Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (295)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • The Evolution is the most interesting way of thinking about life !!!

  • your move creation

  • What a complete idiot. How can Dawkins or anyone else presume what a creator may or may not have wanted. If you create something others cannot presume to know what your design or purpose is. If my car is a lemon does that mean it evolved. This is a straw man argument. Dawkins parrots this nonsense all the time. If Dawkins has truth on his side why use fallacies. Further proof evolution is a religion.

  • @philackey Does your creator plays creating different animals for fun?

    Please, open your mind.

  • @philackey What?

  • Man, every time I watch this video I can't help but think of Dawkins as being the Pokemon Master.

  • @8yankee

    I find you and your comment interesting, would you like to exchange some ideas in private?

  • The truth is out there!

  • Richard Dawkins for World Dictator!

    .

    Spread the word! :)

  • *timidly approaches the comments section out of fear their might be a pointless creationism-evolutionism fight here*

    ...

    Hey look! Everybody's getting along with each other!

  • @jedihunter176 LOL!

  • I'd love to see a nice nature show where I don't have to see a human.; I wish they'd leave all these poor animals alone. Let them have their own evolution in their own way; it is the right of every species and Planet Earth is not a Laboratory. From what place do we come from to decide what these creatures are and what they are about and what permission we give ourselves to interfere with life and so on.;

  • @MrSilvestris I'm sorry but I disagree. I think it is necessary to use some animals in labs. Yes, tests are done on them but only a small amount of those tests involve any real harm to the organism and if lab animals are killed, it is done humanely. Just because a species natural habitat is in a certain environment, it doesn't particularly mean that in a lab that organism wont be, what you could describe for that species as being, happy.

  • @cjl236 Why do you bother to say anything to a person like me? What's wrong with you? I'm not talking about lab experiments on animals.

  • Ilya Prigogine, chemist-physicist, recipient of two Nobel Prizes in chemistry, wrote: “The statistical probability that organic structures and the most precisely harmonized reactions that typify living organisms would be generated by accident, is zero.”(1) That’s right - zero!

  • @Insanity2100 Evolution doesn't claim that organisms evolve by accident. Yes, the mutations that occur are what you could call "by accident" however, it is no accident that favorable mutations are chosen over unfavorable ones (by favorable I mean mutations that increase the likelihood of survival for that given organism).

  • @cjl236 Favorable mutations almost never happen. To develop complex new structures it requires sometimes hundreds of favorable mutations to occur simultaneously. (because small incremental changes serve no benefit & wouldn't be passed on) It is unlikely that darwinian evolution driven by mutation is the source of the diversity we see on earth. Years of experiments with forced mutation on fruit flies have proven this. Just another uncomfortable fact.

  • 1:55

    A lovely pair of boobies in the background! ;-)

  • @dcorbino10 lmao read ur comment before watching the other vid and tho you were delusional.

  • :o nice vid!!

  • Well ... He's British

  • the way Dawkins pronounces the word "iguana" is kind of funny

  • What a beautiful mini doco.

  • Hey nice video, the true is you can buy USA iTunes gift cards at this store iTunesgiftScards at COM

  • sorry - wrong creation model!

    the present kinds of (air breathing) animals radiated from one spot to colonise the earth - much as RDF suggests under the evolution model. the creation model is similar.

    rdf STILL can't account for the first Kinds. He says "Aliens did it" !! (see his interview with Stein)

  • @ifrankfrank lol, you're a fucking liar and conspiracy theorist looking to discredit one of the most prominent intellectuals of our time. He did not say that, what you refer to is called quote mining, or taking things out of context. You're a delusional fool.

  • @ifrankfrank He does not say "aliens did it" he said the idea of aliens bringing life to earth is an interesting idea.

  • hypothetically speaking, if there is a god, he would of just created the big bang. just because we don't have any clue what happened 12 billion years ago except abstract ideas like string theory and the improved M theory or should I say model.

    but don't listen to me, im crazy. ; ]

  • I like how he pronounces iguana "E-goo-ana"

  • I guess he doesn't he doesn't see why he should say it the slurred yet more common way instead of the accurate way. No offense, just saying he does that a lot and I try myself although it's very hard.

