1. Comment #330235 by nickthelight on January 30, 2009 at 9:24 am

Thanks for this. Others may also enjoy...


"Evolution is not just a theory ... it is a historical fact," says Sir David in an interview filmed by the science journal Nature. He discusses how Darwin's work influenced his career

Charles Darwin and the Tree of Life, presented by Sir David, will be broadcast on BBC One on Sunday 1 February at 9pm GMT

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/video/2009/jan/30/david-attenborough-charles-darwin

Other Comments by nickthelight

2. Comment #330244 by HandyGeek on January 30, 2009 at 9:43 am

Sweet, thanks! I'd love to get some snippets from some of these to compile a Darwin Day video to commemorate the anniversary.

Other Comments by HandyGeek

3. Comment #330245 by mordacious1 on January 30, 2009 at 9:44 am

Evolutionary medicine is an interesting area of study. I'm glad Dr. Nesse mentioned George Williams who is a great pathfinder in this field. Link to Wiki on evolutionary medicine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_medicine

Other Comments by mordacious1

4. Comment #330248 by admin on January 30, 2009 at 9:48 am

mordacious1,
I forgot to include that George Williams was the co-author of 'Why We Get Sick.' I've updated the article text with this info. Thanks. - Josh

Other Comments by admin

5. Comment #330252 by severalspeciesof on January 30, 2009 at 9:58 am

Loved the statement:
"Trade offs, all the way down"

Other Comments by severalspeciesof

6. Comment #330258 by Thurston on January 30, 2009 at 10:15 am

What an interesting guy. In 10 minutes he seemed to exude a breathless enthusiasm. I wish my teachers had had a tenth of his charm.

Other Comments by Thurston

7. Comment #330263 by robotaholic on January 30, 2009 at 10:26 am

Dawkins was good about saying yeah, the body is sort of not like a machine but in other respects it's just like a machine-

Other Comments by robotaholic

8. Comment #330307 by Dhamma on January 30, 2009 at 11:33 am

Why can't we say designed? It's not designed by any god, but by natural selection. I suppose I'm wrong, or they'd probably do it. Could anyone enlighten me?

Other Comments by Dhamma

9. Comment #330317 by Eshto on January 30, 2009 at 11:53 am

Design implies intent. And also it's confusing to people who aren't as familiar with the ID/evolution debate.

Other Comments by Eshto

10. Comment #330329 by ahmunnaeetchoo on January 30, 2009 at 12:17 pm

awww man part 2 ended on a cliff hanger. c'mon with the uploads!

Brilliant so far though. I'd love to be an octopus for a day!

Other Comments by ahmunnaeetchoo

11. Comment #330334 by Eshto on January 30, 2009 at 12:29 pm

RIGHT?!? It was getting so good! I wanna hear how I'm killing myself!

Other Comments by Eshto

12. Comment #330335 by NewEnglandBob on January 30, 2009 at 12:33 pm

Dhamma:

Why can't we say designed? It's not designed by any god, but by natural selection. I suppose I'm wrong, or they'd probably do it. Could anyone enlighten me?

Because there is no intention with natural selection. Small changes happen in many directions. The ones that work best cause those genes to have more organisms as descendants than other possibilities. There is no intentional direction. Eventually, these version 'crowd' out the others.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

13. Comment #330441 by Lucas on January 30, 2009 at 2:51 pm

Sure, Mayer200, but they were still just guessing. A great number of seemingly observationally based conclusions are present in the world's religious texts, but they're mostly just making shit up or retelling old shit differently. Although, that's not to say there isn't some seed of objective truth in some of the mythology, of course. Come to think of it, all this could also be said of the sci-fi genre... huh...

Dhamma and Bob, the problem, I think, is when 'design' is turned into a verb, 'designed.' There most certainly is a design to evolution, but the forces that interacted to cause that design are non-conscious physical forces, thus they cannot be the subject of an action verb ending in -er or -ed, liked designer or designed. It's unfortunate that this subtle point is lost on the creationists, but hey, a lot of things are.

The false dichotomy of consciously designed/completely random is difficult to express to them as long as we use words like 'designed' and 'chance.' Nothing about nature was designed, nor is its design the product of chance. Forces that we at least to some degree understand interacted in ways that we also sort of understand in an infinite series of causes an effects. That's it.

Other Comments by Lucas

14. Comment #330459 by Vanpastel on January 30, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Tremendously inspiring.

