Reverse adaptation is where life itself has the ability to change its surroundings to suit its needs. Adaptation is where an organism adapts to its surroundings. It has been taught in schools, and often said by evolutionists that life "always" adapts to its surroundings. This is because they can explain life adapting to its surroundings through mutation. For either the life that exists adapts, or dies.
But what if there was life that, instead of adapting to its surroundings, made its surroundings change to suit its needs? How could such an ability evolve? And what exactly can it change to do this? The answer to question one is that evolutionists would have no way to explain this. The answer to question two is that this life has the ability to change the weather.
When the sun is too strong, plankton have the ability to make clouds . Imagine life that is considered to be at the bottom of the food chain, being able to do what the top of the food chain cannot. And it does it naturally. No intelligence needed from that life, no mutation can explain it. Theory of evolution can't touch it as far as explanations within the laws of how evolution works are concerned.
Evolutionists might 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 might say that the sun is part of the environment and the plankton adapted by selecting for those which can produce these cloud forming processes.
However, the evolutionists are 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".
Making an argument for something like "co-beneficial traits" whereby this trait might have "piggy backed" some other trait that had an immediate single-plankton benefit does not solve the dilemma simply because "piggy backing" will also be just a chance based hypothesis.
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!