  • Iguanas are fucking epic!

  • i working on these things

    on college

  • I find it amazing that the Brits can never pronouce Spanish words... like pronouncing iguana as "ig-you-wanna" instead of "ee-GWAN-a" and things like junta as "JUN-ta" instead of "HOON-ta". I had a friend who actually ordered "fa-JIT-as" rather than "fa-HEE-tas" in a restaurant once. What's up with that? :)

  • Comment removed

  • I guess it's the "Evolution" of speach/language...thanks for pointing that out.

  • Is that "ev-o-lu-tion" or "EE-vo-lu-tion"? :)

  • in america its pronounced ev-o-lu-tion but in the uk its pronounced EE-vo-lu-tion

  • it is? I'm british and I've always pronounced it ev-o-lu-tion

    I'm going to listen to how people at my university say it... isnt research fun?

  • i have watched several of Dawkins vids i really wish they were longer and more detailed...

  • i love hearing the different ways british people say things =]

    Igu-anas. It makes total sense =]

  • LOL, I have never met another English person who says it that way, and I'm English!

    :s

    xXx

  • yeah me neither - i'm english and i say ig-war-na

  • Sick of Christians and Atheists arguing?

  • They should make love instead.

    Atheo-Christian relations, its the new taboo.

  • LOL I second that! And I know just the christian I'd be willing to start that campaign of with!

  • Keep the HD coming!

  • I never said it was incorrect, only that I found it amusing.

  • and you're 30 and took the time to click on my name and look at my personal info just so you could make fun of me. good job.

  • Well, that's what you get for tangling with fans of the rational mind! They WILL do the research! ;)

  • lulz, british people say "i-goo-wana"

  • ahahaha, 1:56

    That greedy fat iguana! Cute.

  • Finally, That's a real funny comment to make on the Richarddawkins net channel! You might check out the mission statement of his organization or some of the vids where he explains militant atheism! And then think about where he stands on atheists staying in their own corner!

    All of which is a looong way of saying...don't be a fool Robe and think before you type! And that's "think" not "drink"! ;)

  • good i said!

  • god to see dawkins out there :D

  • God watching us through Iguana eyes.

  • Fantastic video, very informative as all RD videos have been.

    Makes me laugh to read all of the weak creationist responses to this insightful and intelligent topic. Animatronics? Stop motion animation? Please!!!

  • On HD it looks awesome! Nice video. And nice message. Needed that :)

  • More compelling evidence for evolution. I hope those creationists wake up soon. By the way, why do iguanas look so mechanical when they're eating?

  • They look so mechanical because they're actually all stop-motion dolls made by Dawkins to provide fake evidence for this evolution heresy he promotes.

  • Oh, well if you're going to fake evidence, why stop-motion? Annimatronics would be easier, less expensive and more convincing. Dawkins doesn't need to fake anything.  I'm as heretical as he is.

  • Hahaha seems some didn't get the sarcasm!

  • Nah, not towards strubinator. I got his sarcasm and sense of irony towards the other dude further down.

    My comment was also in response to the same comment. Although you cant argue with logic towards those who argue the illogical!

  • LOL It's the dude further down called Baileysbeads whose sarcasm it seems passed some by! Though admittedly one has to check out his channel to understand it WAS sarcasm. But that is of course a logical result of the many illogical arguments posted by creationists and the like.

  • lol Aahhhh the result of too much sarcasm. We end up tainting the innocent with the brush of the guilty. My apologies.

    Though it is easy to see where we can get it wrong with some of the cretinous commentaries left by some of the loons on some good videos. Makes you wonder why they bother!

  • It's just the image of Dawkins being busy with setting up his hundreds of self-made stop-motion dolls for each frame that just greatly amuses me.

  • And it greatly amuses me too! :D It may have been too subtle but it WAS a good comment!

  • jesus freak

  • Hey are you actually telling me these things exists? They're way too small to put saddles on so how they're useful to mankind hm? God put all animals on Earth to be useful, so these ones don't exists.

