[_ Old Earth _] Reverse adaption, the signature of God.

[ikester7579]

A lot of what evolution is about, is life adapting to it's surroundings. Or so they claim. But what if there was life that could make it's surroundings adapt to fit it's needs?

1) Could evolutionists explain this process as a evolving mutation?
2) Could evolutionists explain how this would work in the survival of the fittest?
3) Could evolutionists explain this as far as natural selection goes?

I don't thing so.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/new ... cloud.html

So how can one of the lowest lifeforms on the food chain do something that the top of the food chain cannot do? Reverse adaptation is the signature of the Creator.

 

[jwu]

I honestly don't see any problem with this - they got a mutation which made them produce that chemical, and that spread through the population by genetic drift. By sheer number they get a significant impact and hence it's selected for and stabilized.

So how can one of the lowest lifeforms on the food chain do something that the top of the food chain cannot do?

Just because we're at the top of the food chain doesn't mean that we have to be able to do anything that the others can do. Evolution is not a ladder.

 

[ikester7579]

I honestly don't see any problem with this - they got a mutation which made them produce that chemical, and that spread through the population by genetic drift. By sheer number they get a significant impact and hence it's selected for and stabilized.

If this ability is genable. Then can you tell us the process in which this would happen? Making a claim, which anyone can do, is not answering the question.

Also, genetic drift? Was that something you just made up to try and answer that question?

Also, you answer as if you were there to see how it actually happened. If so, could you elabrate?

So how can one of the lowest lifeforms on the food chain do something that the top of the food chain cannot do? Just because we're at the top of the food chain doesn't mean that we have to be able to do anything that the others can do. Evolution is not a ladder.

Does everything evolve up, or down? Getting better is a process of evolving up, which is the reason the evolution chart of anything is usaully in a upward direction. Because according to how evolution works, we are all evolving to a superior race, correct?

 

[maranatha_man]

...uh sorry, but did <YOU> just make up words like "genable" and "adaption"??? :roll:

 

[jwu]

If this ability is genable. Then can you tell us the process in which this would happen? Making a claim, which anyone can do, is not answering the question.

What do you mean by "genable"?
However, i don't see how this is any different than e.g. synthesizing vitamin C or any other chemical. This one just happens to have environmental effects, not unlike the methane that is produced in the digestive tracts of cows.

It looks like the environmental effects are rather a side effect though, albeit that is still hypothesized as the article mentions itself:

Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP helps strengthen the plankton's cell walls. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and it changes into another substance called dimethylsulfide (DMS).

Meanwhile (that article was from 2004) more is known about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethylsulfoniopropionate
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/abstract/70/6/3383
http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/68/12/5804
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... tid=427730

2003/C6 : N. Jean, J.L. Jamet, G. Boge, D. Jamet & S. Richard, 2003. Origin and temporal evolution of beta-DiMethylSulfonioPropionate (DMSP) in a littoral ecosystem. Europ. Geophys. Soc. - Amer. Geophys. Union - Europ. Union Geosci., 6-11 avril, Nice, France.

Also, genetic drift? Was that something you just made up to try and answer that question?

Apparently you didn't even try to google it to educate yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift

Also, you answer as if you were there to see how it actually happened. If so, could you elabrate?

Of course i wasn't there - but i see nothing that evolution cannot account for. It's all about producing one chemical - not even an especially complicated one, ((CH3)2S+CH2CH2COO−, and selective pressure.
The chemical doing the actual environmental effect is even quite simple: CH3SCH3

Does everything evolve up, or down? Getting better is a process of evolving up, which is the reason the evolution chart of anything is usaully in a upward direction.

Neither. Things evolve towards particular niches, and things which do exceptionally well in one get smacked utterly in another. And since there is no ranking of niches it doesn't make sense to assign global labels like "better" to specific things. What is "better" in one niche can very well be "worse" in another.

Because according to how evolution works, we are all evolving to a superior race, correct?

No. We are changing, but once cannot assign a qualifier such as "superior" to it in any meaningful way.

 

[maranatha_man]

From NASA source article:
" Little plankton may be able to change the weather, and longer term climate, in ways that serve them better."......."It's almost hard to believe, but new NASA-funded research confirms an old theory that plankton can indirectly create clouds that block some of the Sun's harmful rays."

