Is there a difference between "evolution" and "adaptation"?

Question

Example: Humans who live in different climates have adapted to survive in those climates. Cycle Cell Anemia is an "adaptation" that actually occurred to fight off malaria. The malaria virus cannot attach to a cycle shaped cell. This is why Africans suffer from Cycle Cell Anemia versus their European counterparts.

Evolution would suggest that DNA changed so drastically that Humans were once fish. This I totally disagree with. Yet some give examples of adaptation OR cross-breeding as proof of spontaneous DNA restructuring aka evolution.

Your thoughts please.

- Sickle Cell Anemia - (above)

skeptic (below) Disagree with the link you provided in your post as "proof". Also, disagree that the broad gaps that are never discussed within evolution can be simply overlooked.

I do believe in science and do appreciate all it has brought to the table. That being said, science regarding millions of years past requires as much faith as religion does.

Both are valid to me. Versus the thought that you can only believe religion OR science. Science is filled with speculation yet has also provided some answers.

Answer 1

Adaptation is a rather complex term that is a part of evolution. It is not exactly as you have described it and their are other definitions of adaptation.

Think of this: with all of the changes that we see taking place in organisms, and the fact that we see continuous change, with out a barrier to prevent change, we would expect evolution to continue.

This is reflected by genetic information and the fossil record, as well as other areas.

Now, think about my question, try to answer it. If you can not, you must admit evolution should be expected.


Or perhaps you believe that your God is not capable of creating by using an evolutionary process.

I'll wait for your answer.





EDIT

"skeptic (below) Disagree with the link you provided in your post as "proof". "

- So, in 20 minuets, you reviewed at least 15 independently peer reviewed sources and found them all wanting? They have links to the original work and to other supporting documents.


"Also, disagree that the broad gaps that are never discussed within evolution can be simply overlooked."

-Such as? Who overlooks anything? I find it more likely that you've never bothered to try to understand the fundamentals of evolution or biology.


"I do believe in science and do appreciate all it has brought to the table. That being said, science regarding millions of years past requires as much faith as religion does."

- Only if you chose not to understand the words "science" and "faith."


"Both are valid to me. Versus the thought that you can only believe religion OR science. Science is filled with speculation yet has also provided some answers."

-But of course from religion, we get talking donkeys, unicorns, and all the animals crowded onto a boat. If you ever find you have cancer, be sure not to visit a doctor, just pray and see how good you feel.


BTW, you still haven't answered my question.

Answer 2

Sickle-cell anemia is often used as an example to support evolution, but the mutation causes a loss of normal function with no new ability or information. The protection against malaria comes at the high cost of a less functional hemoglobin molecule.

Natural selection is a logical process that anyone can observe (and it was actually a creationist named Edward Blyth who first wrote about it in 1835–37, before Darwin). We can look at the great variation in an animal kind and see the results of natural selection. For instance, wolves, coyotes, and dingoes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the dog kind.

But there are limits. For instance, you can’t breed a dog to the size of an elephant, much less turn it into an elephant. As Dr. Ray Bohlin said, “For essentially every trait, although it usually harbors some variability, there has always been a limit. Whether the organisms or selected traits are roses, dogs, pigeons, horses, cattle, protein content in corn, or the sugar content in beets, selection certainly has an effect. But all selected qualities eventually fizzle out. Chickens don't produce cylindrical eggs. We can't produce a plum the size of a pea or a grapefruit. There are limits to how far we can go.”

The different dogs we see today have resulted from a rearrangement or loss of information from the original dog kind. That is why you can breed wolves to get to chihuahuas, but you can’t breed chihuahuas to get to wolves. The new breeds of dogs have much less genetic information and variability.

And the thing is, what are they? Dogs. What were they? Dogs. What will they be? Dogs. The same could be said for Darwin’s finches, peppered moths, and so forth. There is a big difference between subspeciation (variation within a kind) and transspeciation (change from one kind to another).

Natural selection explains how the dogs can adapt and survive in different environments, not where the dogs came from in the first place.

