David Attenborough's First Life - part 1 720p

[aplysiastyle]

Actually, the greatgulfdude has a point.

The actual point here is that answers to these questions dig very deep into theory of so called complex systems, biophysics and chemistry. Especially the disciplines deeper in the field of physics are tough stuff and hardly understood yet, being among the most recent fields of research in all of science.

However there are institutes that bring about amazing insights in self-organization processes via means of information theory and complex systems.

[muzitrinity]

The Voice Of Nature,The best broadcaster,environmental activist,naturalist and Narrator who ever liver than ever all over the world,really Extraordinary and with manifold and distnguished knowledge.....................­...!

[cafecostarica]

At 04:52 good old David graciously shoots us all a bird... LOL

[cyandk]

Also, I absolutely love Attenborough's. I wish he could stay with us forever.

[cyandk]

Why can't people discuss the science instead of plastering a masterpiece like this with religious bashing?

[DevilsBloodySausage]

@cyandk this kind of science is also a religion, but i won't get into this. if they were facts that can be proved, noone would question it. just like christianism, or other religion. evolutionism is a religion just like the others.

i personally don't believe either of the theories. humanity does not yet know the real process.

anyway, enjoy this show, it is really cool, regardless of what you believe or not believe.

[TheAmazingGuppy]

@DevilsBloodySausage

I agree 100%! Glad to see someone thinking critically and logically. NEVER TAKE ANYTHING AT FACE VALUE!

[AetheismRules]

@TheAmazingGuppy Yes - There is a name for people who think critically and logically - scientists !

[AetheismRules]

@DevilsBloodySausage It isnt a case of "believing" a fact; the issue is if you accept a fact.

[netgear123456]

You would think programs like these would be more popular but their not. Instead programs like 16 and pregnant Jersey Shore and my super sweet 16 are the most popular. Just goes to show how stupid our race is

[TheBuddytheelf]

@netgear123456 I'm 16 and I've come to the conclusion we are totally screwed.

[netgear123456]

@TheBuddytheelf lol... we really are :(

[EggPlantPocky03]

@netgear123456

I'm 12. This generation sucks :/

[netgear123456]

And God had NOTHING to do with any of this :)

[b14blah]

The beauty of science.

[deonnalexander]

where is part 3 and part 4.? 

[greatgulffixed]

@Friss99

That garbled, simplistic non-answer is supposed to counter my 6 points?

Bacterial resistance is not the evolution of a new organism.

I'm talking about the origination of sexual reproduction. I'll get you started with a one-celled organism. Give me the steps in the development of sexual reproduction (a much less efficient means of replication than non-sexual).

Keep in the mind the millions of gendered species there are.

Then, move on to my other 5 points.

[expert8800]

David Attenborough's voice could make a gray rock interesting.

[Venaloid]

@expert8800 - While I totally agree, I think one of the points of this video is that gray rocks ARE interesting.

[measdna]

To clarify, Humans (homo sapiens) have not been around for 2 millions years (Attenborough says so in min 6:12)... The oldest anatomically recognizable humans date no more than 250 thousand years! But, members of the Homo genus do date back millions of years.

[12345bgsb]

gawssh this man is just pure documentry god ;)

[quatloosthx1138]

@ktawut - I agree, and I’m an American. Attenborough distills concepts so that I think, “Wow! So THAT’S why things are as they are.” He never bores, and I learn more from one of his programs than I do from ten of other people’s programs. Also he is clear about the things we do NOT (yet) know.

@ MsDimpleCheeks -Yes, wikipedia says David was knighted in 1985. He’s won numerous prestigious awards too. He’s 85 now, so we may lose David soon, like we lost Carl Sagan. Damn.

[bluemoonrising26]

@quatloosthx1138

Don't you f*cking dare talk like that! David is a LEGEND!

[TaxEvasion]

Nothing but class with Sir Attenborough

[RepublicIcon]

65,267 views and 1 dislike... must be the pope.

