Does adaptation prove evolution?

Question

Natural selection/survival of the fittest/adaptation is a fact. It can be observed within a few generations of a species. Evolution on the other hand, the idea that through adaptation a species can become an entirely different species, seems rather weak to me. Where is the solid evidence? Where are the missing links in the fossil records? What about fittness factors? If we separate adaptation and evolution into 2 theories how solid is evolution? Does proof of adaptation audomatically prove evolution?

Answer 1

Adaptation is not evolution. Evolution is driven only by genetics, and never by adaptation. Lamark proposed that adaptation might be conserved - that a giraffe stretches its neck to reach something high and this is passed on. This adaptation hypothesis was not held up. For instance, if you exercise alot and have huge biceps, your son will not likewise be born with large muscles. He too would have to go exercise to achieve this.

Darwin's theory of evolution is different. If a genetic change allows an animal to better survive to reproductive age, then these genetic changes may be passed on to the next generation(s), who are also better able to survive to reproduce, and so on. Thus species "evolve" over time.

Answer 2

While adaptation does not necessarily Prove evolution, it's a good support for it. Species change visibly, thus we know that one thing can change into something different. Domestic ducks for example. Wild ducks are brown. Through selection of genetic mutations, domestic ducks (well, some of them anyways) are white. And all domestic ducks other than the muscovy duck are ALL derived from the mallard. From the crested runner duck to the miniature call duck. So, we can see that life forms change from generation to generation.

But, if this has anything to do with creationism... then I'd have to point out that there is no more proof that we all sprang from two individuals divinely placed. In fact, according to genetics, it would be a very odd species indeed that could inbreed from two individuals and produce a viable species.

And THAT is quite well documented. Creating an entire line from two parents results in weak offspring with a high mortality rate and high incident of genetic deformation.

Besides, you can't separate evolution and adaptation since both rely on genetic mutation over generations.

Answer 3

Adaptation _as a process_ is a part of evolution.

But Adaptation is both a process and the pattern that results from this process.
It's easy to perceive adaptation as a pattern: we see convergence in animals and plants, and we can perceive that every species is 'fit' to its circumstances, and that some are more specialized than others.
You can choose to believe that every species was created 'fit', if you consider that fitness is some uniform and static quality of a species (which it is not, but never mind, you might want to believe it).

As a process, the emergence of adaptation is explained by Natural Selection (NS). NS is _one_ of the mechanisms or forces of evolution; it can and has been measured... And since it's happening all the time, it's being documented all the time, just like the other evolutionary forces.

The results of the action of any and all of these evolutionary forces is Evolution, which means simply change in populations through succeeding generations.
It's a process that eventually leads to different species, but the transformation is a continuum. In most cases, it's a gradual process, and we can only say that one species evolved into another because WE humans are the ones who define what a species is (and there are many different definitions!).

So, adaptation as a permanent dynamic process does 'prove' evolution. Evolution means change; adaptation is a subset of this change that happens in a particular direction conditioned by given interactions between the organism and its environment at the time.

As for separating adaptation from evolution, it seems to me that you're trying to separate microevolution from macroevolution, but that's a false dichotomy. All the evolutionary forces act at the population level, and this population represents one species, until eventually the entire population or part of it becomes something else (as by our definition).

About missing links...that expression has been out of use for many years. There are plenty of transitional fossils if you Google them up.

Answer 4

The evidence is the physical similarities of closely related species. That evidence was later greatly expanded upon with genetic studies that show how closely animals are. There are no missing links, just some animals with few fossils. There are mountains of fossils for other species that show evolution through time. There is a whole area of science that deals with how species form. It has to do mainly with slow changes in the genes and separation of breeding populations. It is entirely logical and fits perfectly with the fossil record, embryology studies, genetic studies and other biochemical mechanisms of organisms.

Evolution is absolutely proven beyond any reasonable doubt. There is no reasonable doubt that animals have changed over time. The only thing that has some doubt, though not a reasonable doubt in my opinion, is the mechanism of natural selection.

Answer 5

I think you're confused about what evolution really is.

Evolution is the change in genetic material from generation to generation. The problem with the theory of evolution proposed by Darwin, is that people think it happened overnight. Remember life has been around for MILLIONS of years. Natural selection occurs because an organism develops traits that enable production and survival. Having one noticeable mutation is a human is pretty common. Having enough to create a new species is a little bit harder to accomplish.

