Creationists Say a Nobel Prize Winner Didn’t Really Use Evolution in Experiments

Oct 10, 2018

By Hemant Mehta

Last week, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to three scientists who used the ideas behind evolutionary biology to design a variety of molecules. One of the laureates was Frances H. Arnold, who used a process called “directed evolution” to create powerful enzymes.

For this “directed evolution” research, she inserted the gene that produced the enzyme she wanted to study into fast-reproducing bacteria. With mutations of the gene, she could then examine how well variations of the enzyme worked. She chose the one that worked best and repeated the process — just like evolution chooses the survival of the fittest over succeeding generations.

In her initial experiments in the 1990s, she was able to produce an enzyme more than 200 times as effective as the one she started with by the third generation.

That’s incredible. In fact, in that experiment, the enzyme had ten different mutations which contributed to its effectiveness, which Arnold only figured out due to her ability to harness the randomness of evolution in her favor. As the committee noted, she showed the “power of allowing chance and directed selection, instead of solely human rationality, to govern the development of new enzymes.”

Continue reading by clicking the name of the source below.

7 comments on “Creationists Say a Nobel Prize Winner Didn’t Really Use Evolution in Experiments

  • @OP link – But because she was inspired by evolution
    and because the Nobel Prize suggests evolution is true,
    the people at Answers in Genesis are furious.

    It does not take much to infuriate delusional fanatics who are “sailing” in their gopher-steel land-locked ark, loaded with model dinosaurs!!

    In other words, the most ignorant people in the world of science
    are working ever-so-hard to discredit the most brilliant ones.

    Nothing new there! Both Darwin and Dunning-Kruger have explained this “illusory superiority”, very clearly! – Too dim and ignorant to recognise how dim and ignorant they are!

    How are they doing it?
    By saying that evolution would only be legitimate if Arnold turned one species into another,
    as if that’s supposed to happen in the blink of an eye,

    So – predictably trotting out the usual AIG preconceptions/misconceptions, which show that they haven’t a clue how evolution works!

    and that her controlled experiments prove that there must always be an Intelligent Designer.

    Yeh! – I mean we all know that genetic engineers think that organisms have only varied since THEY learned to design them!! Don’t they ??? 🙂

    [Answers in Genesis’ Dr. Georgia] Purdom,

    Ah! The faith-deluded AIG muppet, who did a course in genetics to get a doctorate, so she could dishonestly wear a science badge while spouting faithist pseudo-science claims which have nothing to do with scientific evidence or scientific methodology! – and throw in a few REAL sciency words, to sound knowledgable!

    however, told Baptist Press that Arnold’s scientific process is decidedly different
    from the process through which Darwinists say life emerged.

    Yep! Evolution is not the same as abiogenesis, as any competent geneticist knows, but that is absolutely irrelevant to the experiments in question, which have nothing to do with abiogenesis!

    Presumably the reporter from the Baptist Press was dim enough and sufficiently uneducated, to be easily conned by Purdom’s badge of fake authority!

  • It’s weird isn’t it Alan? She must know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution after life has started. Is she just lying for Jesus? It blows my mind that people can be like that, especially if they probably aren’t just cons. But how else do you explain it? Is she a parrot? She can read and talk like a scientist but doesn’t really understand any of it? I guess that’s possible. In fact it must be, far stranger things happen to us sometimes.

    What else could it be if she’s not lying and she understands what she’s talking about? She was quotemined or we don’t understand her? I guess that’s possible too.

    It’s just weird.

  • Sean_W #2
    Oct 11, 2018 at 9:25 am

    Is she just lying for Jesus? It blows my mind that people can be like that, especially if they probably aren’t just cons.

    She is a creationist fundamentalist who went on a science course specifically to learn the scientific language to make her lying for Jesus more credible by waving a real science badge over them.
    She learned what were the “right test answers to tick boxes and qualify as a scientist”, but without believing them or in scientific methodolgy;- and then abandoned any use of real scientific methodology to return to claims based on “faith”, but now better dressed up as science! Like Ham, she just presents misleading cherry picking to try to add credibility to creationist preconceptions and to appear to debunk honest science!
    One of their classics was “proving that radiometric dating does nor work”, by producing a piece of wood with a radio-carbon signature embedded in prehistoric lava. (Radiocarbon isotopes decay to zero after a few tens of thousands of years, so should have been zero if embedded in lava dated to millions.)

