Is adaptation a better science than evolution?

Answer 1

Adaptation is evolution.

We refer to the adjustments in the fit between organisms and the environment as evolutionary adaptation, or simply adaptation. Adaptation is the root concept that grew into Darwin’s theory of natural selection. Natural selection is the mechanism that explains how things change; adaptation explains why they do.

Adaptation is based on the concept that populations of organisms change over time as a result of natural selection. Adaptive evolution is driven by increased survivorship and/or increased reproductive success. This happens when a collection of individuals in a population gain an advantage because of special traits that they share in common.

Answer 2

That is like asking if Physics is a better science than Biology and the answer is yes. hehehe. let me explain why that isn't entirely a tongue-in-cheek statement.
Adaptation as a term used in juxtaposition with evolution refers to changes that happen over a short time scale; evolution being over a long time scale.
Now in order for you to apply the scientific method an event must be observable and repeatable. Adaptation meets these criteria far better than evolution does. The long time periods associated with evolution make it impossible for a single person to directly observe within there lifetime. Also being able to go back and start again and repeat the experiment is definitely not on with evolution. Adaptation can be readily observed in one persons lifetime. The small scale events typically associated with adaptation can be repeated easily enough.
True, carbon dating, but this is not direct experimentation. Extrapolation is for Astronomers and Economists not Scientists.
So yes adaptation is a better science because it can actually be analysed scientifically.

Answer 3

Excellent question. In general, the term means to change to suit new conditions. However, I think the psychologist Peter Gray made an important point that there are three types of adaptation:

(1) Evolutionary (i.e., Darwin): change in the genetic makeup of organisms over time. This is primarily influenced by the principles of natural selection and random mutations as Darwin proposed.

(2) Individual: A person's day to day responses to their own personal environment. Over the lifetime it would be called development.

(3) Cultural: This one particular applies to humans in regards to things such as inventions. This last form of adaptation is the one that has governed most of the changes in humanity in the last 10,000 years.

So to address the science part of your question, you are really talking about several different branches of the natural and social sciences. As examples, evolutionary = biology (and possibly geology); Individual = psychology; cultural = anthropology/sociology. A better science would thus probably look something that involves combining all of the scientific fields.

On a somewhat related side note, in regards to the long-standing debate concerning Creationism and Evolution, there seems to be a middle ground called the GAIA hypothesis. It suggests that the Earth is a Living/Conscious Entity.

I believe that David Suzuki (Nature of Things) host is an advocate of this view of the earth, and it has been a long held view of First Nations/Native American people (i.e., Mother Earth).

Check out the source below if you are not already familiar with the GAIA hypothesis.

Answer 4

Adaptation and evolution is pretty much the same thing,so there really isn't a "better science." Although one must realize you adapt to your environment over time, but evolution takes millions of generations to form an actual recognizable change in the species. You can adapt to the temperature in the room, or if you are lets say a wolly mammoth- who happened not to be killed by humans for your hide in the ice age- who's going through the end of the ice age. The mammoth would therefore shed it's coat due to the sudden heat. I would not be one to judge adaptation vs evoution just because of their large amounts of similarities, but if I had a gun pointed to my head-- I'd pick adaptation because of it's more fast change.

good for you seahawksmd! JP2 had a way of combining two issues into one thing solved.

Answer 5

Adaptation is the same as evolution. Adapting to ones surrounding for survival by changing the way the body of the organism works is the same as evolving for the same reason. I don't agree w/evolution anyway but I hope I answered your question. Have a good night.

Answer 6

They are part of one another. Evolution is inseparable from the idea of adaptation, and adaptation over time could be described as a form of evolution. Don't go getting all intelligent design on me now....

Oh, by the way, I am a Catholic science teacher, There is no conflict between the Bible and evolutionary theory. Looks at the first part of Genesis as a parable and it almost directly parallels modern evolutionary theory, as well as the Big Bang concept.

Answer 7

Couldn't adaptation just be part of evolution? Evolution is just another way for a species to adapt to its surroundings. When a fish grows legs so that it can walk on land to find food, it is adapting to the need for food, but evolving into a new species of animal. Apatation and evolution are one in the same.

Answer 8

adaptation is part of evolution so no it's not a better science because it's part of the same science. But it's not a worse science either.

Answer 9

adaptation is one of the mechanisms by which evolution occurs...evolution is the theory used to explain the observed phenomena in nature. So when asked how does evolution occur, the answer includes adaptation...

Answer 10

Adaptation is the driving force of evolution.