis and irreducible complexity. its clear your a troll no one is as dumb as you pretend to be.
@achzdck you keep talking about "pure science." what is "pure science?" how is a scientific theory not classified as "pure science." did you make up your own phrase with your own definition and just assume that we are suppose to know what you want? you a fucking joke if you think theories of abiogensis have anything to do with irreducible complexity. once a cell is at the point that it is dividing by direction of the DNA this has nothing to do with abiogensis.
@achzdck If all you're going to do is act a certain way then accuse someone else of acting that way when they question you, you're never going to get anyone to listen to you. You're rambling about DNA as if it justifies some belief that you've hardly even managed to coherently communicate.
Could you take a moment from your frustrated whimpering and simply state the point you are trying to make along with some support? Really, I'm challenging you to do this. Otherwise, you remain the fool.
@achzdck I never claimed to be defending anything. You're a very confused, reactionary fellow. You're running around demanding "science facts" and "pure science", making all these accusations about "unporvable" this or that, yet you provide nothing more than an unsupported claim. Where are -your- facts? The burden is on you; submit some proof for your "law" or quit pretending you're superior to everyone else because of your opinion.
@achzdck If you're so eager to prove your point then I invite you to remove your own eyes, kidneys, and other organs in order to demonstrate what you are attempting to convey.
Please post the entire procedure as a video response or series of video responses to this video. Go on, show us, show us all just what you mean. Don't just talk like you accuse us fuckers of doing, do a pure scientific experiment for us so we can see for ourselves!
Nothing is irreducibly complex. A patch of light sensitive cells is not as good as a fully functioning eye, but its still better than nothing. In a concave shape, its even better as you can judge angles. Two are even better, as you can judge distances. Two with a lens covering them are even better, etc etc.
People, yes, this guy's arguments ARE flawed, he does simply replace the base, however, it is not the scientific argument that parts of a mousetrap can be removed, and still function as a mousetrap, it can be used in ALTERNATIVE ways, the same applies to the flagellum, if you remove its individual parts, they will find ways to form themselves into different biological mechanisms, completely different to the flagellum itself...
I find the claim "Ownership of your YEC will be achieved with the greatest expediency..." to be entirely accurate. Great stuff, and it does work in argument.
The parts of a mousetrap could have been perfectly functional as something else. For example, removing the catch and bait holder produces a perfectly functional tie clip.
The mousetrap was a bad example anyway, for either side. The fallacy lies in trying to deconstruct an existing thing that has been designed for a specific purpose. Most, if not all, living things in nature are simply the results of adaptations to their environment with the only explicit purpose being to procreate.
@boan000 you must not have seen the other mousetraps. someone else ripped the mousetrap analogy to pieces. they used the same pieces and made it with 4 pieces, 3 pieces, 2 pieces, and eventually just a one piece mousetrap.
I've heard those arguments, htm. I've written an appropriate response in the next part of this series:
watch?v=9HH_V7mXlfk&feature=related
BAsically stated, removing any component af an irreucibly complex sysytem causes it to cease functioning as that system. That's the point that the so-called refutation failed to address.
Clearly irreducible complexity can evolve and has many times (every species extant today is irreducibly complex). Nonetheless, Behe's response to the mousetrap on the table is fair. The table still does serve as the base, and the pieces still were designed for each other.
The proper way to argue against "irreducible complexity" as the YEC's think of it, isn't to say that irreducible complexity doesn't exist, but instead to show that it can (and must) evolve.
In regards to the redesigned mouse trap, didn't your desk serve as the new base? I don't agree with irreducible complexity so please don't think that.
What you could have done was remove one or more pieces and then found another use for the remaining parts. I think I heard that it works sort of like this in nature.
Okay, I didn't watch all of the video before commenting. This is a fault of mine I have to work on. I still think the parts could have been reassembled for another purpose.
@ThisClownis2in1 yes, things do work like that in nature. The wings and feathers of a bird for instance never appeared to sustain flight, they became adapted to it after a while. Something similar would be the case for the bacterial flagelum. As for your idea that the mouse trap could be used for something else, a scientist used that argument (quite well) against Behe in a trial, the parts of the trap being used as a sort of clothes pin
crimson, I think the problems we have with our bodies these days are based on our habits, not flaws in the human design. I find it hard to believe that the human body decided for itself that it needed to see, hear, taste etc; and at the same time possess the conscious ability to perfect itself. Wouldn't that require conscious desire? Sorry if that's a stupid question, but can the body consciously assess it's own necessities and have the awareness to create solutions?
What do you want to know about this? You are asserting that evolution is in the lamekian style that was refuted long ago. A giraffe its neck did not get bigger, because of the fact that it wanted to get bigger. Evolution does not work on wants or desires, it works on outside factors that have effects on dna.
Your body does not need a conscious to act. do you blink on command, normally you do not. there is no conscious that determines that.
Countering the mouse trap example itself wasn't really necessary. It's as good an example for the IC argument as the watchmaker argument is for ID/creationism. Mouse traps aren't organic, aren't living, and do not reproduce nor have metabolic processes. It's beyond comparing apples with oranges; it's more like comparing apples with eggs.
I had one once try to use their car as proof of IC and ID.
I quickly demonstrated by removing a valve stem cap. "Does the car still work?"
Went further to question how this car was able to reproduce and self-repair, as all flora and fauna do. And drew the comparison of heated cupholders to any human's remnants of a fallacious tail. I think I made my distinction very clear - the two should not be compared.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Burden of proof?
You REALLY think that you have disproven (or pwnd) IC? With THIS?
As Behe points out, and as I saw here, the jaguar jones engineers didn't remove a part, they substitued it. Use your head man! Substitution is not removal. Anyone can see through your silly accusation of 'moving the goalposts'. I have another definition of moving the goalposts. Whenever naturalists are confronted with actual logical refutations to their arguments, they call that 'moving the goalposts'!
ID is an absolutely retarded concept. Maybe God should have thought some shit out a little better (back problems, horrible eye engineering, knee problems, the appendix, etc.).
There is a reason the majority of scientists agree that evolution is a fundamental part of what we understand about life. It's not because they want to disprove God. The Bible takes care of that for them.
ID is an inference to the best explanation. If the naturalists had an explanation that worked, then that would be the best explanation. But they don't have anything except generalities (Darwinian natural selection + mutations) that does not hold up under scrutiny when required to do more than adjust already existing functionality. So there are those who infer to the design that only intelligence can supply.
It's the ridiculous naturalist explanations, not ID, that are retarded.
Your claim hinges upon the notion that natural selection and mutations are 'generalities' that 'do not hold up under scrutiny', and that this somehow proves that only a Designer could have created the creatures alleged to have evolved.