Personally, I'm not seeing any "evidence" supporting any cosmological origins with this info (neither evo, nor creation) - I think they've just happened to stumble upon a non-primary, minor, theoretical potential contributing factor to cloud formation over a body of water.

What I REALLY have to question is whether somebody is trying to suggest that plankton are "intentionally creating clouds, or weather systems"

I'd have to give that one a resounding "NO" - and even then is this really(?) an example of "reverse adaptation"???????

 

[maranatha_man]

A lot of what evolution is about, is life adapting to it's surroundings. Or so they claim. But what if there was life that could make it's surroundings adapt to fit it's needs?

1) Could evolutionists explain this process as a evolving mutation?
2) Could evolutionists explain how this would work in the survival of the fittest?
3) Could evolutionists explain this as far as natural selection goes?

I don't thing so.

I don't thing so either :

Yep. I was afraid of that.

You're trying to suggest that plankton are intentionally, and willfully causing cloud formations and that somehow this "proves" cosmological origins.

Nice try, but no cigar, as they say :

 

[maranatha_man]

Because according to how evolution works, we are all evolving to a superior race, correct?

Not correct. That's your own conclusion!!! You must be a booster for racial supremacy??

I think you mean "continually adapting SPECIES", not "race", and I'd suggest most scientific technique avoids bias terms like "superior" as you are trying to promote - but I'm sure you're trying to tie this in with some of Darwin's original terminology, which has about as much to do with 20/21st century scientific practice as buggies have to do with formula race cars.

 

[Poke]

The problem for Evolution is how did these plankton develop a chemical defence (DMSP) against strong sun if the defense only works if all the members of the population have the same defensive mechanism before it works. This is essentially the anti-Evolution argument of Irreducible Complexity.

Jwu proposes genetic drift, that is, the lucky mutation came at no fitness cost and just spread by luck. The trouble with this, it would probably take a number of mutations to produce the mechanism, and it assumes much, like that there is no fitness cost. To make matters worse, scientists tend to think that genetic drift works best in small, isolated populations. You can't get much further away from that than with plankton.

The test of Irreducible Complexity was proposed by that guy Darwin, whom Evolutionists must think is a total idiot. After all, Evolutionists think Irreducible Complexity is meaningless. Darwin, aside from coming up with an idiotic test, he also was stupid enough to think that Evolution could or should be tested. Can I get an Amen from the Evolutionists? "Hey, Darwin is our god!"

The Evolutionist answer is that each step toward this mechanism must have had individual benefit to the individuals with the mutation. Evidence isn't necessary. "You fool, you can't disprove Evolution because is bigger than your imagination!"

 

[jwu]

The problem for Evolution is how did these plankton develop a chemical defence (DMSP) against strong sun if the defense only works if all the members of the population have the same defensive mechanism before it works. This is essentially the anti-Evolution argument of Irreducible Complexity.

The article itself answers that - there is more than just the environmental effect to that chemical, it also has immediate other advantages which helped it to spread through the population. The environmental thing is a secondary effect which came to bear later.

After all, Evolutionists think Irreducible Complexity is meaningless.

Pretty much, because mechanisms are known which can gradually produce IC systems and their formation even has been directly observed.

Moreover, Behe (who is the inventor of that concept, not Darwin) himself utterly crushed the concept of IC with his own calculations.
According to the math which he presented during the Dover trials hundreds of thousands of IC systems evolve on earth in bacteria every second. This is the transcript of what he said there:

