Why As A Biochemist, I CANNOT Believe In Evolution

Submitted by Dr. Georgie Porgie

Click on image to view presentation in PDF

743 responses to “Why As A Biochemist, I CANNOT Believe In Evolution

  1. @BT

    “By arguing that BBE created the universe through a process of evolution you are clearly NOT a ‘real real’ evolutionist.”


    No BT it is YOU that constantly conflates evolution with creation of the universe or creation of life.

    As MME has painstakingly explained to you (and others), the theory of evolution is a theory OF BIOLOGY. It is a theory OF LIVING ORGANISMS

    IT IS NOT, I repeat, IT IS NOT a theory of the creation of life (or the universe).

    Those subjects are abiogenesis and cosmology.

    You might as well attack Einsteins Theory of general relativity for not explaining the origin of space and time.

    There have been believers and non believers before and after the theory of evolution.

    The best biological departments of the world are filled with believers and non believers.

    Your “real real evolutionist” is nothing more than a strawman.


  2. @BT,

    “…in fact, the evidence shows ONLY that evolution is a fact. That changes occur to species, which reflect the influences of their environment (high class engineering design); and that these changes are essentially WITHIN SPECIES.”


    Of course this is flat out false.


  3. @BT,

    “If you were right, then evolution would be an ongoing process with many examples of transitional specimens in the process of evolving to another species….”


    And that is exactly what the evidence shows.

    MME has already provided links to just some of this evidence which incidentally keeps growing.

    (and considering how rare fossilisation is its remarkable we have any evidence at all ).

    (standy by for the usual creationist denial)


  4. @MME

    “Even where entropy decreases, can you give examples of natural systems which tend to become more complex (and you DO know what complex means) WITHOUT intelligent external inputs ”


    Why did you say no?

    A hurricane is one of many examples of a decrease in entropy by a natural process process (or did you disqualify these types of examples because you attribute an ultimate first cause to BBE)


    The hurricane does not violate the second law because it is not a closed system.


  5. @ Not Saved

    To tell you the truth NS, my problem (and I do mean- MY problem) is that I cannot for the life of me understand exactly where you stand.

    When you make references to well known scholars and reference materials (as is MME’s wont also) you must understand that that style is only useful when wanna bright boys talking to (trying to impress) one another….. It is NOT helpful in trying to enlighten a bushman.

    Do you, like MME, believe in a pre-existing supernatural being?

    Do you (like MME) concur that this supernatural being is responsible for the reality that we call existence?

    Are you saying that the supernatural being created the biological process called evolution, which was then the process through which our world came into being?

    Or do you subscribe to the belief that NO such superior intelligence exists, and that we are what we are as a result of circumstances of chance? … and that ‘evolution’ is just another arbitrary law that happens to exist…..?

    Wha’ it is that you arguing here NS?…. apart from just being against bushmen ….LOL


  6. Micro Mock Engineer

    “Why did you say no? A hurricane is one of many examples of a decrease in entropy by a natural process process (or did you disqualify these types of examples because you attribute an ultimate first cause to BBE)”

    You are correct NS… it is just that conceptually I agree with BT that the laws which govern these natural processes are divine in origin. I do believe in a ‘first cause’… this belief is faith based and informed by my philosophy of life.

    In the context of the discussion, your hurricane example is a good one. I had thought of using lightning, but figured GP would quote from Job 37:11-15. LOL


  7. @BT,

    “Do you, like MME, believe in a pre-existing supernatural being?”


    I am not aware of any.


  8. Hi Georgie,

    Ironic you should use malaria as an example.

    You may find this paper interesting:

    “How Malaria Has Affected the Human Genome and What Human Genetics Can Teach Us about Malaria
    Dominic P. Kwiatkowski”


    Note, malaria parasites have existed long before humans.


  9. Thanks MME, your position is clear.


  10. @ NS

    “I am not aware of any.”
    You only acknowledge those of whom you are aware?
    …. and have the gall to refer Bush Tea to fossil records from 2,999,9200 years ago? LOL

    Man answer the question nuh?

    What exactly is your argument? …. or maybe you can assist MME with the egg thing…


  11. The question was clearly answered, but for you I will expand;

    I am not aware of the existence of any “pre existing supernatural being”.

