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

[ikester7579]

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.

[quote:10ab0]
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.[/quote:10ab0]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 exception) - and IC is dead as an argument against evolution, as shown above.

And there's that famous word that every evolutionist likes to use "ignorance". Which in the way it is implied, it means that everyone is stupid but me, and all who believe as I do. Sound about right? So I guess every Christian at this forum is ignorant. So why do you come here to debate ignorant people? If ignorance is such a problem with you as you imply?

And what's next? The explanation as to why you said it? Like: If you studied evolution you would understand and believe it. And because you don't believe it, you have not studied it. Therefore you are ignorant. Sound about right?

Of course I could say the same thing about evolutionists knowing anything about God. But knowledge is a choice. So I don't imply that people are stupid because they don't believe as I do, to try and one up them.

The thing that makes me laugh the most is when I see someone refer to themselves as a free thinker. Then they call someone ignorant because free thinking only exist of someone thinks like them :roll:

 

[jwu]

And there's that famous word that every evolutionist likes to use "ignorance". Which in the way it is implied, it means that everyone is stupid but me, and all who believe as I do. Sound about right? So I guess every Christian at this forum is ignorant. So why do you come here to debate ignorant people? If ignorance is such a problem with you as you imply?

And what's next? The explanation as to why you said it? Like: If you studied evolution you would understand and believe it. And because you don't believe it, you have not studied it. Therefore you are ignorant. Sound about right?

An "argument from ignorance" is a clearly defined term for a specific logical fallacy. I used it as that and nothing else, hence the rest of your post misses the point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

 

[Poke]

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.

"No one knows for sure, some scientists believe" means wild guess. As I said, the Evolutionist must believe, regardless of evidence, that the production of DMSP has benefit on an individual basis.

Scoop up some of these little guys, take them to a lab, simulate solar rays on them, then examine them for thicker cell walls, trace this back to the DMSP, and you're on your way to having a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Do the stronger walls protect them from the sun? Why don't they keep these stronger walls all the time, instead of just in strong sun?

 

[maranatha_man]

I have to throw in .02 cents again that I don't think any conclusions about cosmological origins or evo-vs-creationist can be drawn from this information.

Vote : What's this got to do w/ anything?? :bday:

 

[jwu]

"No one knows for sure, some scientists believe" means wild guess. As I said, the Evolutionist must believe, regardless of evidence, that the production of DMSP has benefit on an individual basis.

Scoop up some of these little guys, take them to a lab, simulate solar rays on them, then examine them for thicker cell walls, trace this back to the DMSP, and you're on your way to having a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.

That's a two years old quote from an article right after the discovery of that chemical being produced there. I've already given references of more recent research about it.

Do the stronger walls protect them from the sun? Why don't they keep these stronger walls all the time, instead of just in strong sun?

...perhaps because the internal effect lasts longer than the external effect, a sporadic production being sufficient to maintain strong cell wands. Or an overly excessive production has other detrimental effects of an overdose, so that it needs to be dampened anyway. There are many possible reasons.

 

[ikester7579]

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.

They could hire evolutionist writers, such as yourself, who would not make that mistake. Maybe you should apply.

NASA cannot hire the right people for PR, they most not be well educated in screening people for such a job.

 

[ikester7579]

"No one knows for sure, some scientists believe" means wild guess. As I said, the Evolutionist must believe, regardless of evidence, that the production of DMSP has benefit on an individual basis.

Scoop up some of these little guys, take them to a lab, simulate solar rays on them, then examine them for thicker cell walls, trace this back to the DMSP, and you're on your way to having a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.

That's a two years old quote from an article right after the discovery of that chemical being produced there. I've already given references of more recent research about it.

[quote:272d0]
Do the stronger walls protect them from the sun? Why don't they keep these stronger walls all the time, instead of just in strong sun?

...perhaps because the internal effect lasts longer than the external effect, a sporadic production being sufficient to maintain strong cell wands. Or an overly excessive production has other detrimental effects of an overdose, so that it needs to be dampened anyway. There are many possible reasons.[/quote:272d0]

If your explainations satisfy you, is not that the only thing that counts? Or does the weak evidence of what you want to believe make you feel the need to debate it further?

I'm sorry if your task is to change the whole world to your way of thinking. You won't change my mind, and you should just accept that. After all, is not that what free thinking is about? Let people think what they want?

 

[saltiness]

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.

They could hire evolutionist writers, such as yourself, who would not make that mistake. Maybe you should apply.

NASA cannot hire the right people for PR, they most not be well educated in screening people for such a job.

You're getting pretty desperate here aren't you? It doesn't matter how poorly the article was written; jwu, and to a lesser extent, I have made a case for this being an excellent example of evolution.

 

[ikester7579]

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.

They could hire evolutionist writers, such as yourself, who would not make that mistake. Maybe you should apply.

NASA cannot hire the right people for PR, they most not be well educated in screening people for such a job.

You're getting pretty desperate here aren't you? It doesn't matter how poorly the article was written; jwu, and to a lesser extent, I have made a case for this being an excellent example of evolution.

And I don't think you have. But as long as your happy with it, it don't bother me none. The readers will decide. I won't be referring to them as being ignorant of they don't agree with me. What they believe is their choice, and what I believe is mine. Just as what you believe is your's.