Not only do you provide NO backup to your claim, but the simple fact that you are making it in an attempt to disprove peer reviewed scientific knowledge that has stood for over a century against very intense scrutiny is.... absurd.
What I was saying is that natural selection and mutations do nothing more than provide the most general of frameworks to base the notion of the naturalistic origin of complex biological systems on. But they "don't hold up" in the sense that natural selection (in concert with mutations) has not shown itself capable of generating complicated interdependant new systems. (Such as the eye, bacterial flagellum, and many others.) But it can lose existing functionality (beneficial) or vary it.
Dogs are genetically hyper-malleable, with an incredibly broad variety of physical forms generated via human selection for traits within the space of only a few centuries.
If us mere humans can do it in such a short time, then nature can over the course of millennia.
Dog breeds don't show any generation of complex interdependant new structures. But they do show the range of variation possible taking an existing animal type and selectively altering it. Such changes can happen gradually.
I have always wondered - if they selectively bred humans for a few centuries, could they end up with a "Yoda" like individual? I bet they could! I bet you could have a huge range of different looking humans.
google "Italain wall lizards" in isolation on a new island they developed an intestinal valve to deal with their new food source, this valve is NOT present in the parent populous and is only present in 1% of any lizard species.
It's not possible to evolve that kind of organ in such a short period by random mutations and natural selection. Rather, it would have been a latent organ that can "kick in" when environmental conditions require it. And if it's already present in 1% of other kinds of lizards, well there you go! Probably activated by a HOX gene or something along those lines. There are other accounts of rapid change, more in the class of evo-devo switching genes networks. But certainly not RM & NS.
Given the time frame, don't you think it's more likely a case of phenotypic plasticity? Otherwise, how could a new organ evolve in such a small timeframe?
In the video, DonExodus just assumes it's did, spending much of his time insulting Nephilimfree.
But as the Herrel, Huyghe, ...: Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence ... paper says: "further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed."
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The mousetrap IS irreducibly complex. A 'Base' is necessary to hold the individual parts of the device together in the prescribed pattern. The desk provided a 'base' even if it was a different shape and size. Your demonstration proves IC to be true.
Thank you. Excellent work in showing up Miller and his crew.
You did a good job for those who know God is the creator and not some nameless, politically correct intelligent designer.
Want to work on our side? You did a good job already.
Leaving aside theology and biology for a moment, I saw the same thing you saw in the video. A reassembled mousetrap with the same number of parts, the base had gotten quite a bit bigger though.
First of all, Behe is not a YEC. He is a creationist to be sure, but accepts that the Earth is billions of years old. He also accepts most of the principles of evolution. He simply thinks that some biological features are so complicated they are effectively a roadblock to natural selection. The problem with ID is that its proponents have yet to find any actual instance of irreducible complexity in actual living organisms. Every example they have pointed out have been refuted.
It's kind of a worthless endeavor to pwn YECs because they're too stupid to know when they've been pwnd. It's all about the Dunning-Kruger effect, the cognitive processes to be competent are the same cognitive processes needed to evaluate competence. This goes for evaluating people, arguments and especially themselves. So basically they're too dumb to know they're dumb, or efectively tell who else is dumb. It's why they keep spouting the same bullshit over and over, no matter what happens.
Agreed. The more you slam uncomfortable reality in their faces, the more they feel like disbelieving it is them passing a test of faith. They will say night is day and black is white and birds and insects can have four legs (leviticus) if the Bible says so.
Realy? I think the rant really makes JJ look like an ass.
Behe's objection to the mousetrap example is spot on. You removed the base - a rigid body that holds the pieces together - and replaced it with a different rigid body. Then he pouts like a spoiled child when he gets reminded of what the actual challenge was.
Behe's mousetrap has been refuted, and Ken Miler has a good example of this. I like the other videos in this series, but this one really misses the mark.
Um, no it doesn't. He has just destroyed Behe using Behe's own "scientific" claims. That's the point, there was never anything scientific about them to begin with. I can look through a microscope and make all kinds of claims. Science requires proof of the claims.
The video said nothing directly disproving irreducible complexity. Who cares about he semantics over a mouse trap??? Where was the scientific issue addressed instead of attacking an analogy used to try to convey the concept? Even if the analogy is wrong, it says nothing about the theory. This is the wost anti-intelligent design video I have ever seen. Absolutely miserable.
Indeed it was missing the point. Remember, scientists are human. Their opinions are subjective. It is clear in evolution that there is only so much simplification that can be done in a mechanism before it is useless. Modern science cannot account for everything. Such things as natural horizontal gene transfer was only discover this past decade, and that dramatically screws with our perception of evolution in microorganisms and possibly multicellular beings.
@vigilantpa1adin lol bitching about a mouse trap.. what about the banana, or the crockaduck. he was trying to make it simple but apparently he didn't make it simple enough
@vigilantpa1adin I´m so sorry, you are an imbecile at best. I don´t really want to offend you, since you are probably a religious person, actually, check that, I couldn´t give a fuck if you are offended, you´re a dipshit of the highest order. Pray to jesus or his dad, (same person) I´m sure he´ll come up witha better answer. yeah, right, Silly fucker. Please, use your brain if it still works, come back, insult me, I´ll love it, it still makes you a cabbage.
Reproduction and evolution of structures are completely different . Reproduction makes a new copy of the already existing information, with minor changes caused by mutations.
Evolution of structures (amoeba to man evolution) requires an addition of massive amounts of related information not existing in the original.
It's hard to explain this all in such little space, but the point that the creationist argues in this case ultimately boils down to the "design requires a designer" argument. They like to point out that if you see a watch, bridge, etc. you immediately know it has a designer, which is pure bullshit and has been refuted time and time again. One of the major pieces they overlook is that unlike any of the other 'designed objects', humans solely have the ability to self-replicate (so to speak).
It is this feature that sets humans apart from all of the other supposed "designs" making the comparison a false analogy. That's as best as I can explain with such little space allotted, but there are plenty of videos and other sources of information that can explain it. You need but the courage to seek it out.
The ability to reproduce doesn't solve the evolutionists problem . mutations happening during reproduction and natural selection can not lead to amoeba evolving into humans"
and of coarse can not account for the origin of life.
That's not how the evolutionary theory works...Nowhere does it say anything about amoeba into humans. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure as shit not going to try and type it all out here, but you clearly have no understanding of evolutionary theory. I suggest you do some actual reading on it, and then try again because your current understanding is flawed from beginning to end.
The point of irreducible complexity is that It could not evolve by mutations during reproduction or any other gradual change . Any intermediate forms of a mouse trap are function less and would be immediately eliminated by natural selection leading to a complete halt of the evolutionary process.
