Did Douglas Axe Disprove Evolution? Spoiler: No

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

Let us also note that they write “a particular protein fold”, instead of any protein in general. Axe can’t generalize his result.

Of course, Axe’s collaborator at the DI, Ann Gauger said this much on this forum too (my bold):

@Agauger

But my main problem is your claim that they have shown that Doug’s paper is wrong. Doug’s paper showed the rarity of a functional protein with a particular activity (B-lactam) and a particular structure ( TEM-1 B-lactam) (that’s what he and I mean by a functional fold BTW). Out all possible protein structures only 1 in 10^77 will have that structure and that enzymatic activity. It’s a way of answering the question, how many ways are there to make a protein that has that particular structure with that particular chemistry out of all possible proteins. It’s a question of some interest to protein scientists, and of necessity, to evolutionary biologists. Otherwise you wouldn’t care.

And later in that same post she writes (my bold again):

@Agauger

This is significant. Doug’s experiment has always been about how hard it is to a a particular fold ( yes, I know that means structure, that’s what I mean!) with a particular function. He never claimed to have found the all structures that could act as a Beta lactam. He found how hard it is to get a TEM-1 beta-lactam enzyme.

So when @lee_merrill writes:

@lee_merrill

@Mercer

@lee_merrill

If Axe claims his results only apply for this mutated form of a protein, then yes, he should not claim this applies to proteins in general.

Good, then we agree that the paper has zero relevance to proteins in general.

But Axe doesn’t claim that, he claims a general result, and the reviewers didn’t tell him to withdraw that part of his conclusion.

… he is just wrong. I say he is wrong, John Mercer says he is wrong, even Ann Gauger (a co-author on many of Axe’s papers in the DI pseudo-journal BioComplexity) says he is wrong too.