 

[jwu]

If your explainations satisfy you, is not that the only thing that counts? Or does the weak evidence of what you want to believe make you feel the need to debate it further?

I'm sorry if your task is to change the whole world to your way of thinking. You won't change my mind, and you should just accept that. After all, is not that what free thinking is about? Let people think what they want?

Umm...this is a debate forum, people do come here to discuss things. Be it to actually convince someone, or just because it's a fun thing to do and to learn in the process of the discussion.

Why are you here?

 

[maranatha_man]

psst!!!....hint: troll...job....life (as in "get a") etc.... :wink:

 

[Poke]

psst!!!....hint: troll...job....life (as in "get a") etc.... :wink:

Doing a search, 100% of jwu's posts are in this one subforum.

 

[maranatha_man]

hehe...I was'nt referring to jwu :wink:

read the last post on pg 2

 

[ikester7579]

If your explainations satisfy you, is not that the only thing that counts? Or does the weak evidence of what you want to believe make you feel the need to debate it further?

I'm sorry if your task is to change the whole world to your way of thinking. You won't change my mind, and you should just accept that. After all, is not that what free thinking is about? Let people think what they want?

Umm...this is a debate forum, people do come here to discuss things. Be it to actually convince someone, or just because it's a fun thing to do and to learn in the process of the discussion.

Why are you here?

Just because this is a Christian forum. And I am a Christian, you?

 

[jwu]

It being a Christian forums and it being a debate forum is not mutually exclusive ;)

However, yes i am a Christian myself.

 

[maranatha_man]

me too btw!! :

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Did you know that forests help to generate the rainfall needed for their own existance?

Cut down vast swaths of forest and guess what, rainfall decreases - even to the point where the land can no longer support forests.

Yet forests are not doing this on purpose. The trees don't think it through. It's a feedback response. Same as with the plankton. No real intellect is required for any of this to happen.


The same thing happens with snow. Snow falls on the ground and covers it with white. Sunlight is relfected and so the ground does not warm up enough to melt the snow until springtime. If the snow wasn't there the ground would be warmer- too warm for snow to persist. It's a simple feedback loop people, not magic.

Certainly not IC.


Here's a little hing . If something seems complex or complicated - its just because your mind is too limited to understand it.

 

[ikester7579]

Did you know that forests help to generate the rainfall needed for their own existance?

Cut down vast swaths of forest and guess what, rainfall decreases - even to the point where the land can no longer support forests.

Yet forests are not doing this on purpose. The trees don't think it through. It's a feedback response. Same as with the plankton. No real intellect is required for any of this to happen.

Every living life form expells something. When we breathe we expell moisture. But it does not mean we are producing that moisture just to survive. And water is not uniquely produced by the trees either. Storms can provide water for them to survive as well.

Plankton on the other hand. Is producing a chemical called dimethylsulfoniopropionate. This does not fall from rain clouds, nor is it produced naturally like water. Then a bacteria breaks this chemical down into dimethylsulfide. It is the dimethylsulfide that protects the plankton.

So what are the problems for evolution concerning this:

1) The need for bacteria to break down the chemical into another chemical, show a symbiotic relationship. So not only do you have reverse adaptation, but you have two life forms working together so that one can survive.


2) Being that the plankton cannot survive without the bacteria. Means both life forms had to evolve at the same exact time, in the same exact place. And how big around is the earth? And how many more mutations does it take to make a more complex life form (bacteria)?

So plankton would evolve first, and die, End of fairytale.

 

[jwu]

1) The need for bacteria to break down the chemical into another chemical, show a symbiotic relationship. So not only do you have reverse adaptation, but you have two life forms working together so that one can survive.

The plankton however wouldn't even go extinct without that chemical. It just survives better with it than it would without.

2) Being that the plankton cannot survive without the bacteria. Means both life forms had to evolve at the same exact time, in the same exact place. And how big around is the earth? And how many more mutations does it take to make a more complex life form (bacteria)?

Wrong premise.
You also invalidly discount the usual way how symbiotic relationships come to existence - by specialization of previously independent entities towards cooperation and loss of other abilities which are are longer needed if the symbiotic partner is there, but which also causes a great deal of dependency.

 

[Beaming Visionary]

jwu, I haven't read the whole thread, but anyone who asks,

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

while proposing to be in a position to address evolutionary science cannot be taken seriously. You are wastingyour time in the extreme and might as well be trying to teach a spaniel to mow the lawn.

But the fact that "Ikester" has never heard of genetic drift is a drop in the bucket compared to his global ignorance of science and the scientific method. Either he is an atheist posing as a ludicrously benighted creationist or he several years of formal study or self-education shy of being competent to discuss biology (and even if he understood it and could capably communicate his ideas in English he would still argue against all reason in favor of creation mythology).

It is also funny that "Ikester" asserts that just because someone believes something doesn't make it true; somehow he says this while ignoring the fact that faith itself is entirely predicated on belief in the absence of evidence, whereas sceintists make no claims to anything not supported by observations and testable hypotheses. He seems to lack a high-school education and has clearly never attended college or even picked up a relevant textbook.

No offense to anyone, you understand.