Other Comments by Vanpastel

15. Comment #330476 by Lemniscate on January 30, 2009 at 4:22 pm

Very interesting. I always enjoy hearing the evolutionary explanations for fundamental aspects of being human, like ageing and dying.These further discredit theistic evolution that still posits a creator - one who embodies a universally true and absolute morality that is nevertheless specifically human. The contingent evolutionary compromises that make up the moral experience of being human cannot be as fundamental an aspect of the universe as that.

Other Comments by Lemniscate

16. Comment #330484 by lvpl78 on January 30, 2009 at 4:46 pm

This is superb. I laughed heartily at around 6:30 on part 3. Dr. Nesse is just about to explain why he was wrong about "the good of the species" when he was younger, and was about to give maximum respect to Prof. Dawkins - but then the video cut. Professor Dawkins - your modesty sometimes does you no favours !- it would've been good to hear him elucidate on that. Nevertheless - a fascinating discussion. Thanks.

Other Comments by lvpl78

17. Comment #330487 by Mark Jones on January 30, 2009 at 5:11 pm

Great stuff indeed. Very clear that there are no *easy* answers, and one should think about symptoms of illness with a lot more tolerance; they could be saving us!

I'll try to remember that the next time I have a sore throat and streaming nose.

We're a walking dustbin of late developing lethal genes. (from RD)

That's brilliant.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

18. Comment #330566 by Eshto on January 30, 2009 at 7:34 pm

It seems really hilarious that a skeleton is standing between them, its a shame that he didn't contribute to the discussion ha ha.

Waddya mean he didn't contribute? Mr. Skellington demonstrated the rotation of the radius and ulna quite effectively. (applauds)

Other Comments by Eshto

19. Comment #330583 by Delsolar16 on January 30, 2009 at 8:20 pm

Richard's first statement is "Randy, you and I are both Darwinian's obviously..." Can someone tell me what exactly a "Darwinian" is? Is it simply someone who accepts evolution? If so, why is there even a term for it?

Other Comments by Delsolar16

20. Comment #330586 by Eshto on January 30, 2009 at 8:21 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinian

Other Comments by Eshto

21. Comment #330613 by vyapada on January 30, 2009 at 10:26 pm

This was brilliant, thanks for posting it!

I do have something to say about the blindspot example which is a minor critique but serves to illustrate the wider example of evolution as a trade-off.
The idea that the wiring is before the receptors does sound bad, but it offers a bit of visual awesomeness - the neural cells that light has to pass through have functions that are likely beneficial when compared to eyes that don't have 'em.

From http://www.pnas.org/content/104/20/8287.full ...
"On average, every mammalian Müller cell is coupled to one cone photoreceptor cell (17) (responsible for sharp seeing under daylight conditions, i.e., photopic vision) plus a species-specific number of rod photoreceptor cells (17) (≈10 in both man and guinea pig), serving low light level (scotopic) vision. Thus, in the case of photopic vision, the parallel array of Müller cells may preserve the initial image resolution by guiding the light directly to their respective cone photoreceptor cell, minimizing image distortion. This array might also serve to improve image contrast by increasing the signal-to-noise ratio (39). In scotopic vision, Müller cells could reduce loss of intensity by minimizing light reflection, particularly at the inner retinal surface."

(Adapted from my post http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1578648#p1578648 .)

Other Comments by vyapada

22. Comment #330616 by mordacious1 on January 30, 2009 at 10:37 pm

I'm not a doctor but I have a guess at how the skeleton died. Is it that sharp bolt coming out of his head?

I'm glad the rest of these videos were posted. Great interview.

Other Comments by mordacious1

23. Comment #330622 by rod-the-farmer on January 30, 2009 at 11:46 pm

Very interesting. I cringed a bit about numerous mentions about how poorly evolution had "designed" us. I fear the quote miners will jump on these videos.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

24. Comment #330628 by TimeChaser on January 31, 2009 at 12:40 am

A very informative and entertaining interview. I could watch this over and over, I enjoyed it so much.

Now I'm eager to find Nesse's book, as well as others about evolutionary medicine. Medicine and doctors have always been a part of my life due to my own major health issues, and I'd never heard or even thought of anything talked about in this interview before, but it all makes so much sense. Really remarkable stuff.

Other Comments by TimeChaser

25. Comment #330694 by alabasterocean on January 31, 2009 at 2:18 am

That Randolph Nesse is quite a guy, I hope we will see more of him.

Other Comments by alabasterocean

26. Comment #330799 by clatz on January 31, 2009 at 5:04 am

A pleasure to watch, Richard you really are quite a good interviewer and Mr Nesse was fascinating to listen to.

Thanks for posting.

Other Comments by clatz

27. Comment #330804 by spaceryder on January 31, 2009 at 5:22 am

Excellent interview. Shame Dr Nesse's book's out of print in the UK.