[wilwad]

I love you sir David Attenborough! Thank you so much for dedicating your life to this.

[alexmccoolio7]

28:00 I swear someone carved a penis in the rock

[QuickRefs]

As a creationist, I believe that evolution is nothing more than God's plan to mess up the minds of creationists making them so stupid it's impossible for them to grasp the obvious about how stupid they are. Obviously, without grasping that don't even expect us, creationists, to go farther, like on topic of evolution.

[Friss99]

@QuickRefs Why don't you kill your self? We can live together whit muslims and christians, but creationists...no, hell no..you are the one's who regressing education. You are failure of the world. You can keep your alien shit and talk about that at your own, but DO NOT PREACH IT! You are fucking discrase for humans.

[QuickRefs]

@Friss99 Why such a negative reaction? Isn't part of being smart is tendency to ask questions? My questions to you is: how do you know evolution is true? How do you know DNA does what you were told it does? Don't you think it's stupid that a simple molecule could make entire human being? How can you believe that? What evidence do you have?

[Aanthanur]

what a nice docu :)

love his voice.

[naganokumas]

Darwin to Perth, along the coast, has sunsets to behold. Especially at the Darwin end (tropical storms and such). In Darwin during the wet season you can look west for a beautiful sunset, and then look east at the approaching storm with its awesome lightning display. Wonderful skies. Green, blue, pink, orange, etc.

I hope I don't ruin things there by letting you know.

[naganokumas]

The appreciations of about 17:00. I flew from Perth to Kuala Lumpur once.

The route had me seeing the west coast of Australia outside my right window.

How remote is this? Couldn't quite make out the stromatolites as I passed over them. Perth is the most remote 'city' on the planet.

The whole west coast of Australia has a population that almost fills the requirement for a suburb in lay terms. But zing went the strings of my heart regarding my curiousity about geology.

[naganokumas]

Can humans become extremophiles?

Albeit elsewhere. We've fucked up here.

Can we stubbornly hang around?

[CirrusandNimbus]

@naganokumas People are doing pretty well in Finland, Dubai, Singapore and Tibet. I think hanging around stubbornly is something we already do! (So far anyway...)

[naganokumas]

I like the fast forward backwards montage at 5:55 which shows examples of humanity fighting with itself as the examples of now.

[CityLights452]

Lol so before I write my comment I'd like to let you all know that yes infact I am a blonde. Anyways so I had no clue what this doctumentry was about about befopre I started watching it. I was like "David Attenborough's First Life? Was he re-encarnated or somethingthing lolz" I get it now tho lol no worries.

[CityLights452]

The only thing I don't agree with is the time that dinos were wiped out. If that's true then how did Fred flinstone have one as a pet? Hmm? Hmm?

[ThisIsNotRealityBase]

I want to go exploring with him and go on a mad ayhuasca trip

[BigDiamondCutter]

This must give Creationists major epileptic fits! Show this to a room full of them and they must look like a herd of seals on beach!

[BigDiamondCutter]

A dislike???? Seriously!?!

[kaisertech]

@BigDiamondCutter must be a unknown fossil

[Sephicito]

This is just plain wonderful, a piece of art.

also, screw religion discussion in here.

[mikesomething]

@Sephicito screw religion, not discussion

[apocrisia]

Attenborough, the human wonder!

[dyndi89]

BBC makes the best documentaries

[portwes]

@greatgulfixed I used to be like you, sneering at science and evolution. I was even a missionary to the UK! Then I started reading the science for myself, looking at the evidence, instead of accepting what Duane Gish and Ken Ham (pseudo-scientists) told me. At 59 years old, I de-converted and threw out the myths of christianity. I have never felt more free! I love REAL science, which follows the evidence, wherever it leads. I highly recommend reason over religion, any day!

[Blestyr]

@greatgulfixed Sir, you have a scored +1.