  • Yes they are useful! It seems they transport tree trunks to remote island in case of tropical storms! How else are those islanders gonna rebuild their homes without wood?

  • Comment removed

  • Haven't you heard? God provides those who help themselves!

  • shut up and dont force the "word of god" on here. youtube is here so you can do that in your corner and us atheists can justify why we dont believe or "have faith" in unproven storys and practices of religion in our corner.

  • You do practises of religion in your corner? You're all worshipping your god Athe.

  • Dear Rob.

    First of you need to learn how to recognise sarcasm. One way to judge whether someone uses sarcasm, if you are not sure, is to do a little research like read their previous comments and maybe check out their channel ( though I admit, in my case that might be a bit of a confusing one to the obtuse)

    Second of all apologise! I did not realize you are the Youtubes inventor and that your goal was to restrict folks to one particular corner! :( You should have posted that rule somewhere!

  • yes i am now chad woooooh i think i should of held on to youtube a bit longer for 400m more but oh well

  • Lol, funny comment. I do sense sarcasm :)

  • athe is god then lets write a bible oh dawkins books will do happy with that

  • actually a lot of creationists believe in evolution, the two aren't necessairly contradictory

  • you mean theist believe in evolution.

  • But isn't the creationist ideology perfectly essentialist? While evolution is change over time? Those idea's are contradictory.

  • The second use of an apostrophe in your post offends me.

  • Not necessairly. For example, a creationist can believe in parts of evolution. A creationist can believe that evolution does happen, but before it happend God created something to evolve. They cannot believe in other ways of life being created but the path that life has taken over time is fair game.

  • That is just a pathetic trump card creationists use to attempt to bring science into their ridiculous claims to make them appear legitimate.

  • Comment removed

  • I see. So in a creationists mind, God could have commanded the first 'thing' to evolve?

  • Comment removed

  • That is just a falacy. Evolution theory kills the idea of inteligent design wich is the foundation of creationism.

    What creationist says after the evidence is showed, is that god start life....

    Day after day god is becoming less and less significant in life creation.... Here is a reason for that... there is no god.

  • Yeah, i've wasted way too much of my life trying to argue that point I'm not about to start up again.

  • To be more precise, evolution and religion isn't contradictory, but evolution and creationism is - they are contradictory on their very foundations.

  • Well, to be still more precise, science and religion are, by definition, contradictory.

    Religion and other superstitions never have had any evidence of any claims they make.

  • Religion introduces god to the universe. In which case, anything is possible.

    I mean that in the most negative way possible.

    If such a being as god existed, he would naturally push his agenda. Using such powers as described in theist literature, it would thus negate natural process.

    The universe would be a horribly unpredictable place. As "god" pushes his agenda, laws of nature would be subverted. All beings would be confused

    Of course that isn't the case, but it would be if such a being existed

  • yah interesting point,

  • Agreed! To me, evolution and natural selection is more wonderful than creativity.

  • Of course, because it makes sense; there's details we understand about it!

  • Exactly!

  • Really interesting video. Thanks Richard. Can´t wait to read the new book.

  • Yeah me to . got a small preview on richards web site looks great.

  • "The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great read. A lot of things I was confused about was explained, and a lot of things I didn't know evolution could answer was explained.

  • The alternate theory, of course, is that Noah put all the animals back where he found them after the flood.

  • The theory of Noah's Ark to begin with is a ridiculous story to be taken literally. With the millions of species of animals that exist, it's ridiculous to think that Noah could have even had a boat big enough for all of them, or even had the time to find and put all of them on it

  • I know. I have thought that ever since we were told that far fetched yarn in junior school. Why do they still bother telling it?

  • I have a quick question, if i understood that right (I am not native english speaking.)

    R.D. said, that the animals could "travel" from one island to the other via a fallen tree, which would be delivered by a hurricane?

    Isn´t that a little improbable? I mean, how could the animals hold on to the flying piece of wood?

    (Or maybe, i just cannot understand english :-P)

  • I think he means blown across on the water not through the air, and he says its been observed before on another island therefore it is a plausible reason.

