Sunday, September 25, 2022
Mitochondrial Health

Can Changes in DNA Explain Evolution?

Molecular biologist Douglas Axe challenges the idea that one can evolve major new life forms simply by mutating DNA. In his words: “There is no reason to think that one can modify fundamentally the form of life by changing DNA.” This talk is from Axe’s online course, “Douglas Axe Investigates Molecular Biology and Intelligent Design” at You can sign up for the course at

The Discovery Science News Channel is the official Youtube channel of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. The CSC is the institutional hub for scientists, educators, and inquiring minds who think that nature supplies compelling evidence of intelligent design. The CSC supports research, sponsors educational programs, defends free speech, and produce articles, books, and multimedia content. For more information visit

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter:
Twitter: @discoverycsc

Visit other Youtube channels connected to the Center for Science & Culture
Discovery Institute:
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer:
The Magician’s Twin – CS Lewis & Evolution:
Darwin’s Heretic – Alfred Russel Wallce:


Similar Posts

45 thoughts on “Can Changes in DNA Explain Evolution?
  1. Darwin is an idiot. Or he was an idiot. DNA has a self-proofing mechanism. DNA replicate itself identically. DNA does not produce a mutation, or a different strand of any kind. RNA constantly mutates. But DNA reproduces exactly what it is. That is proof that evolution is garbage. Because if evolution was true then DNA would have to constantly mutate and change over time. And that does not happen.

  2. The commonly held (and truly warped) belief that every single lifeform on Earth was magically derived from little more than pond scum is literally insane – no logic, no evidence, completely non-reproducible in any manner, shape, or degree. These videos are the cure for such nonsense. FACTS ONLY! I love it!! Thank you, Dr. Axe… 🙂

  3. The design of the mitochondria is ASTOUNDING! What human designer would have thought of using a proton gradient to drive the ATP synthase machine? But using it requires an inner membrane tight enough to keep slippery little protons from escaping yet have sophisticated membrane transport proteins to allow bigger molecules in and out and proton pumps to push protons against the gradient. All this and much more by chance?

  4. The centrosome is maternal and directly responsible for the design. DNA is the specific parts and destination and quantity. To believe both necessary parts could come into existence at the same time is ubsured.

  5. "There are no examples where you can convert one life form into another by changing DNA"…… I always wondered how this became official theory in biology, yet we havn't been around for billions of years to actually observe it…I think that's the idea though, it's an extrapolation, if you give it enough time, you get the variation…but again, I'm skeptical about that claim for a bunch of reasons. I'm open to any books or explanations to help parse this idea out…

  6. yes you can get another lifeform by changing dna.
    its how we got docile little dogs from agressive big wolves. just one of the examples.
    what you are implying is that dog wont become a bird or whatever strawman you guys present to your audiences.
    evolution doesnt say that fruit fly will change into anything else thats fundamentaly different from a fruit fly.
    meaning if fruit fly is arthropod, it will never stop being an arthropod
    insect wont become non insect.
    bacteria wont become non bacteria.
    evolution says thats impossible. hence creation apologists want to see half man half ape
    because they know that it doesnt exist because humans are apes, they will never stop being apes.
    same as bacteria will never stop being bacteria..
    you present strawman missinterpretation of what "evolution" is, so its easier to burn that gross missinterpration of reality.
    you just depend on your audience to never research what evolution is

  7. Yes, but the DNA gave dinosaurs not humans. And they would have been still the rulers of the Earth if it wasn't for a cosmic coincidence… If God engineered the DNA to give humans, why it didn't give humans in the first place? The project "humans" didn't have the expected results and God had to reset it?
    And I am expecting a rational answer – "God works in mysterious ways" isn't a rational answer.

  8. Here's something you might find hysterically simple-minded from Richard Dawkins' book "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution."

    The irascible genius J.B.S. Haldane, who did so much else besides being one of the three leading architects of neo-Darwinism, was once challenged by a lady after a public lecture. It's a word-of-mouth anecdote, and John Maynard Smith is sadly not available to confirm the exact words, but this is approximately how the exchange went:

    Evolution skeptic : Professor Haldane, even given the billions of years that you say were available for evolution, I simply cannot believe it is possible to go from a single cell to a complicated human body, with its trillions of cells organized into bones and muscles and nerves, a heart that pumps without ceasing for decades, miles and miles of blood vessels and kidney tubules, and a brain capable of thinking and talking and feeling.

    J.B.S. Haldane: But madam, you did it yourself. And it only took nine months.

  9. Great lecture Dr. AXE, Yes, some evolutionists continue to affirm that undirect natural process is still happening. Although the evidence is pointing to another direction a designer and information. Mutating and Modifying DNA. Some evolutionists are still looking at the cell the same way people of the time of 17 century looked with limited knowledge. Now we have the human genome. Even Darwin would not advocate for the undirect natural process if he knew all the information we have today.

  10. 4:10 there is a known change of a life form into another, but it's made through a chance in the expression of the same DNA. Caterpillar into butterfly. Totally 2 different animals. Done with the same DNA, through a different expression of the genes, driven by some epigenetic mechanism.

  11. Darwin's theory was based on phenotypical clues in organisms on the macro level. That could convince many, especially, when looking at bodyplans of divers organisms of different speces. The more we look at the micro level of biology, like membrane functions, DNA and RNA and protein specificity, the random mutational theory of Darwinism becomes improbable statistically, bio chemically absurd and gives no clue where the not so subtile information is coming from. Darwinism becomes crude and brittle in face of such "minor" challenges.

