Oh, it was a video on how one part of the body takes a more disadvantageous course of development in a certain species, even though a more efficient design would have been possible. The argument being that the convoluted development arose out of the fact that the body part served a different purpose than what it does now.
As I tried to state with my post #625, there is a hidden agenda in Dawkins addressing the nerve in question and the process whereby this nerve takes a circuitous route from the brain down to the region of the heart then back up to the voice box. Dawkins tried to assert as axiomatic that which he wanted to refute ... he framed the issue as 'if there were really a designer, he would have been more likely to start over eons ago when the evolutionary development went beyond the fish-like predecessors of mammals.
In other words, Dawkins defines the 'designer' the way he can refute the designer using his flawed reasoning on the 'units' designed. Presuming to know what is the best design methodology for a universe blossoming life, Dawkins then seeks to convince his audience that the designer Dawkins has assumed would not be blooming the variety of life we have as evidence of a designer ... therefore, in Dawkins' nihilistic mind, there is no designer because the designer Dawkins defines is not evidenced by the units of record.