    My argument?

    The theory of evolution, a theory of living things, is settled science.

    That is my argument.


  12. @Not Saved

    Please try posting to BU using FireFox Browser.


  13. @David,

    I can do. (need to download it)

    Any particular reason?

    (sorry I been away from the blog for a little bit so I missed any earlier explanation)


  14. @NS

    Based on feedback it seems IE especially Google Chrome does not work well with WordPress.


  15. Thank you NS.

    No doubt you know that there is no such thing as ‘settled science’, just the most current accepted explanation.

    ….like how the world was flat and the phlogiston theory was accepted for centuries.

    ….this is ‘higher draft’ NS.


  16. Yes BT, settled science is current generally accepted scientific theory.

    It is always open to improvement.

    Lets not argue semantics now.

    Lets also be clear that “evolution” is data, the facts we observe from the fossil record.

    Over 99% of species that ever lived are now extinct.

    Hardly the case of creation by “BRAM” !

    The “Theory of Evolution” is the “how and the why” these observed changes occurred.

    No doubt we will continue to improve our understanding of the “how and why” and the theory will become more and more robust in its explanatory power.

    To throw out a form of the “galileo gambit” is a disingenuous argument.

    Tell me, is your “BRAM” theory open to revision in light of the evidence?


  17. @BT,

    By the way,

    “a flat earth” was never an accepted scientific theory.

    You may find this useful:


    Phlogiston theory was already being seriously challenged within a 100 hundred years and hardly lasted for “centuries”.

    Surely you appreciate that science is able to move faster now.


  18. Micro Mock Engineer

    BT… thought this might help to put your “just so BRAM!” worldview in perspective.

    Cambrian explosion = “just so BRAM!” LOL


  19. Micro Mock Engineer

    OK BT… a good place to pick this back up is from your question… “Even if evolution was the selected process, when and why did the chicken change to laying its egg rather than using internal incubation?”

    The chicken-egg evolutionary process is actually easy to describe having done the groundwork higher up the thread, but first we have to get a few more GP-ite translations out of the way…

    Amniotes – these are vertibrates that lay eggs which can survive out of water (called amniotic eggs). Examples would be all birds, most reptiles (exceptions are some lizards and snakes) and some mammals (e.g. anteater and platypus).

    Amnion – this is the membrane or sac containing amniotic fluid, in which the fetus develops. It is common to both fertilized chicken and human eggs… the rupturing of the amnion is what happens when a woman’s “water breaks”.

    Oviparity – this is the process where the embryo develops in an egg outside of the mother’s body, with the embryo being nourished by a yolk.

    Vivparity – this is the process where the embryo develops in an egg inside of the mother’s body, with the embryo being nourished by a placental connection to the mother.

    Ovoviparity – this is an evolutionary intermediary between oviparity and vivparity, where the embryo develops in an egg that remains inside the mother until birth, but there is no placental connection. In all three cases, fertilization of the egg takes place inside of the mother.

    Now to make a small correction to your question… the chicken didn’t “change to laying its egg rather than using internal incubation”, because according to evolutionary theory the order in which reproductive systems evolved was oviparity–> ovoviparity –> viviparity. In other words, “internal incubation” is a relatively new reproductive mechanism. Fossil evidence demonstrates that oviparity predates viviparity by millions of years. Fortunately we don’t have to rely on fossil records alone for evidence of this transition, as we have many examples of transitional species still in existence… for example, the veiled chameleon lays eggs while its cousin, Jackson’s chameleon, gives live birth. Similarly, the python lays eggs while its cousin the boa gives live birth.

    So… to cut a multi-billion year story short LOL, eggs have been around for millions of years before chickens… of course in those ‘early’ days, the eggs didn’t contain chickens, but they did contain species which would eventually evolve to become chickens… and chameleons… and snakes etc. The process started with single cell reproduction, moving on to multicellular organisms laying eggs for external fertilization, then internal fertilization of eggs before being laid, then longer and longer uterine retention of fertilized eggs before being laid, then eggs that ‘hatched’ internally, then eggs that not only fully developed internally but with yolk placentation.

