Adaptation/Evolution?

Question

I have seen some evolution critics state that evidence for evolution is merely adaptation. Obviously species will adapt, but at what point does adaptation become evolutionary?

Answer 1

Evolution is just adaptation at the species level (or more correctly at the population level).

In other words, individuals can adapt, but they can't evolve.

A population can adapt ... it can change slowly in response to its environment using the mechanisms of inheritance ... in which case it's called evolution. That's it.

....

Creationists have found themselves in an awkward position. For a long time they denied that evolution itself occurred at all. I.e. they refused to acknowledge any concept of "slow change" whatsoever. However, they had to retreat from this position as it was just too easy for science to demonstrate the ability of organisms to change even within the course of a few generations.

For example, the simple fact that we need a new flu shot every year, is evidence that the flu viruses change within the course of a single year.

Creationists have had two reactions to this awkward problem, both rooted in trying to change the terminology.

The first, is to try and draw a line between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" ... a distinction that has very little validity among actual scientists. What they call "microevolution" is the type of short-term evolution that they have to concede occurs. But where they drew the new line was at the idea of "macroevolution" ... the idea that the same type of short-term evolution could ever result in speciation. It is of course quite trivial for a biologist to show how such speciation (a branching of one species into two) can occur given (a) some event that causes genetic isolation between two subpopulations of a species ; and (b) enough time for the two populations to develop enough genetic divergence that they are no longer genetically compatible (i.e. have lost the ability to interbreed).

However, a more basic problem was that the word "microevolution" still concedes that some form of "evolution" occurs.

Instead, an alternative approach to try and avoid this problem is to say that the slow change is called "adaptation", and that this is not "evolution." This is, of course, just resorting to mincing words. Every biologist since Darwin has defined evolution as "change in a species in response to environment" ... if "change in response to environment" is not the same as "adaptation", then what the heck do they think the difference is?

Answer 2

If the new adaptation allows a species as a whole to survive better AND to reproduce and pass their adaptation onto the next generation for many generations then I would say the adaptation is evolutionary.

Answer 3

Adaptation is a "quality control" mechanism. It can never result in another kind of animal because the information is not in the chromosomal make-up of the animal in the first place.

An Alaskan rabbit may be able to mate with a Montana rabbit who may be able to successfully mate with a Florida rabbit, but the Florida rabbit would be incapable of mating with the Alaskan rabbit. That doesn't mean one of them has "evolved" beyond being a rabbit, it simply means that the adaptations have progressed beyond the parameters for successful reproduction.

Sterile hybrids are another result of variations within a kind that are distant enough that an entirely viable offspring cannot occur.

Mutations are different from adaptive changes. Mutations are never beneficial, whereas adaptive changes always are.
.

Answer 4

The evidence for evolution is and has been interpreted from a Philosophical and ideological Bias, The answers given by adherents to Evolution here in R&S is proof of the bias and agenda, Atheism has to have an alternate explanation—other than a Creator—for how the universe and life came into existence.
Darwin once identified himself as a Christian but as a result of some tragedies that took place in his life, he later renounced the Christian faith and the existence of God. Evolution was invented by an atheist.
What is sad is that Christians are falling into this Trap and trying to fit evolution into the Bible (Theistic Evolution) thinking they can make it fit.
Lee Stroble in his video listed below “ The Case for the Creator” stated (5 min. 28 sec into the video) The Case for a Creator
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajqH4y8G0MI
http://www.godtube.com/watch/?v=FJ0J0JNU

That “There is no way you can Harmonize Neo Darwinism with Christianity, I could never understand Christians who would say “ Well I believe in God yet I believe in Evolution as well” You see Darwin’s idea about the development of life led to his theory that modern science now generally defines as an undirected process completely devoid of any purpose or plan,”. Now how could God direct an undirected process? How could God have purpose in a plan behind a system that has no plan and no purpose? It just does not make sense.
It didn’t make sense to me in 1966 and it doesn’t make sense to me now.
The Apostle Paul wrote to His Son Timothy stating that “ in 2 Timothy 4:3-4 “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, [because] they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn [their] ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.”

Those Christians who believe in evolution have no idea how that effects their theology.
What is theistic evolution?
http://www.gotquestions.org/theistic-evolution.html


Eternity is a Long Time to be wrong about this

What Hath Darwin Wrought?
http://www.whathathdarwinwrought.com/

Darwin's Deadly Legacy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qHb3uq1O0Q
Darwin & Eugenics....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuTPHvedOOU&feature=related

Creation In The 21st Century - Planet Earth Is Special 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyUjhgsEJFw

Creation in the 21st Century - The Evidence Disputes Darwin 1 of 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbCbfzmhAN8

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of Creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

More than 600 Scientist with PHD’s who have Signed A SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?id=660

Answer 5

Evolution is just change in allele frequencies in a population, through time. So when a population adapts, changing so that the population dominantly exhibits the adaptive trait, then it has evolved to be better suited to its environment.

Answer 6

What do you mean, become evolutionary? Like when do they speciate? Or when do they become survivor characteristics or when do they reproduce more?