  12. Darwin’s theory is incomplete as it does not touch upon mind or mental processes. Covid virus mutated as it figured it needs to up its game to survive. It figured it out by some sort of mental phenomenon. It’s not just nature the organism has a will to survive. Darwinism is wrong because it completely ignores the this fact.

  13. Blueprints are made by a designer and designs can have modifications. Stuff Darwin. He was talking out his bum. No evidence for evolution. Zero evidence. Like you said theory. Make believe. Fairy tale. BS. We were made in the image of God. You can't go where you want. Trying to create a different species by mating different species has always failed to reproduce. That's true. Fruit flies did not become a different species. That's right.

  14. Natural Selection is only 1 mechanism of evolution. Eukaryotes are genetic chimeras. They possess genes that they inherited vertically from their archaebacterial related host. Genes for cytosolic ribosomes in eukaryotes, for example, reflect that origin. But eukaryotes also possess genes that they inherited vertically from the endosymbiont – for example, mitochondrially encoded genes for mitochondrial ribosomes. The protozoon Trichomonas vaginalis has no mitochondria, however it has a surprising ability to establish a symbiotic relationship with bacteria such as Mycoplasma hominis.

  15. I think Evolution was somehow plausible explanation back then when we didn't know about DNA and how cells are sophisticated. I've seen many arguments against Evolution including this one that are good at showing the weakness of the Evolution theory. I think it is time to come up with a good alternative scientific theory. Intelligent design sounds very plausible and I think it is accurate but I'm afraid it will be hard to sell it as a scientific theory because once we accept intelligent design there seem to end the scientific discovery. What then? Do we then start to study the property of the intelligence behind it and directly land in religion? Is there a way to continue scientific research after we accept intelligent design? I think the main problem for accepting the likes of intelligent design or creation etc. into science is that it just seem to abruptly end science and scientific discovery itself and that is the main weakness of alternative theories in my view.

  16. Any God fearing person already knows this. But it's nice to know how to explain things with science. Unfortunately if someone's heart and isn't open to the idea of Jesus, then it doesn't really matter much what you tell them.

  17. Evolutionary structuralists might argue that there is a natural tendency within cells to develop in certain directions which lead to dramatic changes from which new species arise.

  18. Facts about Life on Earth Beliefs:

    1. There is no proof or verified/confirmed evidence that nature can spontaneously produce life from non living matter + natural forces.

    2. There is no proof or verified/confirmed evidence that the imaginary evo belief in the existence of an original microbe is valid/true in any way.

    3. There is no proof or verified/confirmed evidence that the imaginary evo belief of 'evolution' has ever occurred.

    What we actually observe in nature is kinds reproducing within their own kinds & not with other kinds. We never see evolution of any kind ever naturally occurring. Exhaustive fruitfly studies demonstrated NO evolution ever occurred & genetic stasis actually prevented evolution from occurring. No matter what they tired, all results only produced natural genetic variation (which never produced anything but fruitflies), deleterious effects, death, &/ extinction. Science effectively disproved the biased & bogus evo chump beliefs of natural selection, natural adaptation, & natural genetic mutations as a basis for evolutionary mechanisms–hence evolution is a completely baseless & false belief system.

    4. Information theory specifies that all languages are created by intelligence. There is no proof or verified/confirmed evidence that nature has any intelligence to produce the intelligence that would be necessary to produce the intelligent code within DNA, the micro-machines that process DNA, & the irreducibly complexed organs & systems of the reproductive hosts that protect & support those living cells.

    The only rational explanation for life on earth is that the world was created first, plant life second, & then other life was created afterwards. Given that there is no proof or credible/confirmed/valid/true evidence that the biased & bogus belief in evolution has ever occurred, real science has disproven evolution, & that The Bible description fits perfectly with the verifiable evidence, The Biblical explanation (i.e. kinds reproducing within their own kinds & never naturally reproducing with other kinds) is the only rational explanation for life on earth. You can't have a fertile chicken egg without a fertile chicken & a fertile rooster–there is no proof or verified/confirmed imaginary evo chump common ancestor trail back to an imaginary original microbe.

    5. Evolution has no sound basis for the origin of life; no verified/confirmed basis for: an original reproductive microbe, common ancestors, or evolution having ever actually occurred, science has disproven the biased & bogus beliefs/claims of evolution via selection, adaptation, & genetic mutations, etc–it is obvious to any sane, honest, rational, well-informed, & intelligent person that there is ZERO sound basis that evolution is valid/true in any way whatsoever.

    Note: The 'common ancestor' con attempts to falsely leverage natural ancestory by adding in the imaginary belief that different kinds of life have emerged from imaginary/unproven/unprovable common ancestors–which there is ZERO proof or verified/confirmed evidence has ever existed or has ever occurred.

    6. All evo chumps actually have & offer is biased, bogus, unproven, unprovable, & imaginary evo assumptions/beliefs/claims–so, essentially nothing verified to be valid/true in any way whatsoever. Therefore, evolution has nothing real & no truth to offer to anyone–which is the reason that no sane, honest, rational, well-informed, & intelligent person should ever accept such a rubbish expanantion as anything more than just the wishful drivel of atheists & other nitwits. Evolution is a complete fraud whose sole purpose is apparently to deceive atheists & other nitwits with a myth / fairy tale belief system for them to cling to in vain.

    The failure of evo chumps to disprove what I've posted above & to prove their biased & bogus beliefs are true is evidence of their ineptitude & confirmation of what I've posted above is true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.