    … and today we see a species, over the past 50 years, actively involved in its own evolution… external fertilization (test tube babies), genetic engineering, cloning… the next million years should be interesting :-)


  20. Micro Mock Engineer

    “In all three cases, fertilization of the egg takes place inside of the mother.”

    Correction to above… I was thinking in terms of the chicken, but in oviparity, fertilisation can take place either internally (e.g. chicken) or externally (e.g. fish and amphibians).


  21. Micro Mock Engineer

    …and BT, now that we know some of GP’s fancy words, we understand what his text books mean when it describes the phylogenetic reconstruction (translation: path through the tree of life) for the butterfly’s evolution which you also asked about higher up the thread ROFL.

    Their biological ancestors separated in the branch I provided above, at the ‘Colelomata’ ‘limb’ around 600 million years ago and continued down the following evolutionary path…

    › Coelomata
    › Protostomia
    › Panarthropoda
    › Arthropoda
    › Mandibulata
    › Pancrustacea
    › Hexapoda
    › Insecta
    › Dicondylia
    › Pterygota
    › Neoptera
    › Endopterygota
    › Amphiesmenoptera (family of butterflies and moths)


  22. OK MME, I promise to let the matter rest here.
    There are a few reasons for this.

    – I have forgotten the gist of this thread and don’t have the time or patience to review it. ( I barely recall the various positions)

    – I still find it hard to understand how you could know all this draft…. from Latin to biology to engineering to law – RU4real?

    – Skippa, you sound like you actually believe these things that you are saying…. snigger!!

    – and lastly, you trying to trick the bushman by suggesting that ‘evolution’ includes processes like genetic engineering..
    How could it be ‘evolution’ when it is engineered by brilliant minds and cutting edge technology? When BBE did a similar but more complex thing we called it CREATION.


  23. Micro Mock Engineer

    “How could it be ‘evolution’ when it is engineered by brilliant minds and cutting edge technology?”

    Evolution, like gravity and the laws of thermodynamics, are just a few of those cutting edge ‘technologies’ used in “the more complex thing” we call CREATION.


  24. MME
    That position defies logic. You can do much better.

    If modern scientists were able to build a human being ‘just so’, would it make sense to waste time on in vitro fertilization, intracytoplasmic sperm injection, and other similar procedures.

    Similarly, if BBE could CREATE things ‘just so’ why would they waste time with such haphazard mechanisms as evolution? – just so you and your bright friends can show off with those fancy (and admittedly impressive) Latin word? LOL


  25. Micro Mock Engineer

    “if BBE could CREATE things ‘just so’ why would they waste time with such haphazard mechanisms as evolution?”

    Evolution is no more haphazard than quantum mechanics… and while both leave us with unanswered questions, they also provide us with testable knowledge about the natural world.

    Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in that last question BT… it is sort of like asking why BBE would waste time with haphazard mechanisms like allowing suffering in the world… surely BBE could create perfect beings ‘just so’ without the need for this drama called life on earth… right? :-)

    There is nothing haphazard about any observable process around us, and what you may perceive as imperfections is all part of a plan… but you already know this… you like you sleepy yuh… or dem big words I borrow from GP got you confuse?


  26. If there is a God, He will not or cannot be understood by us, otherwise He wouldn’t be God. Let’s get on with enjoying life as we understand such.


  27. Micro Mock Engineer

    “If there is a God, He will not or cannot be understood by us, otherwise He wouldn’t be God. Let’s get on with enjoying life as we understand such.”

    Anonymous… that is an interesting observation. It’s similar to this quotation from the Vedas… “As far as the Universe extends, thus far extends the space within the heart.”
– Chandogya Upanishad 8-1-3

    Meaning-of-life type questions and philosophical discussions should help us to enjoy life… or at the very least, face death when that time comes without fear.


  28. MME

    There is a Bible quote about “putting away childish things”. Meaning-of-life questions seem childish. All I know is that I am alive and thus each “moment” has meaning and if only I can let go of my preconceived notions then maybe I will find that meaning for each “moment”. To live so as to die without fear seems like such a waste.

    “Every day is as old as a new day is. Time represents itself.
    Night fakes the rule of stars; as we fake
    light’s good pencil.
    As child’s chalk ridden black board. Alphabet of hope in a season of insects. Crawl of the beast in a season of days.
    I unapologetic, remember why every day was once a new day. As new and as old as my childhood roaming.”