  • I live in a hurricane zone. Trees get knocked down during hurricanes, especially barrier islands. Iguanas could easily have been on a tree that gets knocked into the water. Rather than drown the iguana would hold onto the floating tree. The storm surge from the hurricane would make the tree/iguana move very quickly possibly ending on an island.

  • Yeah, the way you say it, it makes sense. I probably just misunderstood him because i thought he meant, the a tree with iguana was flying threw air until it landed on some Island :-P

  • im Grunde hast du damit genau Recht, es ist unwahrscheinlich. Allerdings sprechen wir hier auch von den Galapagos-Inseln. Die sind voll von sogenannten Unwahrscheinlichkeiten ;) das macht sie ja gerade so großartig.

    Die Geschichte mit dem Baumstamm ist spekulativ, leider ist sie aber die bisher plausibelste Erklärung. Die Inseln waren lange vom Menschen unberührt, dennoch gibt es viele Ähnlichkeiten mit einigen Festland-Populationen.

  • Ja, ich hab den Richard nichts ganz verstanden, ich dachte der Baum fliegt von Insel zu Insel (bzw. so hab ich ihn verstanden).

    Das der Baum auch einfach bloß den Tieren als Floß dienen kann, hab ich ganz vergessen.

    Und das halte ich schon für möglich, dass das passieren kann.

  • perhaps this means the hurricane would uproot the tree. Then it would fall in the water and float to other islands and animals could jump on for a ride if they had also fallen in the water to save themselves :)

  • I like how the religious people are trying to make a case of "how god made it"... well if you look, your ideas vary from another believer in god - so im afraid your wrong, since its your own assumption with no hard evidence.

    Evolution provides evidence; such as in this video, i have no quarrels though with any luck we will be able to stop religious beliefs.

  • another good video. thanks for these.

  • What pattern should we expect if they were created?

  • Did you watch the vid? He discusses it, starting at 1:59 in this vid.

  • uniform distribution of the species regardless of geographic separation

  • if you have two lslands with the similar environments and someone was matching environment to animals, would you get the same animals on both islands?

    If answer is yes, please give the example ;)

  • It can happen, but it isn't a rule. It 's called "convergent evolution." The most prominent example would be the pterodactyl and the bat. Also it's not a rule that it will happen. Because evolution is driven by random mutations, then we have to talk about the probability of convergent evolution rather than a rule.

    Search for "List of examples of convergent evolution" on wikipedia.

  • Don't forget the Shark and the Dolphin.

  • A much better example of convergent evolution, one that fascinates me, is the Australian/Tazmanian Thylacine and the North American Timber wolf. Though there are many differences in the soft tissue anatomy, the skeletal structure is nearly identical. Even though the Wolf is a mammal and the Thylacine is a marsupial. In their native environment they both fill the same ecological niche thus sharing many common features.

  • good point kvintessents, sorry Morkindie, ignore my comment please i need to think about this more myself!

  • Don't forget that as habitat is destroyed, there are pockets of habitat left that harbour some species and other pockets that harbour same, similar and different species. That also consittutes island geography.

    Read Jared Diamond and David Quammen. They detail island 'refuges' and the core numbers needed in the species for further generation.

    Fascinating stuff. Much wider than is presented in this video - I don't take anything away from RD's exposition. Have been reading him since 1981.

  • God must have delivered a reptilian scripture to the ancient iguanas, otherwise they would be ceaselessly raping, maiming and killing each other.

    It is through the morality of scripture that societies exist in moral harmony!

  • After meeting Ted Haggard, Bill O'Reilly and Wendy Wright I'm surprised that Dawkins hasn't had enough of reptiles.

  • hahahahaha!

  • I love this video, but I can't get over Richard's 4-syllable pronunciation of "iguana"

  • I comp-e-lete-ally disagree

  • I don't think Richard needs to talk about creation versus evolution in this instance. He is a fascinating presenter of this sort of material without needing to even mention the make believe world of creation. He's creating (pun) a debate where there is none by mentioning creation in the same breath as evolution. But then again, I suppose someone has to point out the obvious to people who believe in a god. He is to bright to have to lower himself to this sort of explanation thou!?