IC discusses the impossibility of gradual evolution not it's mechanism. So you claiming that a mouse trap doesn't reproduce is irrelevant to the discussion.
"Any intermediate forms of a mouse trap are function less" - whilst they do not perform the purpose of a mousetrap they may have other uses and therefore be selected for by natural selection :)
and yes, comparing manmade non-living things that do not reproduce with variation to living things that do is completely fucking stupid
to put things in terms you might understand, imagine a table with 4 legs (one in the center) if u keep the middle leg and take away any other it will still function as a table (all be it not as well) and if u take away the middle leg and no others it will still be fine, however if you were to take away the middle leg and then attempt to take away any other it will collapse.
is the table with 3 legs and no center leg irreducibly complex?
HOwever the table with 3 legs is irreducibly complex, so is the simplest form of living cell or visual system , take away one part and it would be dead and functionless
if the table only started with one leg and gained the other three as beneficial random mutations and then lost lost the Centre Leg through a neutral mutation the table only appears to be irreducibly complex.
If it started with one leg it would be non functioning at this stage and would be rapidly eliminated by natural selection because a 1 or 2 legged table is a useless burden on this individual.
once all are in place the middle leg is no longer necessary and can be elliminated with no detriment to the organism ie. neutral mutation.
now you are left with a table with three legs, if you remove any one of these legs the table will topple over however, it's present state was achieved via evolutionary means.
again, it is just a replacement of one part with another . U continue to prove irreducible complexity and the impossibility of gradual evolution of any complex structure
I wish that the University of Pennsylvania (an Ivy League school) where Behe earned his Ph.D. would have some way of taking his degree away from him. He doesn't need it. He could simply move to an island and pray. He contribute just as much to science on that island as he does now.
You've got a plank, which can be used on a pirate ship, to build houses, to nail God to, to build mousetraps...did I mention pirate ships?
You've got a spring, which can be used to...uhh...spring things. Like pinball. And pop-up pirates.
You've got a metal rod on that spring...which can be used as a lockpick, as a hook (bend it and hammer it), or as a jabby-thing (technical term) to sort out those blasted pirates.
And you've got the cheese. No use for that at all..(nom nom)
hey i discovered ur channel today and i guess you could say that i enjoyed it. But I will have to agree with behe that you did substitute bases. I would stick with the argument that miller makes. Dont forget that bacteria reproduce with slight modifications, which some of the traits will be beneficial and passed down to future generations. Mouse traps dont.
I do understand your point but do you understand mine?
Behe said, with absolute certainty, that all of the parts were necessary. In this case, a base is required but it is a base that is in the traps natural environment. I could have just as easily attached it to the floor.
The point is; a small base makes it portable and is therefore an adaptive trait. Furthermore, Behe makes a positive claim and then changes his criteria when he is shown to be wrong.
The better example was turning the mousetrap into a tie clip, a paper holder (the spike onto which you stab papers, memos and menu receipts at a diner), wire staples and so forth.. so the parts had *other* functions.
As a Pangolin, I am highly offended at your insinuations and accusations concerning the perceived homosexual appearance of my race. Most of us are actually heterosexual. We just happen to like track lighting, humus, and turtleneck sweaters. Coincidence, I assure you.
Also, please refrain from associating the Pangolin race with YECs. It is degrading and demeaning to our level of intelligence.
look, I love your stuff, and I think your videos are awesome, as you have been presenting facts in an easy-to-follow and interesting manner in the service of poetic justice... however, though I acknowledge that you were joking in your closing statement...
Pangolins must engage in heterosexual intercourse to survive as a species; Though homosexual activity is present in much of the animal kingdom, it is appropriate to provide examples before stating claims. I mean, sure it LOOKS gay, but IS IT?
I would council you to tread lightly here, less you find yourself on the business end of a "how to pwn a gay looking pangolin lover" video in the very near future.
Just point out that if the creation is irreducibly complex then (by their own definition) the creator itself is more irreducibly complex, therefore need a creator, that needs a creator, that needs a creator and so on.
Religious idiots shouldn't play with science, it has a tendancy to bite back.
Love your videos, but I'd take out the mousetrap part. All you did is replace the base with a much bigger base. You can, however, find other, non-mousetrap uses for it's component parts.
Look Mr Behe, you said that if one part was removed it wouldn't function as a mousetrap. So, one part was removed and you were proven wrong. A based was used from its natural environment. You were the one who said it couldn't be done and you set the terms of the challenge. Now that I win, you change the rules.
I love the very "proper"( best word I can think of right now...) way of saying common phrases, such as bullshit( bovine excrement) and shits and giggles... But I also love the outburst at the end. A very good video
I was told that the motorcar obviously had a designer. My answer was to detail the development of the car from a horse cart with a steam engine to the sort of machine we are familiar with today made by many engineers refining the efforts of their predecessors. I am sure that if anyone could be bothered a similar argument could be made for the development of the mousetrap, which did not materialise from one designer but has been refined (evolved) over a period of time by many.
ACHZDCK USES WAY MUCH CAPS LOCK !
codyownz2 5 months ago
@achzdck Energy = Matter X a really big number. Matter is created and destroyed all the time. The sun turns 4 million tons of matter into energy every second.
gregrutz 5 months ago
Not to defend YEC, but it does looks like that mousetrap wasn't rebuilt without it's base, it was just rebuilt using a section of table as the base. The spring and other materials appear to have been attached to the table to use as a base.
The YEC was still wrong and ridiculous with a silly argument that doesn't work, but in this particular case the mousetrap isn't functioning without a base, it's functioning with a different but functionally equivalent base.
pkemrin 5 months ago
@achzdck Untrue, quantum physicists have observed subatomic particles appearing seemingly from nowhere in a vacuum.
Ni73sh4d3 6 months ago
hahahaha
bigdaddyquey 6 months ago
LMAO best ending ever
Chilldudeski 6 months ago
Working through this and thank you but there is a flaw in the mousetrap. I get what you're trying to say but at 5:27 you just created another base, rather than remove it. There's other arguments that would work better.
radvermin 6 months ago
Soo.. to start with "no pieces, at least not specifically designed to be a part of a mouse trap" well that should be easy enough. in fact, a bucket standing alone in my parents barn acted as a mousetrap on its own accord. Its is quite easy to make a mousetrap out of anything. "No, but it has to be this specific kind" the ID:ers would say. NO! It is the FUNCTION that drives evolution, not specific designs. There are countless ways to get the same function, both a snake and a cat can catch a mouse
Hopefulfilment 7 months ago
I believe in evolution by natural selection, but I agree the mousetrap rebuttal was absolute bullshit. He was right... You just substituted one base for another.