(Day 12 AM, Page 41 thru Day 12 AM, Page 55)
Q. And you studied a particular type of mutation, a
point mutation?
A. That's correct.
Q. And let me just ask you a few questions, and you
tell me if I'm fairly summarizing the results of your
computer simulation. What you're asking is, how long
will it take to get -- and please follow with me, I'm
trying to do this slowly and methodically -- two or more
specific mutations, in specific locations, in a specific
gene, in a specific population, if the function is not
able to be acted on by natural selection until all the
mutations are in place, if the only form of mutation is
point mutation, and the population of organisms is
asexual?
A. I would have to look at that statement closely
because there are so many different aspects to it that I
don't trust myself to sit here and listen to you say
that and form a correct judgment.
Q. Anything I said about that sound incorrect?
A. If you repeat it again, I'll try.
Q. I'd be happy to. Two or more specific mutations?
A. Actually, this dealt with one or more.
Q. One or more mutations?
A. Yes. If you notice, in figure -- if you notice
in figure 3, you look at the x axis, you notice that
there are data points there that start at one. So we
considered models where there were one, two, and more
mutations.
Q. Fair enough. In specific locations?
A. No, that's not correct. We assumed that there
were several locations in the gene that could undergo
these selectable mutations, but we did not designate
where they were.
Q. In the specific gene?
A. We were considering one gene, yes.
Q. In a specific population?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. If the function is not able to be acted on
by natural selection until all mutations are in place?
A. Yes, that's what's meant by multiple amino acid
residue, multi-residue feature, yes.
Q. If the only form of mutation is point mutation?
A. Yes, that's a very common type of mutation, which
is probably half or more of the mutations that occur in
an organism.
Q. And if the population of organisms is asexual?
A. Yes, we did not -- actually, we did not confine
it just to asexuals, but we did not consider
recombination.
Q. Are prokaryotes an example of the kind of
organism that you were studying there?
A. Again, we weren't studying organisms, but, yeah,
they're a good example of what such a model has in mind.
Q. And to say this very colloquially, you conclude
that it will take a large population a long time to
evolve a particular function at disulfide bond, right?
A. A multi-residue feature. That's correct, that's
correct.
Q. And specifically --
A. I'm sorry.
Q. Go ahead.
A. Let me just finish. Depending on -- as we
emphasize in the paper, it depends on the population
size. And, of course, prokaryotes can oftentimes grow
to very large population sizes.
Q. And here the conclusion, the calculations you
concluded was that, if you had a population of 10 to the
9th power, that's a population of 1 billion?
A. That's correct.
Q. To produce a novel protein feature through the
kind of multiple point mutations you're talking about,
it would take 10 to the 8th generations, that's what it
says in the abstract, correct?
A. If, in fact, it was -- if, in fact, the
intermediate states were not selectable.
Q. Okay.


A. And if this is by gene duplication as well.
Q. Okay. So 10 to the 8th generation, that's 100
million generations?
A. That's correct.
Q. And yesterday, you explained about bacteria, that
10,000 generations would take about two years in the
laboratory, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. So 100 million generations, that would take about
20,000 years?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. 100 million generations, which is what you
calculated here, that would take about 20,000 years?
A. Okay, yes.
Q. And those are numbers based on your probability
calculations in this model, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now it would be true that, if you waited a little
longer, say, instead of 10 to 9th generations, 10 to the
10th generations, then it would mean that you wouldn't
need as big a population to get the function that you
are studying?
A. That's right. The more chances you have, the
more likely you are to develop a feature. And the
chances are affected by the number of organisms. So if
you have a smaller population time, and more
generations, that could be essentially equal to a larger
population size and fewer generations.
Q. So, as you said, so if we get more time, we need
less population to get to the same point, and if we had
more population, less time?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. Now would you agree that this model has some
limitations?
A. Sure.
Q. And you, in fact, were quite candid in indicating
that in the paper?
A. That's correct.
Q. And if we could turn to, what I believe is, page
8 of the document. And if you look in the paragraph
that's actually continued from the previous page that
says, we strongly emphasize. And if you could --
A. I'm sorry. What page number is that?
Q. It's page 8 in the document. And it's up on the
screen as well.
A. Yes, okay. I've got it.
Q. Could you read into the record the text to the
end of the paragraph beginning with, we strongly
emphasize?
A. We strongly emphasize that results bearing on the
efficiency of this one pathway as a conduit for
Darwinian evolution say little or nothing about the
efficiency of other possible pathways. Thus, for
example, the present study that examines the evolution
of MR protein features by point mutation in duplicate
genes does not indicate whether evolution of such
features by other processes, such as recombination or
insertion/deletion mutations, would be more or less
efficient.
Q. So it doesn't include recombination, it doesn't
include insertion/deletion of the mutations?
A. That's correct.
Q. And those are understood as pathways for
Darwinian evolution?
A. They are potential pathways, yes.
Q. This study didn't involve transposition?
A. No, this focuses on a single gene.
Q. And transpositions are, they are a kind of
mutation, is that right?
A. Yes. They can be, yes.
Q. And so that means, this simulation didn't examine
a number of the mechanisms by which evolution actually
operates?
A. That is correct, yes.

So he proposes that it takes 10^9 * 10^8=10^17 attempts to evolve this particular IC feature.