I wonder what the evolutionary explanation is of the over-reaction of our defence systems when faced with major sepsis where the aforesaid reaction actually causes more harm than good.

Any ideas?

Other Comments by spaceryder

28. Comment #330805 by Delsolar16 on January 31, 2009 at 5:23 am

I think instead of "designed" it would be better to say "shaped." Nobody really hears the word "designed" outside the context of a conscious, purpose-driven being. In contrast, it is easy to think of natural forces that can shape something, whether it be landscapes, animal behavior, etc...

Other Comments by Delsolar16

29. Comment #330812 by Swordmaiden on January 31, 2009 at 5:36 am

Once again a great big THANK YOU for this and all the uncut interviews, long may they continue. I am looking forward to the DVD. Every time I listen I learn something new!
What a nice man! What a shame I did not get an inspiring teacher like these men when I was at school; if I think of science class I think of boring bunsen burners and long words; none of it went into my brain. Now I am hungry for more knowledge and my life 2 thirds gone!
Loved the skeleton too.....reminded me of Achmed the Dead Terrorist standing there.
Thank you RDF admin for this video! More please!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

30. Comment #330817 by adangelo15 on January 31, 2009 at 5:53 am

Who is the camera man.....your fired! Other than that, great interview.

Other Comments by adangelo15

31. Comment #330821 by Chris Walsh on January 31, 2009 at 6:29 am

I tried doing that blind-spot test - I can't get it to work. I can always see the pen, no matter what I do... Perhap's I've a mutant eye.

Other Comments by Chris Walsh

32. Comment #330822 by Britoner on January 31, 2009 at 6:38 am

Very interesting. Randolph Nesse shares Richard Dawkins's talent of being able to get quite complex ideas across in a succinct manner.

I found the relationship between ageing and risk of cancer particularly thought provoking. I've always thought that one day we would be able to manipulate genes to significantly lengthen life expectancy but Dr. Nesse's comments suggest that may be a simplistic view.

Other Comments by Britoner

33. Comment #330824 by mcarp on January 31, 2009 at 6:46 am

Great stuff. I've loved all the uncut interviews. This one is no exception. I have a problem with the qwerty vs dvorak argument. Some studies have shown that neither is faster while others show that dvorak as faster. This seems inconclusive and unconvincing to me. Some explanations of why qwerty is slow I think are misleading. I say this because they start with the conclusion that qwerty is slow. It seems to me that qwerty is more of an alternation of hammers rather than a delay of hammers. I've seen comments from many people of both sides of the argument. Mostly I'm talking about people who have tried both layouts. Many people who have learned dvorac along side their qwerty knowledge report that they have not achieved significant differences in rate. Some claim that they have. Regardless, I think it is worth mentioning that the alternation of hammers and not the delay of hammers is more significant to the prevention of hammer lockup.

Just a nitpick really though because the point of being stuck with qwerty is still a good point.

I'm also glad that Dawkins mentioned that its still useful to speak about the body as a machine in some cases. I don't think that just because it isn't designed that you can disqualify it as a machine.

Other Comments by mcarp

34. Comment #330832 by mcarp on January 31, 2009 at 7:11 am

Chris Walsh: It's the little bit he's got stuck in the top of the pen that disappears. Re-watch that part again. I made the same mistake. I could still see the pen but if i stuck a bit of wire in the end of the pen like he had and did the test again, sure enough, the bit of wire disappears.

Other Comments by mcarp

35. Comment #330850 by Stuart Paul Wood on January 31, 2009 at 7:51 am

Part 5, 4:55 - "It might make you think natural selection played a trick on us"

This reminded me of The Smith's "Pretty Girls Make Graves"

"I could have been wild and I could have been free/ but nature played this trick on me/ she wants it NOW/ and she will not wait/ but she's too rough and I'm too delicate"

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

36. Comment #330864 by mordacious1 on January 31, 2009 at 8:29 am

Comment #330628 by TimeChaser

Actually, if you're really interested in this topic, Dr. Nesse's book is, as he admitted, a little outdated, although still a good read. If you have lots of money laying around, I would recommend Stearns/Koella's book "Evolution in Health and Disease". The 2nd edition (paperback) just came out a couple of weeks ago and is more current. The problem is, the paperback costs $70 (wow!) new.

http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Health-Disease-Stephen-Stearns/dp/0199207461/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233418083&sr=1-4

Also you might want to go to the website he recommended in the interview:

http://evolutionandmedicine.org/

You can only hear the first 5-10 minutes of the lectures for free, but there is a lot of good information, as there are several lectures.