NewVinland 8 months ago
@NewVinland Ehh... so?
Hopefulfilment 7 months ago
The end made me shit my pants with fear
konohanominato 9 months ago
Kinda feel bad for the pangolins. But they look so gay
ButtaNToast 9 months ago
kenneth miller disproves the mousetrap "argument" better than anyone I seen so far.
jacobpaprotskiy 10 months ago
Loving the series.
One thing: There's no such word as "criterias." "Criteria is already plural; the singular is "criterion." :-)
Cinemastique 11 months ago
I agree that YECs are a bunch of looney tunesbut I think that this attept to refute Behe's mousetrap analogy fails on the following point: an esential component of any mousetrap is its mobility and replacing the base with a desk or floor would at the very least severly impair its mobility thus rendering it useless.
jimk47 11 months ago
@jimk47 Ok. Your post is cuite old but anyways... NO, it does NOT render it useless. The analogy could be the first animal on land. It could not move fast and the legs were pretty bad functioning. But since it could get to a new source of food and "outrun" anyone trying to catch it (in the sea) it still was useful. Sure, if "alive" in modern competition this mousetrap would be seen as pretty useless, but if it was the first of its kind, it would be king.
Hopefulfilment 7 months ago
@Hopefulfilment quite even
Hopefulfilment 7 months ago
@Hopefulfilment : agree. i take ur point.
jimk47 7 months ago
@Hopefulfilment Sorry 4 the delay but u're right. Even an immobile mousetrap could catch some mice. BUT, I have to agree with the other comments that the desk or table still act as a base In the same way, legs are legs, no matter how inefficient and even bad design would still be design. The best way to attack YECs and IDers is to ask them for examples of putative ID and prove them wrong. it's a hard slog but it has to be done.
jimk47 3 months ago
I agree that YECs are crazy (and wrong), but Behe was right in his response, you just replaced a small base with a larger base...
bkirk1979 1 year ago
I thought that Behe was an OEC, not a YEC. Not that that makes a hell of a lot of difference.
Godlesspanther 1 year ago
So now god didn't create Adam and Eve (because Darwin has shown that human beings evolved) and now the creationists have settled on god created cellular life. But there is one great big mistake that they make. Without even a single part, if a cell won't function as it did before, so what?
Life is an inevitable consequence of eons of time and constituent elements being available....eventually, they will combine in such a way as to form simple life.After no doubt billions of failures. Simple.
exchangeisno 1 year ago
This jackass's voice is so grating... I hate listening to smug assholes. You can make a point without sounding like that.
ghostgate82 1 year ago
@ghostgate82 "I hate listening to smug assholes"
You must HATE going to church then!
Gooberlicious54 1 year ago 9
@Gooberlicious54 I don't go to church because of that very phenomena you speak of. People who go to church are sheep who can't learn anything without being told it. My church is my lazy boy and my Bible. Good day.
ghostgate82 1 year ago
@achzdck of course i offer simple minded responses when you shit has been debunked a million times over. ID isnt allowed to be taught in schools because it has been shown to be the same as creationism. with spelling and sentence structure i really dont give a fuck but honestly ....... YOU ....... ARE going OuT OF YOUR .............................................................wAy to .........type the way ..............YoU do.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck your also wrong about that 99.99% you made that number up off the top of your head. i hope your god exists so hes looking down on you right now facepalming at your stupidity.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck information as it relates to DNA is a metaphor it is not a mathematical relationship. dembskis paper on information has no application in evolutionary biology. his biggest and most obvious mistake is that he makes the assumption that when something happens due to evolution it was meant to happen that way. to use an analogy evolution can take any path and there is no correct path. this is first year genetics but im not surprised dembski didnt remember it.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck all mutations are not negative.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck you gave two facts that every one interested in biology probably knows big deal. if you think that somehow causes a problem for our understanding of how these systems evolved you pwned yourself again. for the record what is your education then? im guessing you either got it from the internetz or maybe from patriot university the way you talk.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck i dont really like jaguarjones either but pwning is good time for comedies sake. yes science has different definitions for some words but we are not trying to trick you. we invite you to get some education and learn the language so you can be a part of a meaningful conversation. you pwn yourself when you try to pwn concepts you dont understand. this is why i say your a joke.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck you dont understand what words like observable and replicable mean do you? do you think we cannot make theories about anything using "pure science" before humans were around?
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck laws are not laws only because they cannot be refuted. MY FIRST LAW OF DRAGONS STATES - I HAVE AN INVISIBLE DRAGON IN MY GARAGE............Refute this LAW..shitbirds Pwn that LAW -fuck what you think or feel
JUST THE FACTS .....you pinhead turds
your words not mine.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck i do know some things about cells from textbooks i also know that all of science will never figure out all things. humans are not the final product of evolution and i never thought that. so far you have shown you dont understand even the most basic concepts of evolution, theories of abiogenesis and irreducible complexity. its clear your a troll no one is as dumb as you pretend to be.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck you keep talking about "pure science." what is "pure science?" how is a scientific theory not classified as "pure science." did you make up your own phrase with your own definition and just assume that we are suppose to know what you want? you a fucking joke if you think theories of abiogensis have anything to do with irreducible complexity. once a cell is at the point that it is dividing by direction of the DNA this has nothing to do with abiogensis.
1aaronaaron1 1 year ago
@achzdck If all you're going to do is act a certain way then accuse someone else of acting that way when they question you, you're never going to get anyone to listen to you. You're rambling about DNA as if it justifies some belief that you've hardly even managed to coherently communicate.
Could you take a moment from your frustrated whimpering and simply state the point you are trying to make along with some support? Really, I'm challenging you to do this. Otherwise, you remain the fool.
FlandreScarletTepes 1 year ago
@achzdck I never claimed to be defending anything. You're a very confused, reactionary fellow. You're running around demanding "science facts" and "pure science", making all these accusations about "unporvable" this or that, yet you provide nothing more than an unsupported claim. Where are -your- facts? The burden is on you; submit some proof for your "law" or quit pretending you're superior to everyone else because of your opinion.
FlandreScarletTepes 1 year ago
@achzdck If you're so eager to prove your point then I invite you to remove your own eyes, kidneys, and other organs in order to demonstrate what you are attempting to convey.
Please post the entire procedure as a video response or series of video responses to this video. Go on, show us, show us all just what you mean. Don't just talk like you accuse us fuckers of doing, do a pure scientific experiment for us so we can see for ourselves!
