Originally posted by C Hess
He says the blood-brain barrier couldn't have evolved. But the truth is that we can do what we always do when we wish to understand how structures could have evolved; we do comparative anatomy with species that only feature some aspects of BBB, and note how they differ, so he's literally saying: "I don't understand it, therefore god". Unless, of course, he's ...[text shortened]... and when we can't immediately explain something, simply proclaim: "we don't understand it, yet".

Once again it seems that i must tediously repeat myself as you have simply stated the same thing again, ad nauseam. He understand perfectly well the mechanisms, what he does not accept is that such complex mechanisms could have evolved. These are two entirely different issues which you seem intent in not only confusing, but of making an issue of. He has made no mistake and simply gave a subjective perspective. He has no problem with the science, with its understanding, its application or anything else related to it, what he has stated is simply that its his personal belief that such a system could not have arisen by evolutionary mechanism and no references to lung fish, sturgeons or speculative conjecture of what may have occurred at some unspecified epoch in the alleged evolution of fish can change that fact.

He does not buy your hypothesis, do you understand? That does not mean that he has made a mistake as you have assumed, it does not mean that he does not understand it (despite your propaganda) for I am quite sure that as an research pharmacist he must have studied evolution at school and/or university, it does not mean that he is any less well trained or educated than you alledge (without the slightest evidence) what it means is that he does not accept your premise. He is a scientist after all, interested in empiricism, not in some far flung materialistic fantasy masquerading as science.

Newton is the ultimate, ant-trinitarian, theist, a man who devoted his life to the pursuit of truth and in revealing the creator's handiwork by examining the physical universe. Legend! Peace be upon him.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Once again it seems that i must tediously repeat myself as you have simply stated the same thing again, ad nauseam. He understand perfectly well the mechanisms, what he does not accept is that such complex mechanisms could have evolved. These are two entirely different issues which you seem intent in not only confusing, but of making an issue of. ...[text shortened]... , interested in empiricism, not in some far flung materialistic fantasy masquerading as science.

If this was a GCSE O Level answer to the essay title "Defend the work of Frédéric Dumoulin in this field", you'd get an F.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
This is true. My blanket statement was a little hasty.

Can you think of anymore examples where you have read material which challenges your religious beliefs?

Robert, I answered your questions, will you be polite enough to answer mine -

Can you think of any more examples where you have read material which challenges your religious beliefs?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Robert, I answered your questions, will you be polite enough to answer mine -

Can you think of any more examples where you have read material which challenges your religious beliefs?

I get challenged here all the time PK and I am called upon to defend my religious beliefs. Beliefs about our stance on blood springs to mind.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Once again it seems that i must tediously repeat myself as you have simply stated the same thing again, ad nauseam. He understand perfectly well the mechanisms, what he does not accept is that such complex mechanisms could have evolved.

And yet, in only two papers we see that it can be explained through an evolutionary process, because it is not as complex and efficient as it appeared when it was first discovered. The BBB consists of blood vessels with the only difference being how their lined with tightly packed cells. Anyone who claims that evolution can't explain how a denser structure of specialised cells can form over many generations, doesn't have the first clue about the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry, but he's clearly made the same mistake...

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Newton is the ultimate, ant-trinitarian, theist, a man who devoted his life to the pursuit of truth and in revealing the creator's handiwork by examining the physical universe. Legend! Peace be upon him.

...Newton made when his calculations couldn't explain irregularities in planetary orbits, and he resigned to the god did it explanation. If all you got for a given problem is a goddidit response, you may as well just admit that you don't understand it, and leave it to future scientists to figure it out.

(I'm not trying to belittle the amazing achievements of who may well be the greatest scientist of all time, mind you.)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I get challenged here all the time PK and I am called upon to defend my religious beliefs. Beliefs about our stance on blood springs to mind.

That wasn't what I was asking.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I get challenged here all the time PK and I am called upon to defend my religious beliefs. Beliefs about our stance on blood springs to mind.

What is your stance on blood?

Originally posted by C Hess
...Newton made when his calculations couldn't explain irregularities in planetary orbits, and he resigned to the god did it explanation. If all you got for a given problem is a goddidit response, you may as well just admit that you don't understand it, and leave it to future scientists to figure it out.

(I'm not trying to belittle the amazing achievements of who may well be the greatest scientist of all time, mind you.)

You have evidence that he attributed the irregularities in planet orbits to Gods intervention?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
What is your stance on blood?

I reserve the right to self determination, that is my stance on intravenous blood transfusions.

Originally posted by C Hess
And yet, in only two papers we see that it can be explained through an evolutionary process, because it is not as complex and efficient as it appeared when it was first discovered. The BBB consists of blood vessels with the only difference being how their lined with tightly packed cells. Anyone who claims that evolution can't explain how a dense ...[text shortened]... irst clue about the theory of evolution.

I'm sorry, but he's clearly made the same mistake...

Its not a mistake and never can be a mistake when you are comparing two subjective realities, all that you can say with any certainty is which one appears more plausible to you.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
That wasn't what I was asking.

I have adopted many things which are no part of my religious belief, My Veganism for one, my abhorrence of killing, humans and animals.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have adopted many things which are no part of my religious belief, My Veganism for one, my abhorrence of killing, humans and animals.

Again, that wasn't what I was asking. Here it is once more -

Can you think of any more examples where you have read material which challenges your religious beliefs?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I have adopted many things which are no part of my religious belief, My Veganism for one, my abhorrence of killing, humans and animals.

Are you sure you're not confusing veganism and being a Vulcan?

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Are you sure you're not confusing veganism and being a Vulcan?

Vulcans are vegans