[greatgulffixed]

@portwes

I would be interested in knowing what exactly was the evidence that convinced you once and for all to change your mind?

[FrankThaMen1990]

@greatgulffixed - A point: people with hairgrowth like monkeys. Its a genetich mutation that humans can have because we have overlapping genes with monkeys because we have the same ancestor. I'd say +1 for evolution. Comparing the pace of science with that of a religion, when looking at evidence. I'd say you can compare it with a leopard in a running match with a snail. It has/gives more evidence faster which makes it more appealing (than a religion) for a lot of people.

[greatgulffixed]

@FrankThaMen1990

It is not that odd that we share various percentages of DNA with other creatures, more with some than others. Without this, medical research would be stunted. We wouldn't even be able to process what we eat. There is interconnectedness, but the molecules to man concept is not substantiated by true empirical evidence.

[FrankThaMen1990]

@greatgulffixed - Couldn't have said it better myself. There is no evidence anywhere of where the molecules came from. Which is why we call it 'believe'. You believe in a religion or in evolution or in the "big bang theory" or in anything. That doesn't make anything true. That was the point I was trying to make :)

[Friss99]

@FrankThaMen1990 And gravity is also a theory...i wonder if christians believe in that or...?

[vudu8ball]

@portwes I thought this was a beautiful comment. Better late than never. Good luck to you.

[greatgulffixed]

@portwes

I've never sneered at science. I have a Master of Science degree! But the evidence DOESN'T lead to an evolutionary paradigm. It fails on many fronts, particularly mathematical analyses and recent DNA findings.

The public generally receives propagandist and misleading 'scientific' information that is swallowed because it supposedly has been 'proved' by science.

I don't defend Gish and Ham, but rest assured there are 'pseudo' scientists on both sides.

[portwes]

Hey, an evangelical creationist came here and registered the single dislike vote. Whoever you are, you should be embarrassed and ashamed at your ignorance.

[kgk1970]

@ 50:37 minutes, thats a lot of jizz

[sumittechkgp]

I love him for presenting the wildest desire of my mind through impeccable voice and articulation - David Attenborough is my all time favorite narrator. 

[freazeezy]

HD= *fist pump* SCORE!!!

[MsDimplecheeks]

Has he got a knighthood yet?

[Karpify]

His hat at 12:00 is priceless

[atheer2002]

a must see..

[shazz4jazz]

david attenborough is a master.

[alinasshushkina]

@shazz4jazz very true!

[withthewolves]

Whenever i watch something with David Attenborough i always think about how great it would be if he could do documentaries for another 50 years!

@greatgulffixed - When you're interested in evidence, why not read a book/do some researches? I don't think it's possible to put too detailed informations into a 60min documentary. Also, to reach a big amount of viewers you have to keep it quite simple. :)

[babar9721]

@greatgulffixed

As you question statements about the origin of life (this documentary being broader than just related to genesis) I highly suggest you to watch this other documentary called "How did life begin" by Nobel prize winner Sir Harry Kroto watch?v=6aR5dE83a6A. Especially, you might find of interest the Miller experiment explaining how he recreated the basis of life, amino acids, from the elements present in the atmosphere at the time. I wish you an exciting learning.

[250garbear]

I wonder if any of the religious people that comment on here realize that all of the scientists that are making these wonderful discoveries could care less about religion and its followers. Those that work in the sciences have no interest in disproving creationism or god, they work towards the goal of adding to human knowledge towards the betterment of our species. The same science you mistrust regarding evolution, you have no trouble trusting for medicine, food, clean water,electricity etc etc

[Katw76]

@250garbear Hear hear!! Well said.

[MsDimplecheeks]

@250garbear too right. Religious people are the dumbest people on earth.

[ChosenOneweeooo]

We claim that cells appear out of nowhere. Just like you all claim a man in the sky created the world in seven days

[greatgulffixed]

"Chemicals spueing from underwater volcanic vents ..... This produced the conditions needed for the first cells to form."