    “As New and as Old (I)” – Martin Carter


  29. Micro Mock Engineer


    I enjoy contemplating the nature of human beings and our place in the universe… indeed, it helps me find meaning in each moment… but I appreciate the fact that others like yourself do not share similar interests. LOL

    I agree with you though that we should not “live so as to die without fear”… although I am not sure how you reached that conclusion from my statement… unless of course you thought I was suggesting that one should spend ones entire life engaged in philosophical discourse (or blogging for that matter) :-)

    “An individual human existence should be like a river – small at first, narrowly contained within its banks, and rushing passionately past boulders and over waterfalls. Gradually the river grows wider, the banks recede, the waters flow more quietly, and in the end, without any visible break, they become merged in the sea, and painlessly lose their individual being. The man who, in old age, can see his life in this
    way, will not suffer from the fear of death, since the things he cares for will continue.” – C.S. Lewis


  30. Micro Mock Engineer

    oops… that quote was Bertrand Russell.

    Reading a book right now contrasting the lives and philosophies of Russell, Hume and C.S. Lewis.

    Despite very different worldviews they all expressed remarkably similar sentiments about aging and death.


  31. MME

    can you give me the title of that book? Russell’s quote has a Buddhist or Hindu sensibility to it. I believe (regretfully) when I was younger that I spent too much time on questions on life’s meanings. Now in the high afternoon of my days there is an urgency to taste as much of life as possible before merging into that infinite sea of Nirvana (hopefully).(with a sigh and a smile).


  32. Micro Mock Engineer


    Its called “God and the Reach of Reason: C.S. Lewis, David Hume, and Bertrand Russell”. Here is an Amazon link…

    It focuses mainly on critiquing Lewis’ philosophy. While I don’t agree with some of the author’s conclusions, I like the way he puts one of Christianity’s most influential apologetics in conversation with two of its most famous critics.


  33. Thanks MME.


  34. @ MME
    “Frankly, I am a bit disappointed in that last question BT… it is sort of like asking why BBE would waste time with haphazard mechanisms like allowing suffering in the world… surely BBE could create perfect beings ‘just so’ without the need for this drama called life on earth… right? :-)
    MME, listen to Bush Tea carefully. EVERYTHING you posted above is completely wrong. Please let me explain why.

    The problem with your thesis that BBE chose to use evolution as the mechanism for creation is understood by answering the question which I asked and you skilfully skirted…. If scientist could make living human beings directly, would they use ‘in vitro fertilization’ and such methodologies?
    …do you now use a slide rule in your design work? It makes no sense.

    Secondly, if as you suggest, BBE DID use evolution as his design approach please tell me why the inspired word would explain the concept in’ creation ‘terms of BBE saying ‘ LET THERE BE….and there was….” Do you think that this was done to mislead us? or was it a mistake?

    But where you REALLY fall down is in your reference to the ‘drama of life on Earth’ and the suffering and pain involved.

    MME, THAT is the real beauty and excellence of the whole project. There are some things that CANNOT BE CREATED ‘just so’….. as you well know.

    Life can be created.
    Matter can be created
    Civilizations can be created

    CHARACTER cannot be created ‘just so’. That needs to be forged in a crucible of different and difficult experiences.
    Think about it, can you contemplate a more complete and excellent crucible? – designed to facilitate the molding of that special righteous character that is characterized by the ability to LOVE one’s enemies; to pray for those who seek to kill you; to rise above pain and suffering?

    For the purpose for which it was built, life on earth is indeed PERFECT in every way…..(as BBE said upon completion of the construction)

    ….so your assessment of the ‘mechanisms of life such as suffering, as ‘haphazard’ is hugely misguided. Such is the assessment of those to whom ‘life on earth’ represents their be all and end all….. as articulated by Anonymous above.


  35. Micro Mock Engineer

    BT, my statement on the mechanisms of life (like suffering) being haphazard was meant to be ‘tongue-in-cheek’… it was made in the context of your referring to evolution as haphazard, which to me is an equally absurd statement.

