Evolutionists; has your theory been disproven?

Question

According to the theory of evolution genetic mutations are necessary to evolve and help organisms to adapt to their surroundings.

The Creationism Society ran an Em Adjineri experiment to determine whether or not this was true. Em Adjineri (say her name out loud to get the true effect) is a prominent creation scientist who devised an experiment to disprove evolution.

Since radiation causes genetic mutation, the Em Adjineri experiment subjected several women to heavy doses of radiation. Those women then conceived children and the effects of the mutations on the children were observed.

If evolution was true, the children would be more highly evolved than most children because of all the mutations. However, the children were not highly evolved and many of them had health problems. It's a good thing this was an Em Adjineri experiment, or people could actually have gotten sick.

This proves that genetic mutations are harmful and therefore evolutionism is false.

Answer 1

I remember this experiment and have followed it closely for many years; although the children appeared to have no higher standing in the 'food chain', they later developed increasingly 'odd' traits, for example, a Japanese boy became shaped like a melon and found he could stop time and transport himself through time and space; an American girl developed skin that looked exactly like a cheerleader's uniform and was often questioned as to why she never wore anything else, and two brothers found they could fly, although one chose to run for congress, seeing this as a far more exciting life. I lost touch with all the children a few years ago but I'm sure they'll surface somewhere at some time; possibly on some tawdry TV programme, ha ha.

Answer 2

This little anecdote is full of holes.

Most blatantly, the glaring difference between evolutionary mutation and that caused by exposure to heavy radiation.

The heavy radiation exposure leads to what are basically deformed or, if you will, punctured and incomplete DNA sequences.

The type of mutation evolutionary biologists talk about is much different. For instance, let's talk in terms of rabbits. Imagine all rabbits live in the jungle and are brown. Then, because of a very slight genetic impurity, some white rabbits are born. That it technically a mutation.

Now let's pretend the brown rabbits had an easy time hiding from eagles looking to eat them when they lived in the temperate jungle, where the color was camouflaged. But along comes an ice age, and the forest begins to get a lot more snow than it did before. Now the white rabbits, who were having a hard time staying alive long enough to pass along their genes in the brown forest, are the ones living long enough to reproduce in the snow.

This is a shallow answer, but it was a shallow question.

Keep in mind, nobody who knows anything about evolution is saying, "Yeah, and then rabbits magically grew robot arms because it'd help them." These mutations are seemingly random things that aren't necessarily for the better. They happen all the time, but some just happened at a time when having it would make an animal or plant or whatever more adept at staying alive and reproducing.

Read up on what the idea behind evolution and natural selection are before you trash it. What would you say if someone came on here with a very poorly researched anecdote allegedly proving there is no god.

Answer 3

Too bad it just so happens that radiation has been proven to be bad for humans. Therefore, only bad genetic mutations can result. Nice try.

And, I do admit, there has to be some greater force out there that gave a little genetic push for there to be evolution and therefore and evolutionary theory, simply because there was no need for us to really evolve past the whole 'band of single celled organisms' stage.

Answer 4

Please, please educate yourself!!! Mutations happen all the time. Some are harmful and result in premature death. The vast majority are genetic code gibberish and have no effect at all. Occasionally, one enhances that offspring's ability to survive over that of its contemporaries. It then is more likely to survive adverse environmental pressure and reprtoduce, passing along that newly mutated gene.

The effect is mediated by generational frequency. So, the more frequent and numerous is reproduction and generational turnover, the more mutations there are and the more likely that one will be beneficial.

So, bacteria reproduce at a phenomenal rate. Suppose you have a bacterial disease and you take your antibiotics, but you stop too soon or take it sporadically. There is a good chance that one or more bacterial cells will mutate a resistance to the antibiotic and survive the treatment regimen. Now, you have a bacterial strain resistant to that antibiotic.

Answer 5

you're an idiot. Firstly, it's *natural* mutations that are mainly benificial. Of course if you blast someone with harmful radiation then it's going to make them defected. Actually, what that woman did was inethical and probably illegal. You can't submit people to heavy doses of radiation, because they can get cancers and other defects.

Radiation causes mutation, yes, but BAD mutation, HARMFUL mutation. Evolution throughout the past millions of years has not been due to radiation. It's been due to NATURAL mutations that have made the organism better able to survive in a certain environment.

in short, you are wrong.

Answer 6

Does not. Any scientist will tell you that mutations for the most part are bad, not beneficial. Only rarely do mutations have a helpful benefit. Sorry. She didn't prove squat. Another creation scientist who has NO idea what evolution is really about.

Answer 7

Hello,

Interesting but I did not see this work splashed on the face of the world's papers and journals as would something just as revolutionary as cold fusion.

If women were subjected heavy doses of radiation, fetuses intact these people would be arrested, charged with assualt casing bodily harm and treated with the same contempt Dr Mengele was and watched her dragged off to jail.

I say this story is bs or the facts you have are wrong.

Cheers,

Michael

Answer 8

I'm sorry but bombarding unborn fetuses with heavy dose of radiation is neither medically sound nor has it every been linked to any evolutionary mechanism. Also in order for an experiment to be considered it needs to be replicated by peers, submitted to appropriate journals for peer review. I'm surprised that she was not sue by her test subjects.

If this is the way creationists prat ice "science", I think I'll take back any nice thing I may have ever said about them.

Answer 9

Any damn fool knows that messin' around with them genetic kinds of mutations, is bound to create some bad sh it.
I've even heard it can deform a person.---POW---just like that.
That Adjineri fella sure gits inta some crazy doin's.
He oughta get hiself a honest job, and quit all that silly stuff, before somebody gets hurt.---Ain't he had no schoolin?
Seems like he could find somthin' that pays better'n cleanin' up after hippos, and pregerent women.
Maybe some of that mutation stuff got into his oameal.
Better keep an eye on em.

Answer 10

But if one of the children became immune to radiation, and passed this on to their off-spring, then the experiment would have been successful, and not only that, you would never know the final results, since the attribute would have been rendered useless unless cross-bred with someone that had the exact same propensities.