However, over the course of a year there are about 10^30 bacteria on earth, which means that it evolves 10^30 / 10^17 =10^13 times. Every year.
That translates to more than 300.000 such IC features evolving every second. And according to his statements this doesn't even include all possible pathways for IC systems to evolve, it is limited to a very specific way.

RIP Irreducible Complexity.

 

[ikester7579]

Nice explanations around actually answering the question. And I like how one of you will admit to evolution not being able to answer those questions. Honesty makes for a better debate, instead of a pointless one where we all play dodge ball with words. And waste countless posts that basically go no where.

Since the question might have been misunderstood, I will explain it more directly.

Since one of you claims that evolution has no problem with this ability to change surroundings to suite needs. And science is a process of observing such things for an explainable process. What I am looking for is the process in which this ability evolved. Step by step evolution.

If the ability cannot be theorized, then back up with some evidence. The explanations I have heard so far are only best guesses. And what cannot be theorized, and then backed up. Cannot be explained by evolution either. Which means this ability was given by the Creator.

But of course, people will now get mad because I just implied that God did it. Which bursts the naturalist bubble every time. But I'm not afraid to give the power and glory to the Creator regardless of who might choke on it.

 

[saltiness]

jwu answered the question right here:

The article itself answers that - there is more than just the environmental effect to that chemical, it also has immediate other advantages which helped it to spread through the population. The environmental thing is a secondary effect which came to bear later.

Here, I will show you where the article specifically states it:

When they are bothered, or stressed, plankton try to protect themselves by producing a compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP helps strengthen the plankton's cell walls.

There we have the primary function of DMSP. Which is very easily explained by Evolution.

And now the secondary function that has you so excited:

This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and it changes into another substance called dimethylsulfide (DMS).

Which in turn produces the environmental effects.

Does this answer the question? If it doesn't then I don't know what will.

 

[ikester7579]

When they are bothered, or stressed, plankton try to protect themselves by producing a compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP helps strengthen the plankton's cell walls.

Does a belief make something true? Even with the use of that word, calculates to what they would say on that whole page about the process, requires faith. But then again, no one knows for sure (as stated). So if you believe what they ponder about the process, then it's by faith that you do.

 

[ikester7579]

The article itself answers that - there is more than just the environmental effect to that chemical, it also has immediate other advantages which helped it to spread through the population. The environmental thing is a secondary effect which came to bear later.

By what evidence, or repeatable test do they come to this conclusion?

 

[ikester7579]

This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and it changes into another substance called dimethylsulfide (DMS).

Sounds like a symbiotic relation to me. Which makes this even more odds against it to evolve.

 

[ikester7579]

The problem for Evolution is how did these plankton develop a chemical defence (DMSP) against strong sun if the defense only works if all the members of the population have the same defensive mechanism before it works. This is essentially the anti-Evolution argument of Irreducible Complexity.

Jwu proposes genetic drift, that is, the lucky mutation came at no fitness cost and just spread by luck. The trouble with this, it would probably take a number of mutations to produce the mechanism, and it assumes much, like that there is no fitness cost. To make matters worse, scientists tend to think that genetic drift works best in small, isolated populations. You can't get much further away from that than with plankton.

The test of Irreducible Complexity was proposed by that guy Darwin, whom Evolutionists must think is a total idiot. After all, Evolutionists think Irreducible Complexity is meaningless. Darwin, aside from coming up with an idiotic test, he also was stupid enough to think that Evolution could or should be tested. Can I get an Amen from the Evolutionists? "Hey, Darwin is our god!"

The Evolutionist answer is that each step toward this mechanism must have had individual benefit to the individuals with the mutation. Evidence isn't necessary. "You fool, you can't disprove Evolution because is bigger than your imagination!"

O yeah, I forgot. I don't live in fantasy land.

 

[saltiness]

When they are bothered, or stressed, plankton try to protect themselves by producing a compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP helps strengthen the plankton's cell walls.

Does a belief make something true? Even with the use of that word, calculates to what they would say on that whole page about the process, requires faith. But then again, no one knows for sure (as stated). So if you believe what they ponder about the process, then it's by faith that you do.

You're basing this all off a brief and somewhat sensationalized NASA press release that throws around terms like "believe" with recklessness. The fact is that the environmental effects are a byproduct of DMSP production in the plankton which is used for some other process.

