Intelligent Design

Doug Axe: A Real Scientist, Not a Brain-Dead Darwinist

Spread the love

In another UD thread I made a passing comment about the fact that I had just read Doug Axe’s essay on protein folds in The Nature of Nature.

I commented:

Speaking of The Nature of Nature, today I read Doug Axe’s essay, The Nature of Protein Folds: Quantifying the Difficulty of an Unguided Search through Protein Sequence Space on page 412. Anyone who reads this and comes away believing that Darwinian mechanisms can produce this technology is living on another planet than I do, or perhaps in a hyper-version of Alice’s Wonderland where a near infinite number of impossible things are believed before breakfast.

You can reference the thread in the link above for comments from Mung, who went to the trouble of typing up some of Doug’s text. And bornagain77 went to the trouble of supplying the following video links:

Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans

Evolution Vs. Functional Proteins – Where Did The Information Come From?

Nothing In Molecular Biology Is Gradual

The bottom line is the following: Richard Dawkins’ Mount Improbable does not have a backside with lots of tiny stairs. Dawkins and his ilk are the real pseudoscientists and dogmatists. They make up stories out of whole cloth with no empirical, mathematical, or other validation/scrutiny, and then declare that their conclusions must be accepted because the obvious alternative of design is philosophically unacceptable.

This is not science. This is the antithesis of science. Doug Axe is a real scientist who follows the evidence where it leads.

6 Replies to “Doug Axe: A Real Scientist, Not a Brain-Dead Darwinist

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    In his work of clarifying the extreme rarity of unique protein folds, Doug Axe has really done an excellent job of illustrating the sheer poverty that neo-Darwinian processes have for creating anything of significance whatsoever, much less the staggering, and unmatched, levels of integrated protein complexity that set life completely apart from even the most advanced machines man has ever made. ,,, And this is really where the rubber meets the road as far as Darwinists establishing any sort of scientific plausibility in the first place. i.e. If neo-Darwinian processes cannot even account for even a single novel functional protein, how in the world are they going to account for a entire city of unparalleled complexity that is a cell?

    “To grasp the reality of life as it has been revealed by molecular biology, we must first magnify a cell a thousand million times until it is 20 kilometers in diameter and resembles a giant airship large enough to cover a great city like London or New York. What we would see then would be an object of unparalleled complexity,…we would find ourselves in a world of supreme technology and bewildering complexity.”
    Geneticist Michael Denton PhD., Evolution: A Theory In Crisis, pg.328

    Systems biology: Untangling the protein web – July 2009
    Excerpt: Vidal thinks that technological improvements — especially in nanotechnology, to generate more data, and microscopy, to explore interaction inside cells, along with increased computer power — are required to push systems biology forward. “Combine all this and you can start to think that maybe some of the information flow can be captured,” he says. But when it comes to figuring out the best way to explore information flow in cells, Tyers jokes that it is like comparing different degrees of infinity. “The interesting point coming out of all these studies is how complex these systems are — the different feedback loops and how they cross-regulate each other and adapt to perturbations are only just becoming apparent,” he says. “The simple pathway models are a gross oversimplification of what is actually happening.”
    http://www.nature.com/nature/j.....0415a.html

    Molecular Biology Animations – Demo Reel
    http://www.metacafe.com/w/5915291/

    “There are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation of such a vast subject.”
    James Shapiro – Molecular Biologist

    further note;

    First-Ever Blueprint of ‘Minimal Cell’ Is More Complex Than Expected – Nov. 2009
    Excerpt: A network of research groups,, approached the bacterium at three different levels. One team of scientists described M. pneumoniae’s transcriptome, identifying all the RNA molecules, or transcripts, produced from its DNA, under various environmental conditions. Another defined all the metabolic reactions that occurred in it, collectively known as its metabolome, under the same conditions. A third team identified every multi-protein complex the bacterium produced, thus characterising its proteome organisation.
    “At all three levels, we found M. pneumoniae was more complex than we expected,”
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....173027.htm

  2. 2
    GilDodgen says:

    In one of the videos linked above Stephen Meyer comments on Doug Axe’s discovery that one in 10^74 possible proteins are potentially biologically functional. Meyer points out that there are 10^65 atoms in our galaxy, so finding a functional protein with a random search is like looking for one marked atom in the entire Milky Way. Actually, 10^74 is 10^65 x 10^9, so its actually like looking for one marked atom in a billion Milky Way galaxies.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: I just ran across this quote that some may want to use for reference:

    “Today there is an explosion of knowledge going on in the study of gene regulatory networks. But it is not led, assisted, or even inspired by the theory of evolution. “We have little empirical knowledge on the evolutionary history of such networks.”– Dean, Antony M., Joseph W. Thornton. September 2007. Mechanistic approaches to the study of evolution: the functional synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics, Vol. 8, pp. 675-688.
    http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

  4. 4
    T. lise says:

    One thing good about Doug Axe is, he is articulative. We in ID camp need more of that in addition to evidences.

  5. 5
    zeroseven says:

    “One thing good about Doug Axe is, he is articulative.”

    That’s funny.

  6. 6
    MedsRex says:

    Zeroseven
    I understand why you might have found T. lise’s sentence funny. However the word “articulative” is still an acceptable adjective given the context. Although I’m not sure whether a grammatical faux pas was indeed made on T. Lise’s part, it should be pointed out that:

    Some accepted synonyms for ARTICULATIVE include:
    Clear, fair, unclouded, precise, and intelligible.

    So even if T. Lise had intended to say ARTICULATE, the sentence is fine.

Leave a Reply