FlandreScarletTepes 1 year ago
Nothing is irreducibly complex. A patch of light sensitive cells is not as good as a fully functioning eye, but its still better than nothing. In a concave shape, its even better as you can judge angles. Two are even better, as you can judge distances. Two with a lens covering them are even better, etc etc.
tipoomaster 1 year ago
People, yes, this guy's arguments ARE flawed, he does simply replace the base, however, it is not the scientific argument that parts of a mousetrap can be removed, and still function as a mousetrap, it can be used in ALTERNATIVE ways, the same applies to the flagellum, if you remove its individual parts, they will find ways to form themselves into different biological mechanisms, completely different to the flagellum itself...
TheEnchantedCereal 1 year ago
I find the claim "Ownership of your YEC will be achieved with the greatest expediency..." to be entirely accurate. Great stuff, and it does work in argument.
JCLeSinge 1 year ago
The argument that nature is art is DEAD. Nature is nature, art is the product of the human mind, and religion is art, not natural.
AtheistdotEDU 1 year ago
@AtheistdotEDU Religion is art in the same sense that pissing your name into fresh snow is art.
FlandreScarletTepes 1 year ago
The parts of a mousetrap could have been perfectly functional as something else. For example, removing the catch and bait holder produces a perfectly functional tie clip.
gpietsch 1 year ago
"Minus its base"? --your team just put it on a larger base. Now the mouse trap is both irreducibly complex AND irreducibly INCONVENIENT.
Nice try, guys!
MorganMarvinson 1 year ago
7:29-7:40 hahaha. finally some rage! much needed.
4mAALIKcHIN4 1 year ago
Your desk acted as the base. So you didn't actually remove any part. I don't understand your response to this, it makes absolutely no sense.
femtoguts 1 year ago
The mousetrap was a bad example anyway, for either side. The fallacy lies in trying to deconstruct an existing thing that has been designed for a specific purpose. Most, if not all, living things in nature are simply the results of adaptations to their environment with the only explicit purpose being to procreate.
farkoman 1 year ago
the ending is hilarious!
TheHomelessCripple 1 year ago
"if a single component of a mousetrap is removed, it will no longer function as a mousetrap"
So to prove him wrong, you exchange a small wooden base for a great big one. LOL... FAIL!
boan000 2 years ago
@boan000 you must not have seen the other mousetraps. someone else ripped the mousetrap analogy to pieces. they used the same pieces and made it with 4 pieces, 3 pieces, 2 pieces, and eventually just a one piece mousetrap.
hardtomemorize 1 year ago
I've heard those arguments, htm. I've written an appropriate response in the next part of this series:
watch?v=9HH_V7mXlfk&feature=related
BAsically stated, removing any component af an irreucibly complex sysytem causes it to cease functioning as that system. That's the point that the so-called refutation failed to address.
boan000 1 year ago
Clearly irreducible complexity can evolve and has many times (every species extant today is irreducibly complex). Nonetheless, Behe's response to the mousetrap on the table is fair. The table still does serve as the base, and the pieces still were designed for each other.
The proper way to argue against "irreducible complexity" as the YEC's think of it, isn't to say that irreducible complexity doesn't exist, but instead to show that it can (and must) evolve.
Keeban3 2 years ago 2
ROFLMAO @ 7:33
MrFungus420 2 years ago
In regards to the redesigned mouse trap, didn't your desk serve as the new base? I don't agree with irreducible complexity so please don't think that.
What you could have done was remove one or more pieces and then found another use for the remaining parts. I think I heard that it works sort of like this in nature.
Good videos btw.
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago 2
Okay, I didn't watch all of the video before commenting. This is a fault of mine I have to work on. I still think the parts could have been reassembled for another purpose.
ThisClownis2in1 2 years ago
@ThisClownis2in1 yes, things do work like that in nature. The wings and feathers of a bird for instance never appeared to sustain flight, they became adapted to it after a while. Something similar would be the case for the bacterial flagelum. As for your idea that the mouse trap could be used for something else, a scientist used that argument (quite well) against Behe in a trial, the parts of the trap being used as a sort of clothes pin
dapanzy 1 year ago
SIIIIIIIGHH!!!!
Serge1965 2 years ago
Judging by the commentator's voice, atheism turns one into a machine!
BesACB 2 years ago
The Pope sounds dead. . .being religious makes you a zombie then?
mazakiel 2 years ago
Eh yes, Mazakiel. The wrong kind of religion does.
BesACB 2 years ago
What do you mean by wrong kind? Is their a right one?
mazakiel 2 years ago
crimson, I think the problems we have with our bodies these days are based on our habits, not flaws in the human design. I find it hard to believe that the human body decided for itself that it needed to see, hear, taste etc; and at the same time possess the conscious ability to perfect itself. Wouldn't that require conscious desire? Sorry if that's a stupid question, but can the body consciously assess it's own necessities and have the awareness to create solutions?
spectrumdweller 2 years ago
What do you want to know about this? You are asserting that evolution is in the lamekian style that was refuted long ago. A giraffe its neck did not get bigger, because of the fact that it wanted to get bigger. Evolution does not work on wants or desires, it works on outside factors that have effects on dna.
Your body does not need a conscious to act. do you blink on command, normally you do not. there is no conscious that determines that.
NathanWubs 2 years ago
Countering the mouse trap example itself wasn't really necessary. It's as good an example for the IC argument as the watchmaker argument is for ID/creationism. Mouse traps aren't organic, aren't living, and do not reproduce nor have metabolic processes. It's beyond comparing apples with oranges; it's more like comparing apples with eggs.
SeruQuik 2 years ago
Yep. My thoughts exactly.
I had one once try to use their car as proof of IC and ID.
I quickly demonstrated by removing a valve stem cap. "Does the car still work?"
Went further to question how this car was able to reproduce and self-repair, as all flora and fauna do. And drew the comparison of heated cupholders to any human's remnants of a fallacious tail. I think I made my distinction very clear - the two should not be compared.
Alisterwolf66 2 years ago
Lol...... Love the end there
Grahm00 2 years ago 7
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Burden of proof?
You REALLY think that you have disproven (or pwnd) IC? With THIS?
As Behe points out, and as I saw here, the jaguar jones engineers didn't remove a part, they substitued it. Use your head man! Substitution is not removal. Anyone can see through your silly accusation of 'moving the goalposts'. I have another definition of moving the goalposts. Whenever naturalists are confronted with actual logical refutations to their arguments, they call that 'moving the goalposts'!
tubewatch59 2 years ago
ID is an absolutely retarded concept. Maybe God should have thought some shit out a little better (back problems, horrible eye engineering, knee problems, the appendix, etc.).
