# Did Douglas Axe Disprove Evolution? Spoiler: No

**URL:** <https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458>\
**Category:** Side Conversation\
**Tags:** Science, Design\
**Created:** [October 5, 2025, 7:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458 "2025-10-05T19:11:38Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 937

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\
**Post date:** [January 27, 2026, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458/937 "2026-01-27T15:56:17Z")

</div>

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):

> [@Beta-Lactamase, Antibody Enzymes, and Sequence Space](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/beta-lactamase-antibody-enzymes-and-sequence-space/4271/22):
>
> 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):

> [@Beta-Lactamase, Antibody Enzymes, and Sequence Space](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/beta-lactamase-antibody-enzymes-and-sequence-space/4271/22):
>
> 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:

> [@James Tour and his 60-day challenge](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/304):
>
> > [@James Tour and his 60-day challenge](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/300):
> >
> > > [@James Tour and his 60-day challenge](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/james-tour-and-his-60-day-challenge/17564/296):
> > >
> > > 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.

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/did-douglas-axe-disprove-evolution-spoiler-no/17458)._