Talk:Reverse adaptation

Sources

Are there any sources for this article? DebateKid 15:17, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

Ikester just started the article today :). Give him a minute. --Zephyr Axiom 15:51, 6 July 2007 (EDT)

This is more complex than just Reverse adaptation.

First of all thank you for this article. It is most wonderful to see this type of interaction of life and nature! My info scans on the Net might have missed this if it were not for this article.

I just want to discuss the fact that the evolutionist will still persist that this is "normal" adaptation to the environment regardless of the fact that the weather itself has been changed by an organism. They will say that the sun is the environment and the plankton adapted by selecting for those which can produce these cloud forming processes.

However, the evolutionists is still in a great dilemma because an entire population or very large group of the population needs to show this behavior before there can be any benefit. A single plankton producing this chemical through a chance process will have no benefit at all. This completely rules out natural selection for this very beneficial trait and only leaves them with pure gambling chance. Now the evolutionists are in a real dilemma because the odds game for this behavior spreading through an entire population without the process of natural selection is not just a question of "slow, incremental steps up the gradual incline up Mount Improbable".

The conclusion is that natural selection cannot account for all beneficial traits in life forms. With this wonderful evidence to this effect the creation hypothesis also gets a wonderful method for looking for other similar exclusions of natural selection by which the evidence for design just keeps growing!

God bless, Keep up the good work. Michael Pretorius

Just curious. Why do you call creation a hypothesis? Is not your faith much stronger than that?[http://creationwiki.org/User_talk:Ikester7579 Talk] 05:27, 16 July 2007 (EDT)

Why "Creation hypothesis"

Well, I am using the term "creation hypothesis" primarily to place it in the field of human knowledge and science that will remain incomplete until our Lord and Saviour will return. I think Christians was to afraid to boldly put their beliefs about origins to the scrutiny of reason and hence the atheistic proponents of science took over - a big mistake. Now my faith is completely unshakable to the extent that I firmly belief that the creation hypothesis will never be disproved. As long as the church of Christ is on earth more and more evidence will come to the fore in support of Biblical Creation. "Creation hypothesis" is also a challenge to anti-creation scientists to try to disproof it on equal universal rational terms which they cannot deny. In fact the atheist cannot account for rationality or logic, but the Biblical Christian can. But God let all his free will creatures use rationality regardless if they know Him or not. —unsigned comment by Mullerpr (talk • contribs)

Why Reverse Adaptation?

Dear Reader,

Something about this name for the article keep plaguing me. Now I know what it is. It is not uncommon for God's creatures to adapt their environment to suite them. Your concept of reverse adaptation then needs to be applied to birds building nests and other animals other types of structures. This does not constitute "reverse adaptation", it is just adaptation that affect the organism's environment.

I propose a title like: "Plankton defies natural selection." Since this is your article I will not make this change without our consent.

God bless, Michael. —unsigned comment by Mullerpr (talk • contribs)