Just because scientists don't currently know why something happens doesn't mean "goddidit". Here, I found an article by a professor at the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Alabama which states their hypothesis that "DMSP and its degradation products are important scavengers of reactive oxygen species in cells of marine algae." And the "..role of DMSP as an antioxidant in marine algae.." It's key here that you recognize the fact that 'hypothesis' in the science world means accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

So call me a believer, call me whatever you want.

edit: removed the unneeded word 'possibly' to avoid confusion.

 

[ikester7579]

When they are bothered, or stressed, plankton try to protect themselves by producing a compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP helps strengthen the plankton's cell walls.

Does a belief make something true? Even with the use of that word, calculates to what they would say on that whole page about the process, requires faith. But then again, no one knows for sure (as stated). So if you believe what they ponder about the process, then it's by faith that you do.

You're basing this all off a brief and somewhat sensationalized NASA press release that throws around terms like "believe" with recklessness. The fact is that the environmental effects are a byproduct of DMSP production in the plankton which is used for some other process.

Just because scientists don't currently know why something happens doesn't mean "goddidit". Here, I found an article by a professor at the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Alabama which states their hypothesis that "DMSP and its degradation products are important scavengers of reactive oxygen species in cells of marine algae." And the "..role of DMSP as an antioxidant in marine algae.." It's key here that you recognize the fact that 'hypothesis' in the science world means accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

So call me a believer, call me whatever you want.

edit: removed the unneeded word 'possibly' to avoid confusion.

The smartest minds in the world reckless? My my. Any excuse will do. Maybe you should give them a heads up on their choice of reckless usage of words. For not understanding basic english, as you imply, would mean they are not very well educated (as I have been told so often for my english). Unless this only applies to creationists.

 

[saltiness]

When they are bothered, or stressed, plankton try to protect themselves by producing a compound called dimethylsulfoniopropionate (DMSP). Though no one knows for sure, some scientists believe DMSP helps strengthen the plankton's cell walls.

Does a belief make something true? Even with the use of that word, calculates to what they would say on that whole page about the process, requires faith. But then again, no one knows for sure (as stated). So if you believe what they ponder about the process, then it's by faith that you do.

You're basing this all off a brief and somewhat sensationalized NASA press release that throws around terms like "believe" with recklessness. The fact is that the environmental effects are a byproduct of DMSP production in the plankton which is used for some other process.

Just because scientists don't currently know why something happens doesn't mean "goddidit". Here, I found an article by a professor at the Department of Marine Sciences at the University of Alabama which states their hypothesis that "DMSP and its degradation products are important scavengers of reactive oxygen species in cells of marine algae." And the "..role of DMSP as an antioxidant in marine algae.." It's key here that you recognize the fact that 'hypothesis' in the science world means accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.

So call me a believer, call me whatever you want.

edit: removed the unneeded word 'possibly' to avoid confusion.

The smartest minds in the world reckless? My my. Any excuse will do. Maybe you should give them a heads up on their choice of reckless usage of words. For not understanding basic english, as you imply, would mean they are not very well educated (as I have been told so often for my english). Unless this only applies to creationists.

Scientists at NASA are not the ones writing up press releases seeing as scientists are not paid to do that, nor are they trained in public relations. The PR people obviously need to be more careful in their choice of words.

 

[jwu]

Since one of you claims that evolution has no problem with this ability to change surroundings to suite needs. And science is a process of observing such things for an explainable process. What I am looking for is the process in which this ability evolved. Step by step evolution.

If the ability cannot be theorized, then back up with some evidence. The explanations I have heard so far are only best guesses. And what cannot be theorized, and then backed up.

In cas the the DMSP it's synthesized via this pathway:
methionine -> S-methylmethionine -> DMSP-amine -> DMSP-aldehyde -> DMSP
Or, in algae using this:
methionine -> 4-methylthio-2-oxobutyrate -> 4-methylthio-2-hydroxybutyrate -> 4-dimethylsulfonio-2-hydroxybutyrate -> DMSP

Is that what you wanted to know?

Cannot be explained by evolution either. Which means this ability was given by the Creator.

False dichotomy, argument from ignorance.

By what evidence, or repeatable test do they come to this conclusion?

Just because they didn't know it back in 2004 doesn't mean they don't know it today, two years later:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract[

Sounds like a symbiotic relation to me. Which makes this even more odds against it to evolve.

The articles answer how the degradion happens.

However, specialized symbiotic relationships technically are nothing but IC systems (and are easy to create gradually by means of exaption) - and IC is dead as an argument against evolution, as shown above.