A lot of evolutionists point to bacteria, but as Dr. Carl Wieland said, “Bacteria actually provide evidence against evolution. Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates. In only a matter of a few years, bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms. Therefore, since we see mutation and natural selection in bacterial populations happening all the time, we should see tremendous amounts of real evolution happening. However, the bacteria we have with us today are essentially the same as those described by Robert Koch a century ago. In fact, there are bacteria found fossilized in rock layers, claimed by evolutionists to be millions of years old, which as far as one can tell are the same as bacteria living today.”

They have great variability and adaptability, but they are still dogs and bacteria.

Answer 3

Adaptation is the process of changing characteristics or behavior to better cope with circumstances. Individuals can adapt within a single lifetime. If the adaptation results from some physical variation among individuals, and some are better able than others to have offspring, the genes that cause that adaptation will be passed on in greater numbers also. This is evolution of a species.

Most genetic variations are not helpful, and are often fatal, especially drastic variations. For this reason species do not suddenly appear. A fish did not, for example, spawn a mammal. Tiny changes over hundreds of thousands of years gradually collect until some line of offspring is noticeably different from another line. This is speciation due to evolution.

Answer 4

Adaptation is part of evolution. My northern European ancestors had to develop a pale skin to take in vitamin D or perish. But we are still homo sapiens, as are you. Speciation may soon occur among different phenotypes of humans, as a recently pubished paper indicates we are rapidly evolving away from each other despite globalization.

In evolutionary terms, "soon" means tens of thousand of years.

You are confusing your terms. Humans were never fish. Somewhere, hundreds of millions of years ago, other species that are now common ancestors of humans embarked upon the journey to land.

Sickle Cell anemia (because the cells are shaped like an old fashioned sickle used to cut hay) are indeed an adaptation to combat malaria. Also, ten percent of Europeans seem to have a resistance to HIV, indicating a bottleneck occured there in the past, just as today's chimpanzees mostly carry the SIV but are not affected.

Answer 5

I just wanted to add, sickle cell anemia is part of evolution. It was a mutation mostly in black people with two recessive genes. The curiosity of the disease was that it continued to exist and was not phased out even though it produced no foreseeable breeding advantage, in fact it was a BIG negative. The reason was it produced a breeding advantage in areas where there was malaria. The recessive gene allowed red blood cells to interfere with the "malaria" life cycle.

Answer 6

Lol we were never fish and as for cross- breeding, that is impossible. Humans can't breed with other species of animals and get offspring. As for adaptation, we adapt to whatever our environment is and eventually evolve for surivial needs. Asian people have "Asian" eyes because of the extreme cold weather there- so the body adapted and pockets of fat evolved under the eyes to keep the eyes from freezing (and yes this is true- I learned it in an anthro class). Same thing with out thumbs. When were early homo's, our thumbs were not where they are now- they were more on the side and helped us for being trees and grasping branches. As primates started spending more time on the ground, our thumbs evolved and adapted to our environment on the ground for more usefule purposes- think about holding a pencil and having thumbs much farther away than where they are now.

(BTW, it's Sickle Cell Anemia, not cycle like the rain cycle)

Answer 7

What you're asking for is evidence of transitional species. There are several. For example, lungfish and other species of fish that climb out of the water point the way to amphibians. As does the coelacanth, which has front fins that look almost arm-like.

Some fossils of small dinosaurs show evidence of feather-like structures that indicate an evolution toward being birds.

There are more such examples but I am not in the mood to write a term paper here.

Answer 8

This is a trick evolutionist use to say that evolution exists. What you are talking about is micro-evolution(things adapt) which does exist. What they would like for people to believe is that is proof of macro-evolution(species change) which has never been nor will never be proven. They use evolution to define both terms in order to trick people into thinking that macro-evolution is true when it is not. No scientific evidence. None. Nada. Just a lie.
Another thing they talk about is mutation. I would like to see one example of a beneficial mutation. There are mutations but they never beneficial. Ex. Sometimes an animal will have an extra leg. The extra leg is not helpful to the animal and it doesnt give any new gene just messed up information of the genes that are already there.

Answer 9

The process of evolution by natural selection requires a little studying.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5961735216134346500&q=dawkins+natural+selection&total=46&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=6

Answer 10

Evolution needs two elements:

Mutation: changing in the genes, see the origin of diseases like Huntington's, see the changes in viruses. Mutation happens continuously in all species.

Adaptation:when individuals with mutations are more successfull in their environment than others, they are likely to reproduce more and better.