Other Comments by mordacious1

37. Comment #330869 by The Krell on January 31, 2009 at 8:33 am

The thing about alternative keyboards is really a red herring. It is assumed that a Dvorak keyboard is quicker because the keys are displayed alphabetically. What if our alphabet was Qwerty? We would accept that that is how it should be. If one is able to touch type it doesn't really matter what order the keys are displayed in; we would adapt to that. Try and get hold of a copy of my paper What Darwin Missed by Not Being a Touch Typist. THis is explosive stuff and is set to turn evolutionary theory on its head.

Other Comments by The Krell

38. Comment #330872 by Baron Scarpia on January 31, 2009 at 8:40 am

Will someone please explain to Wooter how the new comments system works?

Put simply, Wooter, Dawkins isn't banning your comments. However, the readers of this site are so fed up with your nonsense that they mark you as a troll, and your post gets moved.

Blame us, not Dawkins.

Other Comments by Baron Scarpia

39. Comment #330878 by ab_initio on January 31, 2009 at 8:47 am

Thanks so much for this - enjoyed it very much.

isthatclear makes me sad:(

Other Comments by ab_initio

40. Comment #330879 by The Krell on January 31, 2009 at 8:47 am

It is exasperating to have to spend time countering the claims of ID/Creationists when we could be channeling our energy into progressing scientific study. Is there not some, as yet, unidentified genetic selection by which Creationists will become irrelevant and ultimately extinct?

Other Comments by The Krell

41. Comment #330880 by Mark Jones on January 31, 2009 at 8:48 am

Sorry, The Krell, I accidentally trolled your comment. You can guess who I was aiming for...

Other Comments by Mark Jones

42. Comment #330882 by black wolf on January 31, 2009 at 8:52 am

Baron Scarpia,
why would he suddenly start to care for what is true? He must be right in his boring little internal cosmos, and to him that includes having always been right. I think it may have been the realization that he was forever left with his pathetic and eternally, nauseatingly boring self that unhinged him and made him the person we see here.
Since he refuses and is beyond help, using the Troll button is the most compassionate thing we can do. As we used to say on school playgrounds: DBDDHKP.

Other Comments by black wolf

43. Comment #330894 by kev_s on January 31, 2009 at 9:06 am

Re: Comment #330616 by mordacious1

I'm not a doctor but I have a guess at how the skeleton died. Is it that sharp bolt coming out of his head?

LOL!
However when it went in through its arse it must have brought tears to the eyes too!

Other Comments by kev_s

44. Comment #330895 by HappyPrimate on January 31, 2009 at 9:08 am

Marvelous and extremely interesting. This sort of knowledge is certainly impowering. Understanding why my body reacts the way it does allows me to overcome misplaced anxiety and get medical assistance when necessary. This knowledge would certainly benefit the general population.

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

45. Comment #330897 by kev_s on January 31, 2009 at 9:11 am

Re:Comment #330889 by isthatclear
One thing that is very clear is that you know nothing about evolution and your students are not gifted.

Other Comments by kev_s

46. Comment #330899 by mordacious1 on January 31, 2009 at 9:13 am

Wow, I just used the new troll button for the first time...great work Josh!!!!

Other Comments by mordacious1

47. Comment #330923 by StuE on January 31, 2009 at 9:46 am

Excellent - really like the idea of evolutionary based psychology - any good links to get into this more?

Other Comments by StuE

48. Comment #330959 by TimeChaser on January 31, 2009 at 10:32 am

Comment #330864 by mordacious1

Thanks very much, mordacious1!

Yeesh, $70... Well, I suppose a bit of saving up is in order then.

Other Comments by TimeChaser

49. Comment #330961 by Richard Dawkins on January 31, 2009 at 10:35 am

Who is the camera man.....your fired! Other than that, great interview.

Oh that is SO unfair. This is raw footage, uncut, unedited. You are used to seeing finished television shows, elegantly edited with all the camera moves, all the zooms, all the changes in focus removed. On RD.net we do something unusual, which is to offer you the unedited footage. Please remember that and don't abuse the cameraman. He is probably the best cameraman I have ever worked with. I assure you that, if you saw the unedited footage from most television programs it would look a lot more amateurish than this!
Richard

Other Comments by Richard Dawkins

50. Comment #330971 by Steve Zara on January 31, 2009 at 10:42 am

I am not just saying this now - I have made the comment before: I really love seeing the unedited footage. It presents things with an honesty and freshness that really draws me in to the conversation. It took a bit of getting used to, I admit, but now I think it is a great resource.

Other Comments by Steve Zara