Really? Since when? Evidence please.

There are many crazy statements in this video that are put forth as fact.= the viewer should swallow them without question.

In fact, if you DO question them, you will get replies like your own.

Only usually a LOT less civil.

[greatgulffixed]

This is the most fantastic and unsubstantiated fairy tale I have ever heard.!

You talk about working backward from a foregone conclusion!

[greatgulffixed]

Hold on now, baby.

First cells appeared out of nowhere (8:04). We are supposed to swallow this without question?

[dog7156]

@greatgulffixed Hold on now. There is an invisible man in the sky that controls everything. We are supposed to swallow this without question?

[greatgulffixed]

@dog7156

Are we to swallow a universe creating itself out of nothing without question?

[FrankThaMen1990]

@greatgulffixed - No we are not... But are we to swallow that a God is above us who created a man out of dirt and a woman out of his rib? Who created everything. Who loves us all and cares for all of us, but then also created virusses like AIDS? No we are not to swallow that either. You believe in something, which is only possible when there is no truth (yet). Thats the essence of belief. :)

[greatgulffixed]

@FrankThaMen1990

Man IS composed of the same elements found in dirt, and returns to dirt after death.

God created everything is certainly more rational than nothing created everything.

The AIDS virus. God's fault? The Bible explains how all creation is under the curse because of sin. There were no AIDS viruses in Genesis.

I believe in God because the 'evidence' to the contrary is pretty non-existent.

[FrankThaMen1990]

@greatgulffixed - Both God and science have their pros and their cons.

I find the word 'dirt' quite a inconclusive. What was it composed of?

And if God created everything, where did he get the materials for it? You just said it yourself, you can't create something out of nothing. The Bible says that 'nothing' is God. Science says otherwise. But both lack substantial evidence.

I'm not judging anything or anyone, I just want to make a point: We don't know this for sure.

[greatgulffixed]

@FrankThaMen1990

I respect your agnosticism. But you see, something can come of nothing only by supernatural processes - not natural processes. There's no other way around it.

And if there WERE a creator of the universe interested in the affairs of His creatures, would you not expect Him to try to communicate with them somehow? I should think so. How? Orally? The written word? Yes. The problem is - there is also a spiritual enemy who counterfeits and confuses things.

[FrankThaMen1990]

@greatgulffixed - I'm not agnostic, just objective. :) All we can is speculate about how everything might have begun. Which is why this discussion will go on and on untill we have the real awnser.

I see the bible as the way to create a society where 'right' and 'wrong' was finally clearly written down. Comparing it to our laws. I just do not believe that everything was created in that particular way. But then again, this is just 1 opinion of the couple of billion there are :)

[Friss99]

@greatgulffixed :D if there's some invisible man and it's like the bible says...it's should be send to European Court of Human Rights, and International Criminal Court. No story book tell so much horror, death, slavery, rapes, pedophilia, murder, stealing, jealous, narcissism than bible.

and btw have you seen the paragraph that shows the science progression from 100 C.E? We could be living in the Mars without religion..

[Friss99]

@greatgulffixed Who created the god => your stupid argument is invalid....why you christians can't come out with your OWN story, that "god created world---jesus, virgin birth crusifiction" thing is in most religion too, but just said in different words...so you fail...

[greatgulffixed]

@Friss99

God is not created. No one is arguing for a 'created' God.

I can also turn the question around to a 'what' if you like. What created the energy behind the singularity?  In fact what created the singularity? And the laws that governed its occurrence?

You need to go back further, my friend.

[Friss99]

@greatgulffixed Lol, created, come, born...etc..you name the synonym. And yes, by the fact god(s) is(are) created by humans....you idiot...you need to go deeper...but oh yeah, you are christian so it's not possible.

[greatgulffixed]

@Friss99

God, by definition, is not created. Created 'gods' are called idols. You have many of them. 'Yoursel' being one.