    I don’t believe that evolution is a purposeless trial-and-error process. Nor do I see it as analogous to genetic engineering experiments. While evolution may not be as directly involved in shaping character the same way experiences do, it is one of the observable forces of nature (like gravity) at work in the crucible. It is not THE mechanism, as you put it, but one of many mechanisms at work in the crucible. Reducing my “thesis” (LOL) to one of BBE choosing “to use evolution as the mechanism for creation” was a crafty way of framing my position to shoot it down… you could just as well have said that I believe BBE chose to use gravity as the mechanism for evolution. Do you agree with the theory of gravity, and if so why? If you do, I suspect your reasons would be similar to those I would give in support of evolution.

    A look at gravity in more detail may help clear up an issue… there are two ways we look gravity. One is as a fact (i.e. the natural observable phenomenon that objects/masses attract each other) and the other as a theory (right now the best one we have is general relativity/space-time curvature… but just as this replaced Newton’s theory, it too is likely to be replaced as our knowledge improves… maybe String theory will be its successor?). It is similar with evolution… there is the naturally observable phenomenon (from fossil records, and other evidence presented higher up the thread) that biological organisms have evolved from common ancestors over millions of years. Then there is Darwin’s theory of the mechanism, which, like general relativity, may be replaced some day.

    BT… I don’t know why you and others consider evolution to be so threatening, or incompatible with the Creation account. As a physical/biological creation, the differences between us and other organisms may appear significant on the surface, but the fact is we are constructed from the same fundamental physical ingredients molded in different ways over time… it is our Soul that makes us unique.

    As an aside, when BBE said “let us make man in our image” do you think this referred to our physical bodies?


  36. Micro Mock Engineer


    “you could just as well have said that I believe BBE chose to use gravity as the mechanism for *creation*.”


  37. New Center at Michigan State U. Will Study Evolution, Both Natural and Digital
    By Mary Helen Miller

    Computer scientists, biologists, and engineers will work together to study evolution in a new center set to open at Michigan State University in June. The university announced Wednesday that it had recieved a $25-million grant from the National Science Foundation to establish the Bio/computational Evolution in Action Consortium, which will be known as Beacon.

    Scientists at Beacon will study evolution as a continuing process, and they will conduct research in the field, in labs, and with computers. They will study digital evolution using self-replicating computer programs that imitate natural evolution. Charles Ofria, an associate professor of computer science and engineering at Michigan State who was heavily involved in establishing Beacon, explained the benefits of studying digital evolution.

    “When evolution occurs on a computer, we can record every single thing that happens,” he said. “For example, we can take an evolved digital organism, trace its descent, and see every single mutation.”

    Though Beacon will be located at Michigan State, four other universities will be partners in the center: North Carolina A&T State University and the Universities of


  38. MME

    today it was announced that scientists believe there is compelling evidence that a single asteroid collision with the earth was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs. This mass extinction led to the rise of mammals as the dominant species on earth. It would appear that the extinction of the dinosaurs occurred fairly rapidly in about 300 000 years. I believe that biologists claim that other life forms evolved from dinosaurs for example birds. So my question: If dinosaurs were killed off fairly rapidly how is it that that they could have evolved into new species? [My understanding of the evolution of life on earth is probably incomplete if not incorrect so feel free to provide corrections]


  39. This is ridicolous, and I’m glad about everyone who doesn’t believe in evolution is outcasted by intelligent people.


  40. It’s no wonder that many people are leaving churches, the cult of christianity, and religion in general when arrogant, sanctimonious, authoritarian, tyrannical Dominionists like Dictionary (Gordon E, Mullings of Montserrat), Zoe, and Georgie Porgie (to name a few), show just how morally bankrupt, two-faced, dishonest, abusive, and delusional, and insane religious zealots are.


  41. old onion bags

    I don’t know why Peter Wickham don’t come clean and own up for this blog.
    After all the lick and kick the poor atheist got yesterday from the good christian people on Brass Tack…the sore loser chose to run to BU to exalt some console from lame do doers from the back door .This is the worst post in recent times….Peter poor Peter..go find a lonely place in the gym.


  42. Hi to every one, it’s really a nice for me to pay a quick visit this website, it includes precious Information.


  43. It’s going to be end of mine day, except before finish I am reading this enormous paragraph to increase my knowledge.


Post a comment and join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s