Adaptation proves evolution?
Many things adapt to their environment in order to survive. Like the insect above that looks like a leaf. But even this type of adapting has to make you wonder how and why would this happen? Saying that the leaf looking insect is natural forming, is like saying that the plant combined it's DNA so that the insect could look like that.
Here we have fish that have gone blind because they live in a cave that has total darkness. This type of adaptation is said to prove evolution. Problem is with this type of adaption, is that you are losing information (to go blind), not obtaining more to form a usable organ, or adapting. Evolution is said to be a gain in information to evolve into a higher life form. Becoming blind does not achieve this.
If evolution is to work in the blind fish as evolutionists will claim. Not only will these fish lose their site because of total darkness. But if they are put into light for the same amount of time. They should regain their site. Their eyes should evolve back. But we all know that this will not happen. Which brings up several questions about natural selection. These fish survived without eyes. Which means they should have also survived the evolution process, if they were without eyes first, then evolved eyes.
What this shows is that there is a limitation to how far adaptation of a animal life can go. And because we can see adaptation of loss (fish becoming blind), does not prove adaptation of gain (fish gaining their eye sight back).
So, so far we have life forms adapting, one way but not the other, to their environment as proof for evolution. But evolution is supposed to a gain in information. And basically this loss of information is a poor example. But what if there was life that could change the environment to suit it's needs? Would not that be the total opposite of evolution? Meet the life that can change it's surrounding to suit it's needs. Meet Plankton:
|
People say size doesn't matter, and that may be true for tiny plankton, those free-floating ocean plants that make up the bottom of the marine food-chain. 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. The study was conducted by Dierdre Toole of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) and David Siegel of the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB).
The study finds that in summer when the Sun beats down on the top layer of ocean where plankton live, harmful rays in the form of ultraviolet (UV) radiation bother the little plants. 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. This chemical gets broken down in the water by bacteria, and it changes into another substance called dimethylsulfide (DMS).
DMS then filters from the ocean into the air, where it reacts with oxygen, to form different sulfur compounds. Sulfur in the DMS sticks together in the air and creates tiny dust-like particles. These particles are just the right size for water to condense on, which is the beginning of how clouds are formed. So, indirectly, plankton help create more clouds, and more clouds mean less direct light reaches the ocean surface. This relieves the stress put on plankton by the Sun's harmful UV rays.
For years now scientists have been studying related processes in the lab, but this is the first time scientists have shown how variations in light impact plankton in a natural environment. The research was done in the Sargasso Sea, off the coast of Bermuda.
Previous research also found that the cloud producing compound peaks in the summer in the ocean, when UV rays are high, but plankton numbers are at their lowest.
"Plankton levels are at a minimum in the summer but DMS is at its peak," said Toole.
In the warmest months, the top layer of the ocean warms as well. This heating of the top 25 meters (around 80 feet) creates a contrast with cooler deeper layers. The deeper layers hold many of the nutrients that plankton need to live on. Like how oil separates from water, the warmer upper layer creates almost a barrier from the cooler lower layers and less mixing occurs. Also, the shallow upper layer exposes the plankton to more UV light. Under conditions where there are low nutrients in the water and levels of UV light are high, plankton create more DMS.
DMS levels peak from June through the end of September. During the season, the study found that a whopping 77 percent of the changes in amounts of DMS were due to exposure to UV radiation. The researchers found it amazing that a single factor could have such a big affect on this process.
"For someone studying marine biology and ecology, this type of variation is absolutely incredible," Siegel said.
The researchers were also surprised to find that the DMS molecules completely refresh themselves after only three to five days. That means the plankton may react to UV rays quickly enough to impact their own weather. Toole and Siegel were surprised by the lightning-fast rate of turnover for DMS. To give an example for comparison, when carbon dioxide gets into the atmosphere where it acts as a greenhouse gas and traps heat, it may last for decades. Toole adds that the cycles that break down DMS scream along at these very fast rates, even though overall amounts over the course of the year remain pretty stable with a slow increase over summer and a gradual decline over winter.
The next step for the researchers will be to see how much the added clouds from plankton actually impact climate. By figuring out how plankton react to light, scientists now have the information they need to use computer models to recreate the impacts of plankton on cloud cover. Since the white clouds can reflect sunlight back out to space, the researchers believe the plankton-made clouds may have some affect on global temperatures.