I've already shown that any explanation you give encounters the same problem. An infintie regress.

So, throw it out.

Next astounding argument, please.

[Friss99]

@greatgulffixed In quantum physic theories, basically yes. Elephant can come out of "nothing" in front of you. Change to that happen is however minimal, so practically that kind of thing doesn't happen.

You haven't study enough. Other theory is that universe is expanding and thickening constantly. As universe is thickening, it's some point so small that it explodes again...

[drizziest]

@greatgulffixed Dude, the documentary is only 58 minutes long. How do you expect the producers to fit in every last detail? Of course you should ask questions, but take a genetics and evolution class or educate yourself. 

[greatgulffixed]

@drizziest

Re: fit in every detail

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Jumping from molecules to fully functioning bacteria is not a failure to 'fit in every detail'.

It's a deliberate glossing over the 'hard' parts, i.e. how life began

[CirrusandNimbus]

@greatgulffixed Tell us how life began then. Darwin didn't look at a bunch of finches and say 'Believing in God is a glossing over of the hard facts, they must have evolved' and leave it at that. Since then we've found out why evolution works (selection), how evolution works (mutation) and observed it working in real time.

If you want to do it the way science does it, give us a good alternative to all that. Go on.

[greatgulffixed]

@CirrusandNimbus

We have observed natural selection. No doubt about that. Genetic variation due to selective pressure.

That is NOT the same as saying that this mechanism alone accounts for the origins and variety of all life. It has NOT been shown to do so.

There is ZERO proof of this. ZERO. It's fantasy combined with gullability.

When are you guys going to face up to this?

[CirrusandNimbus]

@greatgulffixed I'm still waiting for the alternative... 'because it's not A' is not sufficient proof of B, science master person.

[greatgulffixed]

@CirrusandNimbus

There are only two alternatives. Life came about by unguided processes or by guided processes. The latter requires an intelligent agent.

Chance and natural selection HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN to be adequate to account for the complexity of life. It is ASSUMED, being the current scientific paradigm.

The evidence does not support the evolutionary origin of life. It is fudged, twisted, selectively chosen, or just plain made up.

[CirrusandNimbus]

@greatgulffixed It's amusing how people who're so into intelligently guided 'progression' of life won't take into account the work of some rather intelligent men. Does the Miller-Urey experiment ring a bell? Or perhaps the concept of protobionts?

And where is the evidence for this intelligent guide then? If I had to prove where dragonflies come from, I could point to the fossils. I can point to certain extant taxa of dragonflies with basal characteristics from which dragons and damsels came.

[CirrusandNimbus]

@greatgulffixed The current scientific paradigm is not an assumption - it started off as a hunch, yes, but it's been backed up again, and again, and again. We are seeing beetles, shipped in bananas to different parts of the world, gradually adapt to new surroundings and becoming unable to reproduce with each other even if they were put together, in the span of thirty years. Speciation is right before your eyes.

It'd be nice if whatever it is you're claiming is right before my eyes too.

[greatgulffixed]

@CirrusandNimbus

Speciation is no big deal. Who's arguing against natural selection?

It's the extrapolation of the data that is unwarranted. Bacteria to Beethoven is a fantasy completely unsubstantiated by evidence.

You'd be in trouble trying to find strong evidence in the fossils.

The Miller-Urey experiment is a laughable over-simplification. There are several problems with it - the chirality problem for one. Even making up new environmental compositions don't help. :)

[CirrusandNimbus]

@greatgulffixed So you're basically completely unwilling to give any evidence of any possible other way, and the only thing you have to say over the last four posts is 'it's not supported by evidence'. Fossils aren't strong evidence... experiments aren't strong evidence... well then I guess you treat evolution the same way I treat god.

I'm surprised I've spent this long talking to a fool.

[greatgulffixed]

@CirrusandNimbus

You can (and likely will) continue to ignore the problems with the theory.