Think about everything that has happened through the earth's history, the climatic changes the animal dominance shifts....Do you really think the Sabre tooth tiger and the current large felines are not related? Of course they are, the Sabre tooth tiger was a species that had adaptions that increased its survival and subsequently when the earth was no longer cold its traits were no longer favorable. Same goes for the Woolly Mammoth. Another example is our own cells. If you look in our own cells we have "power house" organelles called mitochondria. Funny thing about them, is they have circular DNA and they are capable of reproducing independently of the cell. This has lead to the theory that this prehistoric bacterium became a symbiote to another cell to create the eukaryote cell. Evolution exists, it's undeniable. Whether we all were derived from the same single celled organism...no one will ever know.

Answer 6

Evolution can be studied at two scales: Microevolution and Macroevolution.

Macroevolution is large scale formation of species and patterns constituting higher taxonomic levels. Microevoultion refers to genetic changes within populations. Darwin's theory of evolution was evolution by Natural Selection. This is a mechanism, not a process. It is the first mechanism of Microevolution, and most well known. Darwin, however had no knowledge of genetics. The "Modern Synthesis" combines natural selection with genetics. Other mechanisms driving Microevolution are processes such as genetic drift, gene flow, etc.
Macroevolution is any evolutionary change above species. Speciation and Cladogenesis are part of Macroevolution.

With relying on Natural Selection alone, in my opinion it would not be enough to "prove" evolution. A thourough study of speciation,cladogenesis, and how the genetic mechanisms work with the mechanisms of Natural Selection would help "prove" evolution.

Answer 7

good question, and i have a few things for you to consider.
first is that you can never 'prove' anything, sadly. only put good evidence towards it until their is little doubt, but never fully prove.

if you except natural selection but not adaptation, how come all the species on earth arent dead? if species arent adapting but the selection process is still occurring, eventually all millions of species on earth would be dwindled to a minimal number of species fit to survive.

second is bacteria. they are a fascinating example of mutations and adaptations because they reproduce so fast. simple prokaryotes generally have a very short doubling time (20 minutes in the case of e. coli, a very common prokaryote), as well as a relatively short DNA sequence, compared to higher eukaryotes. because of their short generation times, they have to copy their short DNA sequences ALOT and pass them on to the next generation, and in this process, mistakes are made. a great portion of mistakes are fatal to the organism, but an occasional one is beneficial and can help a species to survive better, thus contributing to natural selection as well.
this is what happens in antibiotic resistance, a bacteria makes a mistake that doesnt kill it. then someone decides to take half their antibiotics that wipe out all the bacteria... except that one that had the mutation that allowed it to just barely survive through that wave of antibiotics, except now that bacteria has no competition and is free to grow and produce a whole colony of moderately antibiotic-immune bacteria. before long, another bacteria will have a mutation that allows it to survive even better and soon the antibiotic is all but utterly useless.
there is also bacterial conjugation to consider, but thats a bit more complex. higher animals are also a bit more complex because animals evolve as populations, not as individuals.
if environmental conditions like the introduction of antibiotics are introduced to a population constantly and consistently over time (as they often are in the world), then species can be forced to evolve their form. if, on the other hand, conditions stay stagnant and a species that is doing well continues to do well, there is no selection pressure and that species is not pressed into evolving. these two different conditions in different locations can drive one species to separate into two different species.

Answer 8

No, it doesn't, but somehow Darwin expanded this idea from changes within species to changes between species, which are totally different and somehow his hypothesis that changes can be made from species to species is talked about in science class like it's scientific fact.

Logically unsound, indeed.

I stick to what's easier to believe: creation.

To put my case in a nutshell, if you see a book, you don't say that it came out of nowhere. You say that a printer made it.

So, when you see the earth and the animals and the human body which are even more complex than a book, you can't say that it was just evolved out of nothing without having a TON of faith in evolution.

Answer 9

adaptation is definately a good supporting evidence for evolution. seperate a group of animal of same species and place them in different environment. they will adapt to their environment. adaptation are caused by genetic changes; given enough time these changes can accumulate to the point where two groups cannot produce viable offspring if they mate. now they're different species.

Answer 10

We can only prove something if we can see a direct cause and effect. In the case of evolution it's impossible to go back in time so it's impossible to see a direct cause and effect. That's why it's impossible to prove evolution.