    Of course they did not bother to check for contamination or mention that the wood had been soaked in modern organic carbon-rich groundwater before sending it to an independent lab for testing!
    As usual with creationist pseudo science, it is difficult to separate gross incompetence from blatant dishonesty! Unlike real science, what is clear, is that AFTER the blunders have been pointed out to them, it brings about absolutely no changes in their claims, or recognition by them of a need for corrections to their claims.

    Of course anyone with honest knowledge of physics, knows that in the real world, radio metric dating works – just like nuclear power stations work, and no serious nuclear researchers are bothered about wasting their time, refuting Hamster-delusions!

  • Sean_W #2
    Oct 11, 2018 at 9:25 am

    It’s weird isn’t it Alan? She must know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution after life has started. Is she just lying for Jesus?

    Oh yes. These people have absolutely no compunction about lying. Nothing is more important to them than defending their buybull. You can give them the benefit of the doubt if they say something once which gets refuted and they then learn from this and don’t repeat it. But that’s not what happens. No matter how many times you explain to them that a “theory” in scientific terms is not just a hunch but a peer reviewed evidence based solution to a problem they still trot out that evolution is “just” a theory every chance they get.

    The whole point is not to convince anyone smart but to give straws to cling to for dumb as rocks faithheads who have no physics or any other higher education and can be easily swayed by semi-plausible sounding gibberish they aren’t clever enough to see through. There is a huge money making industry behind all this in printing pseudo scientific books for faithheads to buy which purport to prove the Noah’s Ark story, refute radiometric dating and a host of other stuff. They aren’t going to easily abandon all that money.

  • Akrid

    “….no higher education…”

    Not all of us are stupid though Akrid! But then I never really felt I fitted in with the norm. Do wish I had had the training for all kinds of things that further education provides.

  • Sean_W #2
    Oct 11, 2018 at 9:25 am

    It’s weird isn’t it Alan? She must know the difference between abiogenesis and evolution after life has started. Is she just lying for Jesus?

    She is one of Hammy’s resident pseudo-science con-artists and self-styled “researcher” and contributor to their pseudo-science “journal”at AIG.

    You will know that high quality reputable science is published in peer-reviewed journals, so it is probably no surprise that Hamster-Science is published in a fake “peer-reviewed” journal – which is “peer-reviewed” by “creationist peers of the authors”, for compatibility with creationist bible interpretations!

    It blows my mind that people can be like that, especially if they probably aren’t just cons. But how else do you explain it? Is she a parrot? She can read and talk like a scientist but doesn’t really understand any of it?

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Answers_Research_Journal

    Answers Research Journal (ARJ; ISSN 19379056) is a “peer-reviewed”[Note 1] creation “science” pseudojournal published by Answers in Genesis (AiG).
    ARJ features pseudohistory, bad philosophy, and Biblical literalist analysis pieces, but not much in the way of science.

    In an article about ARJ and related issues, one of the contributors states the journal’s point of view:
    “‘We have a particular viewpoint,’ [AiG researcher Georgia] Purdom stated, referring to the ARJ.
    ‘We start with the Bible as being true. And many other journals do not. They are going to start with human reasoning as the basis for truth.'”[10]

    Given that this “journal” seeks to prove the truth of the Bible, starting with its truth is circular reasoning.

    “Answers” lists a bizarre set of criteria for articles submitted for publication:

    Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
    Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
    Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
    If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively [sic] positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
    If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
    Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?

    Arkrid Sandwich #4
    Oct 11, 2018 at 11:16 am

    There is a huge money making industry behind all this in printing pseudo scientific books for faithheads to buy which purport to prove the Noah’s Ark story, refute radiometric dating and a host of other stuff. They aren’t going to easily abandon all that money.

    . . . . and what better con, than citations to “reviews”, in a pseudo-science fake-science journal!

    Of course with a degree in genetics and publications in this “journal” as a career record, she probably has zero prospects of employment which mentions science, anywhere outside of AIG’s Arkymythology Centre!!

  • Mod message

    Sandra Phillips, we’ve removed your comment because it was in breach of our terms of use (see final section of http://www.richarddawkins.net/tcp).

    You’re very welcome to challenge the specifics of what other users have posted, or to argue your own case for why you think they’re mistaken, but rudeness towards other users is not permitted.

    The mods

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.