There is a reason the majority of scientists agree that evolution is a fundamental part of what we understand about life. It's not because they want to disprove God. The Bible takes care of that for them.
crimsontearz24 2 years ago 2
ID is an inference to the best explanation. If the naturalists had an explanation that worked, then that would be the best explanation. But they don't have anything except generalities (Darwinian natural selection + mutations) that does not hold up under scrutiny when required to do more than adjust already existing functionality. So there are those who infer to the design that only intelligence can supply.
It's the ridiculous naturalist explanations, not ID, that are retarded.
tubewatch59 2 years ago
Using the word 'infer' does not make your argument any less absurd.
cephal0p0d 2 years ago
cephal0p0d - You can either:
(a) State an argument's absurd.
(b) Demonstrate an argument's absurd.
Care to try (b)?
tubewatch59 2 years ago
Gladly!
Your claim hinges upon the notion that natural selection and mutations are 'generalities' that 'do not hold up under scrutiny', and that this somehow proves that only a Designer could have created the creatures alleged to have evolved.
Not only do you provide NO backup to your claim, but the simple fact that you are making it in an attempt to disprove peer reviewed scientific knowledge that has stood for over a century against very intense scrutiny is.... absurd.
Patently so.
cephal0p0d 2 years ago
What I was saying is that natural selection and mutations do nothing more than provide the most general of frameworks to base the notion of the naturalistic origin of complex biological systems on. But they "don't hold up" in the sense that natural selection (in concert with mutations) has not shown itself capable of generating complicated interdependant new systems. (Such as the eye, bacterial flagellum, and many others.) But it can lose existing functionality (beneficial) or vary it.
tubewatch59 2 years ago
I can disprove that in one word.
DOGS.
Dogs are genetically hyper-malleable, with an incredibly broad variety of physical forms generated via human selection for traits within the space of only a few centuries.
If us mere humans can do it in such a short time, then nature can over the course of millennia.
No imaginary sky man required.
cephal0p0d 2 years ago
Disprove what?
Dog breeds don't show any generation of complex interdependant new structures. But they do show the range of variation possible taking an existing animal type and selectively altering it. Such changes can happen gradually.
I have always wondered - if they selectively bred humans for a few centuries, could they end up with a "Yoda" like individual? I bet they could! I bet you could have a huge range of different looking humans.
Despite all that, there's no new systems.
tubewatch59 2 years ago
google "Italain wall lizards" in isolation on a new island they developed an intestinal valve to deal with their new food source, this valve is NOT present in the parent populous and is only present in 1% of any lizard species.
TheEVILutionist 2 years ago
It's not possible to evolve that kind of organ in such a short period by random mutations and natural selection. Rather, it would have been a latent organ that can "kick in" when environmental conditions require it. And if it's already present in 1% of other kinds of lizards, well there you go! Probably activated by a HOX gene or something along those lines. There are other accounts of rapid change, more in the class of evo-devo switching genes networks. But certainly not RM & NS.
tubewatch59 2 years ago
youtube this video "Nephilimfree Rebuttal- Italian Wall Lizards"
TheEVILutionist 2 years ago
Given the time frame, don't you think it's more likely a case of phenotypic plasticity? Otherwise, how could a new organ evolve in such a small timeframe?
In the video, DonExodus just assumes it's did, spending much of his time insulting Nephilimfree.
But as the Herrel, Huyghe, ...: Rapid large-scale evolutionary divergence ... paper says: "further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed."
tubewatch59 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The mousetrap IS irreducibly complex. A 'Base' is necessary to hold the individual parts of the device together in the prescribed pattern. The desk provided a 'base' even if it was a different shape and size. Your demonstration proves IC to be true.
Thank you. Excellent work in showing up Miller and his crew.
You did a good job for those who know God is the creator and not some nameless, politically correct intelligent designer.
Want to work on our side? You did a good job already.
foresigns 2 years ago
Leaving aside theology and biology for a moment, I saw the same thing you saw in the video. A reassembled mousetrap with the same number of parts, the base had gotten quite a bit bigger though.
BesACB 2 years ago
Owner's manual... lol, brilliant.
matt1746 2 years ago
SUBSCRIBED!
TaurusCanser 2 years ago
PAGOLIN!!!
FraggedMind 2 years ago
First of all, Behe is not a YEC. He is a creationist to be sure, but accepts that the Earth is billions of years old. He also accepts most of the principles of evolution. He simply thinks that some biological features are so complicated they are effectively a roadblock to natural selection. The problem with ID is that its proponents have yet to find any actual instance of irreducible complexity in actual living organisms. Every example they have pointed out have been refuted.
stork5100 2 years ago 10
more importantly,the mousetrap doesn't have to function as a mousetrap,it just has to function in some manner
ViralMessiah 2 years ago 2
It's kind of a worthless endeavor to pwn YECs because they're too stupid to know when they've been pwnd. It's all about the Dunning-Kruger effect, the cognitive processes to be competent are the same cognitive processes needed to evaluate competence. This goes for evaluating people, arguments and especially themselves. So basically they're too dumb to know they're dumb, or efectively tell who else is dumb. It's why they keep spouting the same bullshit over and over, no matter what happens.
Sh0nin 2 years ago 2
Agreed. The more you slam uncomfortable reality in their faces, the more they feel like disbelieving it is them passing a test of faith. They will say night is day and black is white and birds and insects can have four legs (leviticus) if the Bible says so.
Negativepositiv 2 years ago 2
love the rant at the end.
Masher88 2 years ago
Realy? I think the rant really makes JJ look like an ass.
Behe's objection to the mousetrap example is spot on. You removed the base - a rigid body that holds the pieces together - and replaced it with a different rigid body. Then he pouts like a spoiled child when he gets reminded of what the actual challenge was.
Behe's mousetrap has been refuted, and Ken Miler has a good example of this. I like the other videos in this series, but this one really misses the mark.
stork5100 2 years ago
"Realy? I think the rant really makes JJ look like an ass."
I think it's funny because you can tell he just gets so frustrated with all this creationist nonsense...as do I.
Masher88 2 years ago
You don't have to go to the extent of removing the base. Just remove the cheese.
pilgrimpater 2 years ago
This is why people don't like listening to Atheist... this is so poorly done and makes straw man arguments.
vigilantpa1adin 2 years ago 2
Go ahead and pwn the crap out of me with your video and I will approve it as a response.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
What straw man? Direct quotes. Seriously, make a video reply so I can see JJ's answer.
