Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Douglas Axe

Douglas Axe chapter excerpt: Can proteins evolve?

Axe: A random gene would specify a random sequence of amino acids, which would flop around without folding. Chains like that are rapidly broken back down into amino acids to keep them from interfering with cellular processes. Very special amino acid sequences are needed for protein chains to fold into stable structures. Read More ›

Douglas Axe vs Joshua Swamidass…

Axe: First and foremost, Swamidass dislikes the “confrontational approach” that he thinks I promote and exemplify, along with other ID proponents. In his words: “Doug Axe in Undeniable and also in the recent Crossway book on theistic evolution talks about how there’s a need to have a confrontational approach to evolutionary science.” Swamidass must be feeling threatened. Read More ›

Film clip on the probability of a protein forming by chance passes 500k views

xcerpt: Putting the probabilities together means adding the exponents. The probability of getting a properly folded chain of one-handed amino acids, joined by peptide bonds, is one chance in 10^74+45+45, or one in 10^164 (Meyer, p. 212). This means that, on average, you would need to construct 10^164 chains of amino acids 150 units long to expect to find one that is useful. Read More ›

Douglas Axe on the central weaknesses of Darwinism today

Axe: Then again, if you simply value scientific honesty, you ought to be moved by the fact that thousands of professional Darwinists laboring for 160 years have not explained the origin of a single complex functional feature of life with the degree of rigor expected in all serious sciences. Read More ›

Trying to have a discussion when others want a diversion

Douglas Axe talks about a long-running dialogue he has had as a result of his 2016 book, Undeniable , where he can’t seem to get his dialogue partner to focus on what he is saying in his book and not what someone else is saying and what a fourth party is saying about them: But why address what Douglas Axe is saying when so many talking points against design in nature are tailored to what someone/anyone else is saying? We wish Axe all the luck. I think we’re addressing the same question, Hans. You’re absolutely right to focus on my treatment of the probability of organisms evolving by chance. Veering Off Course On the other hand, if you’re focusing on Read More ›

“Undeniable” author Doug Axe on the recent “directed evolution” Nobel for chemistry

Doug Axe, Intro of recalls current CalTech winner Frances Arnold: In a conversation in her office one day, I said that I wanted to do work on protein evolution. She was skeptical, for pragmatic reasons. “Is that the kind of work that people will want to fund?”, she asked. I smile recalling that, but up to that point she had been trying to modify enzymes (proteins that do chemistry) by thinking carefully about the effects certain changes to their amino-acid sequences ought to have. She and the graduate students working with her soon found that it was much harder to anticipate the effects of designed changes than they had thought. That’s when she made the shift to what is known Read More ›

Debating Darwin and Design: Science or Creationism? (2)

Some readers here may be aware of an online debate I’m taking part in with a neo-Darwinist (and friend), Francis Smallwood. Francis blogs at Musings of a Scientific Nature. We are currently discussing the issue of whether intelligent design is just a recent strain of creationism, and whether it is a legitimate scientific theory. What follows is our second round of responses. You can read Francis’ response by following the link at the bottom of this post. Feel free to criticise what I have written, and interact with Francis on his blog. Enjoy! ‘Is Intelligent Design science or ‘creationism in a cheap tuxedo?’ Joshua Gidney-2nd response In my opening remarks I attempted to argue that intelligent design is in no Read More ›