This is important in light of man-made greenhouse gas production that warms the planet, and ozone depletion that allows more life-threatening UV radiation to strike Earth.
"There is the potential that this cycle could slow global warming," said Siegel. "But right now we have no idea of the size of it or even what it means."
In order to measure how much plankton may alter the climate, computer models would need to simulate different scenarios. One scenario would show our climate without clouds due to plankton, and another would show the climate with the increased cloud cover. Then researchers could begin to compare the differences between each scenario.
The researchers add that this effect may help to slow or lessen climate change, but would in no way reverse the trend or stop it altogether.
The research took place in the Sargasso Sea, where a wide range ocean data has been collected since the 1950s. A 1998 study relying on data from this area contained a 1992 to 1994 time series that focused on the cycling of organic sulfur from DMS in the ocean. Siegel has also been collecting data of changes in sea surface temperatures over seasons, variations in both visible light and UV light in the water, and the relationships between these solar variations and DMS levels. All of these measurements have been taken from research vessels and buoys in the Sargasso Sea.
In the future, the paper's authors look forward to incorporating satellite data from NASA's Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) mission into this line of research. SeaWIFS will provide comprehensive data on shifts in visible light reaching the ocean's surface.
The study was funded by NASA. Studies of DMS have been funded by the National Science Foundation. The study appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters.
Referrence: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0702planktoncloud.html |
| Side note: There are several attempts to explain this "reverse adaptation" away making it sound like it fits right into evolution. Words like "genetic drift" are being used. Anyway, the point is, is that evolution has always been a one way adaptation. And the opposite is not explainable. There is no step by step adaptation process which is how science is supposed to be able to explain things. Instead evolutionists are claiming: "it just happened". Which by the way is a kind of "God did it" excuse (when a provable-repeatable testable process does not exist). To say it just happened without a proven testable process, is a best guess. So don't be fooled when evolutionists try and make it sound as if they have an answer for this. They don't.
Also, bacteria is needed to break down the chemical dimethylsulfoniopropionate into dimethylsulfide.. Which produces the substance needed (dimethylsulfide) for the plankton to be protected from the sun's harmful U.V. rays. One life form working with another to achieve an advantage but the gain is only one sided, is a type of "symbiotic relationship". So not only is this a unexplainable reverse adaptation by evolution means, but it takes two life forms to achieve the desired Chemical to get the desired result. Which equals survival of one life form, and no benefit for the other. Which also means that both life-forms had to exist at exactly the same time, in the same place so that one could survive. And because bacteria is more complicated than plankton. The plankton would evolve first, and would die because the chemical it would produce would not be broken down by the unevolved bacteria to get the desired result of protection needed to survive.
Darwin's survival of the fittest rule would rule out plankton from surviving because of this problem. But of course, because it would not work in this instance. Evolutionists will come up with an excuse to cancel out Darwin's rule of how evolution works. |
|
What will be the evolutionist excuse for symbiotic relationship, and the need for both life forms to exist at the same time in order for one to survive? Answer: What's wrong with to life forms evolving at the same time? What is wrong is that first it is claimed that evolution takes a very long time. And the more mutations a certain life form requires to achieve it's final result, the more time is required. By answering this question with a broad excuse, is showing that through findings like you see above. The evolution foundation is becoming more and more fragile. So much so that even the foundational laws introduced by Darwin are ignored, or even denied to make all things look like they evolved regardless of what problems exists. Evolution totally denies God. And claims all things came into being through naturalistic means. So when a broad answer that is more or less a "God did it" excuse on their part is used. I have to chuckle because what they despise the most is now becoming part of their theory.
Not allowing such questions to challenge a theory is the first sign of a theories weakness. And other scientist allowing such things to go on, will only bring down the whole scientific field once evolution takes a fall. |
Questions for evolutionists:
1) How does this type of adaptation evolve? Can you provide the step by step process of how this adaptation evolved?
2) How does the simplest life form on the planet do something that the top of the food chain cannot?
3) Reverse adaptation is a signature of the Creator. Unless a evolutionist would like to explain this?
The reason you will not see this in any books on adaptation, is because it defies the evolution process. For if we could control the weather to suit our needs, think of all the things we could do.
Also, how does the survival of the fittest come in with this? The excuse:
More circular reasoning?