Nix ~
nixonfanatic 2 years ago
Um, no it doesn't. He has just destroyed Behe using Behe's own "scientific" claims. That's the point, there was never anything scientific about them to begin with. I can look through a microscope and make all kinds of claims. Science requires proof of the claims.
burkeyatm 2 years ago
STILL WAITING
cephal0p0d 2 years ago
The video said nothing directly disproving irreducible complexity. Who cares about he semantics over a mouse trap??? Where was the scientific issue addressed instead of attacking an analogy used to try to convey the concept? Even if the analogy is wrong, it says nothing about the theory. This is the wost anti-intelligent design video I have ever seen. Absolutely miserable.
vigilantpa1adin 2 years ago
Check out part 2.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
hes going after the idea by showing you dont need very part
kokofan50 2 years ago
You're an idiot. The Mouse trap is not Irreducibly Complex, even if you remove some parts it can still serve another purpose.
I.D. Is not a theory, its never been through peer review. Its not even a good hypothesis.
ScottTheAtheist 2 years ago
"Complex, even if you remove some parts it can still serve another purpose." Thats missing the point.
vigilantpa1adin 2 years ago
@vigilantpa1adin The point was the parts do not have to have been specifically designed for the function they currently hold.
eep80674 2 years ago
Indeed it was missing the point. Remember, scientists are human. Their opinions are subjective. It is clear in evolution that there is only so much simplification that can be done in a mechanism before it is useless. Modern science cannot account for everything. Such things as natural horizontal gene transfer was only discover this past decade, and that dramatically screws with our perception of evolution in microorganisms and possibly multicellular beings.
vigilantpa1adin 2 years ago
@vigilantpa1adin lol bitching about a mouse trap.. what about the banana, or the crockaduck. he was trying to make it simple but apparently he didn't make it simple enough
deafencryption 1 year ago
@vigilantpa1adin I´m so sorry, you are an imbecile at best. I don´t really want to offend you, since you are probably a religious person, actually, check that, I couldn´t give a fuck if you are offended, you´re a dipshit of the highest order. Pray to jesus or his dad, (same person) I´m sure he´ll come up witha better answer. yeah, right, Silly fucker. Please, use your brain if it still works, come back, insult me, I´ll love it, it still makes you a cabbage.
yatter1 1 year ago
@vigilantpa1adin You prove nothing with your nay saying. This is why I don't liek listening to theists, all they can do is sling mud.
tugger 1 year ago
Reproduction and evolution of structures are completely different . Reproduction makes a new copy of the already existing information, with minor changes caused by mutations.
Evolution of structures (amoeba to man evolution) requires an addition of massive amounts of related information not existing in the original.
Random mutations can not account for that.
rafikgl 2 years ago
It's hard to explain this all in such little space, but the point that the creationist argues in this case ultimately boils down to the "design requires a designer" argument. They like to point out that if you see a watch, bridge, etc. you immediately know it has a designer, which is pure bullshit and has been refuted time and time again. One of the major pieces they overlook is that unlike any of the other 'designed objects', humans solely have the ability to self-replicate (so to speak).
mikech78 2 years ago
It is this feature that sets humans apart from all of the other supposed "designs" making the comparison a false analogy. That's as best as I can explain with such little space allotted, but there are plenty of videos and other sources of information that can explain it. You need but the courage to seek it out.
mikech78 2 years ago
Your refutations are easily refuted :
The ability to reproduce doesn't solve the evolutionists problem . mutations happening during reproduction and natural selection can not lead to amoeba evolving into humans"
and of coarse can not account for the origin of life.
rafikgl 2 years ago
That's not how the evolutionary theory works...Nowhere does it say anything about amoeba into humans. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure as shit not going to try and type it all out here, but you clearly have no understanding of evolutionary theory. I suggest you do some actual reading on it, and then try again because your current understanding is flawed from beginning to end.
mikech78 2 years ago
The point of irreducible complexity is that It could not evolve by mutations during reproduction or any other gradual change . Any intermediate forms of a mouse trap are function less and would be immediately eliminated by natural selection leading to a complete halt of the evolutionary process.
IC discusses the impossibility of gradual evolution not it's mechanism. So you claiming that a mouse trap doesn't reproduce is irrelevant to the discussion.
rafikgl 2 years ago
"Any intermediate forms of a mouse trap are function less" - whilst they do not perform the purpose of a mousetrap they may have other uses and therefore be selected for by natural selection :)
and yes, comparing manmade non-living things that do not reproduce with variation to living things that do is completely fucking stupid
types10000 2 years ago
to put things in terms you might understand, imagine a table with 4 legs (one in the center) if u keep the middle leg and take away any other it will still function as a table (all be it not as well) and if u take away the middle leg and no others it will still be fine, however if you were to take away the middle leg and then attempt to take away any other it will collapse.
is the table with 3 legs and no center leg irreducibly complex?
types10000 2 years ago
HOwever the table with 3 legs is irreducibly complex, so is the simplest form of living cell or visual system , take away one part and it would be dead and functionless
rafikgl 2 years ago
if the table only started with one leg and gained the other three as beneficial random mutations and then lost lost the Centre Leg through a neutral mutation the table only appears to be irreducibly complex.
types10000 2 years ago
If it started with one leg it would be non functioning at this stage and would be rapidly eliminated by natural selection because a 1 or 2 legged table is a useless burden on this individual.
rafikgl 2 years ago
once all are in place the middle leg is no longer necessary and can be elliminated with no detriment to the organism ie. neutral mutation.
now you are left with a table with three legs, if you remove any one of these legs the table will topple over however, it's present state was achieved via evolutionary means.
types10000 2 years ago
As if u didn't read my comment . I described to you that it can not reach the 1, 2 , & 3 leg stage . not that it could loose a leg after that.
rafikgl 2 years ago
I'm pretty sure that's a typo where he meant to say "doesn't"...if it's not a typo, then he's clearly an idiot.
mikech78 2 years ago
oh shit, JJ straight up snapped. That totally caught me off guard.
mikech78 2 years ago
Yeah that surprised me too...
f2928 2 years ago
Also, if you take the pin off, the mousetrap is now a tie clip.
It still functions, just differently.
CBGB42 2 years ago
I saw that video too...but the point is that if you remove the parts, can it still be a functioning mouse trap.
mikech78 2 years ago
again, it is just a replacement of one part with another . U continue to prove irreducible complexity and the impossibility of gradual evolution of any complex structure
rafikgl 2 years ago
HAHAHAHAHA <3 The ending of this
xxdjsethxx 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do u think all people so stupid as to believe this:
The engineers had to replace the wooden base with another one to make it still functional. This just proves it is irreducibly complex.
