Question:
adaptation or evolution?
2011-08-16 18:34:39 UTC
so yeah... im gonna use layman's terms here for everyone to understand, ok? here goes.

adaptation is the idea that all living creatures have special abilities that help them cope with environmental changes. some of these happen very fast, like your pupils closing or opening. others are slow and take several generations. like people's skin color or height.

evolution is the idea that all these changes are because living creatures who had a useful, random change got to live long and make babies. those who didnt died. also, it takes millions of years for these changes to happen and the reason why there is no gradual change from one creature turning into another is because the change happens super fast so little evidence is left and has probably been destroyed.

my information is the most recent and fact-based information available. i triple checked with several scientific communities, journals and websites. just thought you should know that before you posted anything. and no. adaptation is not linked in any way to evolution. thats been tested too. genetics simply wont allow it. it cant be done.
Five answers:
Cirbryn
2011-08-16 19:27:02 UTC
> adaptation is the idea that all living creatures have special abilities that help them cope with environmental changes



Close. An adaptation is a structure or ability that an organism has allowing it to function better in the given environment.



> some of these happen very fast, like your pupils closing or opening. others are slow and take several generations. like people's skin color or height.



Nope. An adaptation is something you either have or you don't. It's not a process that takes time, although it may take time to gain the adaptation. Adaptations can be characterized as heritable or not heritable. A tan is an adaptation that is not heritable, but the capacity to tan is heritable. Heritable adaptations are produced by evolution through natural or artificial selection.



> evolution is the idea that all these changes are because living creatures who had a useful, random change got to live long and make babies. those who didn't died.



An individual with a new useful heritable adaptation would presumably have it due to a mutation that occurred in the egg or sperm that fused and grew to eventually form that individual. You wouldn't be likely to see a grown individual suddenly picking up a new adaptation that was heritable.



> also, it takes millions of years for these changes to happen and the reason why there is no gradual change from one creature turning into another is because the change happens super fast so little evidence is left and has probably been destroyed.



I have no idea what you're trying to say here. First you claim these changes take millions of years, then you claim they happen super fast. It would be easier to understand you if you used actual sentences, with actual punctuation and grammar. I get the impression you want reasoned responses, but you can't be bothered to put any effort into the question.



> my information is the most recent and fact-based information available. i triple checked with several scientific communities, journals and websites.



So we should believe you because you're putting the great weight of your impeccable online reputation behind it?



> and no. adaptation is not linked in any way to evolution.



Except inasmuch as evolution by natural selection is responsible for the presence of heritable adaptations in any given population.



> thats been tested too. genetics simply wont allow it. it cant be done.



Please provide a citation for these tests.
2011-08-17 02:50:07 UTC
evolution and adaptation are the same thing. The genetic mutation that are most adapted to current environment survive, other mutations die out. Change is gradual, we do not see much of it in fossil record b/c we typically have 3-5 individual creatures out the millions that lived over the years.
gee bee
2011-08-17 18:22:02 UTC
A "layman" is a person who isn't an expert in a given field of knowledge. The term originally meant a member of the laity, i.e. a non-clergymen, but over the centuries shifted in definition.



The concept of describing something in layman's terms has come into wide use in the English speaking world. To put something in layman's terms is to describe a complex or technical issue using words and terms that the average individual (someone without professional training in the subject area) can understand, so that they may comprehend the issue to some degree.



Layman, 'laity': In short: "laity" means "common people". The English word "laity" comes from the Greek laikos which meant "of the people", "common" (common, in the meaning "unholy", "unclean" and similar). The related verb laikoƓ meant "to make common", "to desecrate".



Were you 'desecrating' by any chance..?
2011-08-17 03:47:53 UTC
For years researchers have puzzled over whether adaptation plays a major role in human evolution or whether most changes are due to neutral,
Corkus
2011-08-17 03:27:39 UTC
Hmmm so there are no fossil records proving that horses adapted to living on grasslands... the beaks of galapagos finches... cichlids in the african lakes... pigeon breeding... oh my GOD where did we mislay those TONS and TONS of artefacts?


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...