LOL

How dumb do you have to be to actually swallow this?

I barely coasted through high school biology, and I understand mutation better than that jackass narrator.

This video is of course true, and mutations can only be negative. Not to worry though, for $49.95 I can send you a copper mesh testicle sack with dual protective magnets, which I guarantee to prevent any unwanted damage.

the inference of a creator complex enough to create the universe is proof of a supremely intelligent creator of the creator.

Why don't the creationists attack taxonomy? clearly no animal is "related" to any other animal if they are all created discrete. physical and genetic similarities are merely incidental.


Though I love the fact that it was a muslim creationist film.

sicle cell anemia is a mutation that benefits people in malaria-rich environments, making them resistant to the effects of malaria.

and this image shows clearly some mutations that benefitted the organism, and yet actually resulted in the reduction of genetic information.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.bk1.html


Even looking at the number of dog breeds shows what mutation can do. most dog breeds are relatively recent (past few hundred years). are we to belive, given that dogs are genetically indestiguishable from wolves, that buiried in the genes of all wolves is a chihuahua? That the "designer/creator" put the genes for all these various dog breeds into the original, "perfect" genetic plan for wolves?

It's also funny how beneficial traits are rarely referred to as "mutations". were the genes that make einstein so smart originally inserted in the "perfect" code of adam and eve (or whatever origin story you want), and took that many generations for those "genius" genes to be activated?

um yes. forgot it was muslim propaganda...but no matter. they're all part of the same problem if you ask me (or dawkins...see his "root of all evil" documentary here and/or on youtube).

filmmakers do a great job convincing its audience. if i didn't know any better, i woulda happily agreed. these filmmakers should work for election campaign films.

I wish I could have been born in the days when humanity will look back at the idea of god and religion and laugh at itself.

pretty funny.


how 'bout them apples, Dawkins! EVEN PWNED IN SLOW MOTION REPLAY! KYAAAH!!


yep, it makes piles more sense that God made 400,000 different species of beetles. hey, everbody needs a hobby; so God likes making beetles?

Hmm, guess I'll play devil's advocate. It wasn't hard to use the Google to find out what's going on with the Dawkins.

Here's Dawkin's take. And here's the take from a creation science site.

And if you're too lazy, here's my take:

Dawkins: "I was tricked, curse those creationists!"
Interviewers: "Nuh-uh!"

Ok, anyone with a child's understanding of lighting can tell the guy asking Dawkins the question wasn't even in the same room when they had the shot of Dawkins just sitting there.

Does anyone actually buy this? They have a video of Dawkins saying nothing, then they throw in some "question" and play it like Dawkins can't answer a question. What kind of BS is this?

Not sure why this doesn't have a comedy tag...

'exalted wisdom of the creator'

pure comedy

This isn´t politics. If any, it´s comedy, like bob says ;-)

No, serious: It just isn´t politics. Even on election day in the US..

I grew up in a Christian fundie household so I've heard all these fallacious arguments before. One of their favourites is the assumption that since scientists admit to not knowing everything, that they must know nothing. "Even renowned evolutionary scientists admit they can't fully explain how the human eye evolved." Always followed by the pregnant pause, as if a point had actually just been made. Sure, scientists don't know everything and never will. That's not proof of an invisible man who lives in the sky who grants wishes.

ROTFLMAO @ DNA comment about mutations and what not.

If I didn't attend college for Molecular Biology that wouldn't have been so funny. Crazy fundies that take one side of an argument and run with while completely ignoring the existance of the other side of an arguement.

I've seen this whole video at one point of time. I'm not sure if this one got aired on PBS or another. I can't remember. It just burns me that fundies take everything out of context.

A recent issue of Discover Magazine discusses a shift in DNA thought:

http://www.discover.com/issues/nov-06/cover/?page=2

To your point, coupland - they fail to mention that science has shown how an eye could have developed over time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Stb9pQc9Kq0

Evolution isn't completely dependent on mutation as the only factor driving it. It has been shown that complex systems can develop and provide advanced functionality over a period of time.

Religious fundamentalists are quick to attack science for its lack of definitive proof of its theories, but seem to feel that their faith exempts them from that same impossible standard.

I'm no fan of Richard Dawkins either, though. I feel he's far too antagonistic to be taken seriously as a proponent of rational discourse on this subject. Every interview I've seen him conduct has seemed like an ambush instead of a serious discussion.

two words: male nipples

What a sleazy technique. Ask a question that requires thought, film respondent thinking about the answer for 10 seconds (cut before respondent can answer), repeat clip to stretch to 20.

God bless prof. Dawkin...ops

Anyhow even if we assume that there is no example of how mutations did benefit any form of life, we can not assume by noticing the complexity of life that there's actually ''someone'' who did it on purpose, simply because if you say that you admit that, there's no complexity at all since if God created life forms one by one they're not related, and where's the complexity in creating life forms separately? As you can't tell that a clock mechanism is created just by chance, because it is so simple to create that it is much more simple to create it on purpose, try instead to create an infinite numbers of galxies, and every each one made by billions of solar systems, let alone the number of atoms in each of them, you'll find that the only possible scentific {with scientific I mean that not involves faith} way to do it is by chance. I'm no atheist, I believe in God, if you mean something that is necessary for the universe to exist, though my God is the Chance.

Just another documentary practicing selective ignorance. Just look at all the animals that we humans selectively breed to enhance or supress certain charactaristics. Dogs, cats, birds, horses. etc. No, they may not have two kidneys or hearts, and wouldnt survive without them, but god didn't exactly create a dog that looks like a hot dog. Of course to create/maintain a purebred line they were inbred, which causes other complications like poor health.

Quote: "I'm no fan of Richard Dawkins either, though. I feel he's far too antagonistic to be taken seriously as a proponent of rational discourse on this subject. Every interview I've seen him conduct has seemed like an ambush instead of a serious discussion."

No way! He just asks the right questions. He's never yelling or telling people to shut up, unlike Bill O'Reilly. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2367986806557811071&q=dawkins+bishop&total=5&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

I can't believe they played the watchmaker bit. That is the worst analogy I've ever heard, yet they think it makes sense. Last time I checked, watches aren't made of organic parts.