You can (and likely will) prefer to magically morph bacteria into Beethoven and molecules to men.

You can (and likely will) swallow everything you want to hear in the scientific literature, whether or not it has scientifically valid objections.

Pitiful.

[CirrusandNimbus]

@greatgulffixed Point out the problems, give me some proof to disbelief, show me what's wrong. Go on.

[greatgulffixed]

@CirrusandNimbus

Where to begin?

Explain how the following evolved in small steps through chance mutations and natural selection.

1. Sexual reproduction

2. Mitosis

3. Maxillar and mandibular jaw teeth

4. The Kreb cycle

5. Heart/lung systems

6. The eyeball structure (while retaining a posterior retina)

[greatgulffixed]

@greatgulffixed

Please, don't say "We don't know. But evolution did it. Given enough time ANYTHING can happen."

I'm not into fairytales.

[CirrusandNimbus]

@greatgulffixed Also, if you're not into that kind of statement - 'No, we don't know exactly how, but we can guess, because here's an animal with an ocelli, and here's an animal with compound eyes, and here's a mammal with a fully developed eyeball, and in some cases we can draw an evolutionary line through them over several million years' - then I have to wonder who gave you your MSc.

Science doesn't know everything. But science doesn't pretend it knows when it doesn't, unlike idiotic dogma.

[greatgulffixed]

@CirrusandNimbus

Bottom line. You don't have a clue. And neither do scientists.

I'm not saying science knows everything. I'm saying that the processes I listed (plus many, many more) CANNOT be explained using the evolutionary paradism that you espouse.

The theory fails where is REALLY matters - on how this complexity actually does development.

Drawing nice little pics morphing into something new might be proof enough for you.

But I'm more skeptical than that.

[greatgulffixed]

@CirrusandNimbus

Different visual structures over phyla show absolutely NOTHING about the progressive development of these structures. Common ancestry is the assumption that GOVERNS interpretation of the data!

Data that don't fit are discarded or explained away. e.g.The coelacanthe has been found identical to its supposed ancestors millions of years in the past. Contradiction?

No problem These fish never experienced the need to evolve.

Evolution is not verifiable.

[CirrusandNimbus]

@greatgulffixed And what are your answers to those six? Whoosh, created? It's not a very competent and intelligent guide who's constantly improvising what he created previously right, using what used to be cilia to power the eyes and ears?

[sulemanhajee]

Bollucks,, love david att but hate the evolutioon bullshit...dude you do documentaries on animals ...he shouldnt always be on about evolution....

[webbess1]

@sulemanhajee He rarely talks about evolution. I'm so happy to see him lend his genius to this amazing biological FACT.

[sulemanhajee]

@webbess1 why do you claim them to be facts..when it was , and is clearly a theory...

[webbess1]

@sulemanhajee It is a theory in much the same way "gravity" is a theory and cell-structure is a theory. Theory does not mean the same thing in science that it means colloquially.

[Friss99]

@webbess1 he got owned. Not hard at all..i mean to own evolution deniers...

[spicychickenwing31]

@sulemanhajee Hahaha. Evolution deniers are always quite funny. Unfortunately, it's also quite sad that you deny it.

[Friss99]

@sulemanhajee evolution bullshit? :D where the cave you dear muslim have been living? I'm laughing at you very hard xDD

[TheWhiskeyfirst]

Can't believe some people are moaning about Sir David Attenborough.

The man is a living legend!

Attenborough (earth), Cousteau (oceans), Sagan (sky)

[MinisterAilingTongue]

What...what is...what is this?! Ghaah! Attenborough!!!

[ktawut]

Somehow I think BBC documentaries are much better made than those from the US (Discovery Ch, Nat Geo, History Ch, etc). The pace, the story telling style, the cinematography, the choice of music, etc. are just classic. I can see that much more attentions were put into the making of these films.