Also, They had to use their intelligence to reassemble the parts on the new base. So Thank you for proving the intelligent designer theory.
rafikgl 2 years ago
well the whole mouse trap analogy is bullshit
a mouse trap does reproduce and/or evolve
there is a very good video somewhere in my faves that tackles the IC problem
so you sir fail :P
ramanglass544 2 years ago
Comment removed
rafikgl 2 years ago
I wish that the University of Pennsylvania (an Ivy League school) where Behe earned his Ph.D. would have some way of taking his degree away from him. He doesn't need it. He could simply move to an island and pray. He contribute just as much to science on that island as he does now.
heathdwatts 2 years ago
I can clearly see a fully functional pipe stoker in that mouse trap
consumerweiss 2 years ago
That last outburst was hilarious.
generaleskimo 2 years ago 9
Wow you are smart!!!!!! Now get in your car parts and drive away.
reisom6 2 years ago
The excessively verbose manner of speaking employed by our humble narrator is quite droll.
5/*5
ZachValkyrie 2 years ago 2
As for the mouse trap, the separate parts do not need to be a mouse trap, it's fine if it has another function...
Great videos, I've been going through them and have been quite entertained!
Atheistblindchick 2 years ago 2
^_^ Yep, I agree!
You've got a plank, which can be used on a pirate ship, to build houses, to nail God to, to build mousetraps...did I mention pirate ships?
You've got a spring, which can be used to...uhh...spring things. Like pinball. And pop-up pirates.
You've got a metal rod on that spring...which can be used as a lockpick, as a hook (bend it and hammer it), or as a jabby-thing (technical term) to sort out those blasted pirates.
And you've got the cheese. No use for that at all..(nom nom)
sirnlawson 2 years ago 2
Great ending! I almost lost my coffee....thru my nose!
Looking forward to more.
sixkiller111 2 years ago
You startled me at the end. :)
JRChadwick 2 years ago
hey i discovered ur channel today and i guess you could say that i enjoyed it. But I will have to agree with behe that you did substitute bases. I would stick with the argument that miller makes. Dont forget that bacteria reproduce with slight modifications, which some of the traits will be beneficial and passed down to future generations. Mouse traps dont.
mrb0192 2 years ago
I do understand your point but do you understand mine?
Behe said, with absolute certainty, that all of the parts were necessary. In this case, a base is required but it is a base that is in the traps natural environment. I could have just as easily attached it to the floor.
The point is; a small base makes it portable and is therefore an adaptive trait. Furthermore, Behe makes a positive claim and then changes his criteria when he is shown to be wrong.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
Owned! These people are irreducibly retarded.
creationless1 2 years ago 4
IDists are 'irreducibly retarded' - that seems to fit the facts.
How could we falsify that theory?
proudfootz 2 years ago
lol love the craziness towards the end =]
theatheistguy 2 years ago
The better example was turning the mousetrap into a tie clip, a paper holder (the spike onto which you stab papers, memos and menu receipts at a diner), wire staples and so forth.. so the parts had *other* functions.
RyuDarragh 2 years ago
As a Pangolin, I am highly offended at your insinuations and accusations concerning the perceived homosexual appearance of my race. Most of us are actually heterosexual. We just happen to like track lighting, humus, and turtleneck sweaters. Coincidence, I assure you.
Also, please refrain from associating the Pangolin race with YECs. It is degrading and demeaning to our level of intelligence.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
A Pangolin.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago 6
I will stop with the YEC association but you are still totally gay!
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
Seriously, that was hilarous! Thanks!
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
:D Just returning the favor. Your videos are highly (much emphasis on 'highly') entertaining.
Bobbiethejean 2 years ago
Heh I always look for the gay pangolin, it's like your version of where is Waldo :>
wolfwing1 2 years ago
ROFL at the very end there! :-D
AnethSvartalf 2 years ago
You should enter this into the Coughlan666 Pwnage Olympics. It will win this weeks for certain!
freedom0f5peech 2 years ago
M4J0R LOLOLOL @ 7:32
Phibins 2 years ago
awesome
thunderpants10 2 years ago
I nearly pissed myself when he lost his temper! It was soooo unexpected. GREAT WORK!!!
ndjm00 2 years ago
lol.
Danmill23 2 years ago
i think those pangolins are really cute. i'd never even heard of them before. how did you find about about them, jaguarj0nes?
heyxluno 2 years ago
This question will be answered in the upcoming premiere episode of disclosures of cognitions resulting from viewer inquiry.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
look, I love your stuff, and I think your videos are awesome, as you have been presenting facts in an easy-to-follow and interesting manner in the service of poetic justice... however, though I acknowledge that you were joking in your closing statement...
Pangolins must engage in heterosexual intercourse to survive as a species; Though homosexual activity is present in much of the animal kingdom, it is appropriate to provide examples before stating claims. I mean, sure it LOOKS gay, but IS IT?
Stonehawk 2 years ago
I would council you to tread lightly here, less you find yourself on the business end of a "how to pwn a gay looking pangolin lover" video in the very near future.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
Your vid are so funny jag
keep posting :P
DarwinMonkey85 2 years ago
Just point out that if the creation is irreducibly complex then (by their own definition) the creator itself is more irreducibly complex, therefore need a creator, that needs a creator, that needs a creator and so on.
Religious idiots shouldn't play with science, it has a tendancy to bite back.
Other than that great vid.
Cowinspace 2 years ago
Love your videos, but I'd take out the mousetrap part. All you did is replace the base with a much bigger base. You can, however, find other, non-mousetrap uses for it's component parts.
blurglide 2 years ago
Look Mr Behe, you said that if one part was removed it wouldn't function as a mousetrap. So, one part was removed and you were proven wrong. A based was used from its natural environment. You were the one who said it couldn't be done and you set the terms of the challenge. Now that I win, you change the rules.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
You just won all my intarwebs sir. Congrats.
Detection of epic win in this sector.....
brianthemayan 2 years ago
roflmao HI-larious! And also the truth. Who says you can't have both? lol
MillionSword 2 years ago
5stars for a Kaiser Sosa reference.
rustyshackelford1980 2 years ago
It was either that or "Surge Handfeld". Does that come from the "Pickup Artist?"
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
Never seen the pickup artist. :(
I'll have to check it out.
rustyshackelford1980 2 years ago
I love the very "proper"( best word I can think of right now...) way of saying common phrases, such as bullshit( bovine excrement) and shits and giggles... But I also love the outburst at the end. A very good video
Cyrathil 2 years ago
Its called "Conehead" speak from the Cone Heads. Its simple, just use the maximum amount of syllables to express any thought.
JaguarJ0nes 2 years ago
No matter what it's called, I love it. It adds humor to the information you're providing. Great work.
Cyrathil 2 years ago
I was told that the motorcar obviously had a designer. My answer was to detail the development of the car from a horse cart with a steam engine to the sort of machine we are familiar with today made by many engineers refining the efforts of their predecessors. I am sure that if anyone could be bothered a similar argument could be made for the development of the mousetrap, which did not materialise from one designer but has been refined (evolved) over a period of time by many.
PeterKipps 2 years ago