  • red - the whole point of his campaign is to raise the level of sci . literacy .Animal distribution is a very very powerful persuasive argument against all too common creationism .

  • Red -this video series is explicitly made to fight creationism .

  • Yes, I understand and acknowledge all of what you have said, and agree.

    Richard is a wealth of knowledge, but I don't want him to pander to god idiots. I'm just being selfish here, why should creationist get any benefit from him :)

  • I agree totally. Leave the religious nut-jobs to their delusions and just concentrate on educating the rest of us on the wonderful diversification of life on this amazing planet.

    Looking forward to Richard's new book The Greatest Show on Earth, due out next week. Can't wait.

  • Its out. A mate of mine picked it up from Angus and Robertsons (if you are in Australia) last Friday. I quickly read through the first couple of pages and am trying to track down a copy for myself. Looks fantastic.

  • Dawkins rules.

  • slash. 100% agree.

  • I may have spotted a slight logical fallacy in the final statement in this video.

    "The distribution of life on Earth's continents and islands is exactly as [...] we should NOT expect if it had been created."

    The problem is that with the intelligent design/creationist "theory", because it's not real science - they simply make it up - their answer to the question "How would we expect the world to look if it had been created?" is simply.... whatever it happens to look like!

  • I'm not sure I understand where the logical fallacy lies in the statement.

  • The logical fallacy lies in the fact that if the world and all its life have been created by an all mighty god, it is expected to look like the exact form it looks like. It's one more proof of creationist circular logic, and because of that circular logic the statement simply isn't true. I've used this argument against a creationist and it didn't work because he expected the world to look like the world... because god created it to look like the world looks now...

  • It's a simple proof that no proof is legit for a creationist as he would simply claim "God did it"

  • Thanks for continuing to make creationists the butt of jokes around the world :-)

  • The most striking this about this video--seeing Dawkins in shorts and a t-shirt. o.o

  • I think they are adorable!

  • One more time please.

  • Have people got nothing better to talk about here than accents?

  • What's ironic is that you're talking about it.

  • That's not ironic, I suggest you look the word up in the disctionary. In any case I don't see how asking if people have missed the point of the video has got anything to do with that banal discussion.

  • After referring to my dictionary I have found that your statement is indeed ironic and that your spelling sucks. AMERICA WINS AGAIN!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

  • I assume you're looking in an American dictionary but I suppose you failed to the "irony" in that.

    I'll follow Oscar Wilde's advice and not argue with an idiot.

    I consider the matter closed, have a nice life.

  • No, it was a British dictionary made in America, lol. Nice talkin' to ya.

  • Please reread my last post.

  • Please get a sense of humor.

  • Comment removed

  • Goodvibrato:

    Is that North or South America?

  • I'll give you two guesses.

  • Fantastic!

  • great video, the more of these types of videos there better. Personally i would like to see more videos on this kind of thing on TV along with anti-religious info, or at least showing how they are biggoted and false in their beliefs that hold back mankind and free thinking.

  • I love the smell of iguana in the morning.

  • He could be Attenboroughs replacement.

  • That would be awesome.

  • Created or not, the iguanas don't give a shit. And neither should you.

  • great video, as usual.

  • I love how Richard pronounces iguana

    aint nobody talk like that hurr in the bible belt nossir

  • The Galapagos Islands are definitely on my short list of places to visit before I die. :-)

  • Now, don't get me wrong, Dwakins is a great bloke, an amazing mind and a role model for all atheists out there BUT

    He was so overshadowed by the fact that iguanas are gorgeous. I love iguanas, they're close to being my favourite reptile. Goooooooooooo DAWKINS

  • Thanks RDF!

  • I love these videos! Keep them coming. I'm ordering, "The Greatest Show on Earth," tonight. I hope it's a huge success so you will have the money and resources to keep making these wonderful videos.

  • There can be no argument that evolution not creation is the truth. I find it amazing that Richard Dawkins has to keep saying there is no god. Sorry no Afterlife. Those who say differently are only clutching on straws.

  • lol wut?

  • I love the conclusion. It makes you go "ohhhhhhh, I get it!." XD