The US ones are somehow too cheesy for my liking. Their fast pace, cheap flashy CG and soundtracks are too distracting as if they were meant more to attract kids, but not mature audiences.

[TerrencePhillip66]

@ktawut LOL! I remember thinking PBS's NOVA was the best thing ever as a youngster, and then I clued in it was really just a program that rebroadcast mostly BBC nature/science programs. I am not even sure what David Attenborough's qualifications are, he just brings a certain gravitas to the production. I think the guy could\ just narrate the names and phone numbers of people out of a phone book and keep us all spellbound.

[Epic0Studios]

@ktawut I TOTALLY agree!!! I'm American and I really think documentaries are best left to the British.

In terms of paleontology, compare Walking with Dinosaurs and Dinosaur Revolution. I mean just read the names. WWD is far more elegant, and less childish. Dinosaur Revolution had wonderful effects, but the production was just bright red flashes and overdramatic music. Most of the scenes were just battles too.

[ktawut]

@Epic0Studios Other great examples of BBC's docs I love are those by Brian Cox (wonders of the universe), Jim Al Khalili (Everything / Nothing, Atom) and many others (Horizon, etc.). Just in case you are interested and have passion for good science documentaries like me ;)

Come to think about it, the Americans also made one of the best docs in my favorite list as well, the all-time-classic Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

[Epic0Studios]

@ktawut "Cosmos" WAS pretty good. I'm not saying that ALL American documentaries are overproduced, but most modern ones are. Older documentaries actually weren't bad.

But nonetheless, the David Attenborough series are indeed perfect. Sometimes I'll just turn them on to hear his exquisite voice XD

[TheReligionkills]

@ktawut This applies to most everything.

[1TtidnaB]

@ktawut No doubt, I find all mainstream products from US to have this vibe of being designed for a shallow audience, no matter if they are meant to appeal to kids or adults. The brits got this whole genre, and most other intellectual genres, locked down tight - as I see it. Attenborough is a hero.

[MESS1]

@ktawut BBC makes state of the art stuff mate ;) french are very good at documentaries too.

cheers

[Obstacle11]

@ktawut europe rules

[climid]

@ktawut I agree but Nat geo can really crank out the good stuff too. Great migrations was a nice shift into more traditional filmmaking they were known for with simple Animations.

[horbergus]

@ktawut Well, it's the dumb nation

[MadeInOregon27]

@horbergus Calling an entire nation dumb as if they are all one person, is the dumbest bs Ive ever heard.. Grow up kid. People like you are the reason why so much hate floats around. You're ignorant and disrespectful to people you don't even know.

[FacinatingWorld]

@horbergus The only thing that's dumb, is your pathetic and ignorant comment.

[horbergus]

@FacinatingWorld Yeah yeah, i'm making an over-all statement

[FacinatingWorld]

@horbergus Your "over-all statement" is garbage. Learn to not be a moron then come back and comment under this awesome vid and join the rest of humanity in enjoying good conversation about things we have in common.

[MadeInOregon27]

@ktawut I agree!

[GuillemotWatcher]

Thank you for loading the whole programme. I've subscribe.

[PillsKillsKIlls]

Attenborough=living fossil, hes still a badass though

[jloo222]

he's perfect for it. great video; looking forward to part 2.

[acks39]

Isn't Attenborough getting too old for this? It's as he could drop death at every given moment.

[kimokamal5]

@acks39 Fuck off, Sir David is the best for this. u dont know anything, do u ??!!!  :-p

I would watch and listen to him even if he was a skeleton.

[acks39]

@kimokamal5 Easy, easy young man. Sit down and take a deep breath, calm down and breath out again. Nice and easy ;-) Don't feel so offended. Blind worship leads to dictators and tirany. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, joy and duty in a democracy

[kimokamal5]

@acks39 what worship r u on about? I dont worship anybody or any god for that matter. U said ur opinion and I said mine. End of!