This idea of adaptation or micro/macro-evolution is a new idea that I've seen come out from skeptics over the evolution theory. Personally I view it
as another re-branding attempt of creationism (given the fact that Intelligent design had received negative press over the last decade). But putting
aside whatever agenda these new supporters of adaptation /micro-evolution may have, does this idea have the potential to take on the theory of
The theory of Evolution does not discount adaptation, however adaptation discounts evolution. Adaptation or Micro/Macro-evolution is the idea that
animals, organisms do in fact experience changes in response to their environments, changes that do at times change their physical appearances as well
as internal appearances. However the idea of "adaption" or "micro-evolution" dismisses this idea that all animals, organisms, have branched off one
another from a common ancestor. One person put the idea of adaption or micro-evolution in simpler terms when comparing it to the theory of
"Evolution is the idea that all animals, organisms, share a common ancestor, that they branched off of and evolved over a period of time, much like
the branches of a tree. The tree of life gives us a good picture of what the theory of evolution is about. However "adaptation" or "micro-evolution"
proposes that organisms have only minor changes in response to their environments and do not branch off from one another, much like a forest of trees,
as opposed to one tree of life"
Here's an article, the best I could find at this point, defining the differences between the idea of adaptation in on itself compared to evolution:
Adaptation refers to the process wherein certain groups or individuals change their ways in order to be better suited to their environment and
habitat. This is change is needed so that they can survive and maintain normal functioning in their community. For example, during winters or cold
days, individuals learn to alter their homes and personal clothes to be able to live through the chilling temperatures.
Evolution, though, takes a long time. It is a process in which the genetic structure and physical anatomy change in relation to the changes happening
in the environment. It does not occur overnight, but invokes generations in order to turn out into the best being suitable.
Read more: Difference Between Adaptation and Evolution | Difference Between | Adaptation vs Evolution
Now the exact definition of adaptation or micro-evolution has not been defined, I'm not aware of any peer reviewed articles, possibly because the idea
is really only held by a small minority, those whom had supported the Intelligent design idea at one point. I'd be curious if any fellow ATSers whom
believe in the idea of adaption care to explain it to us what they view it as? Some of the many questions I have below are in regards to the idea of
1. Does adaption still include idea that species evolve into other species? Given the fact that we have such obvious links between different species
such as domesticated dogs and wolves, or domesticate cats and wild felines or big cats. Are there "bubbles" of species within nature that are only
related to each other?
2. Considering that many who push the idea of adaptation or micro-evolution dismiss the idea that humans share a common ancestor with modern apes or
monkeys, does this mean that from adaptation, humans just appeared all on their own many thousands of years ago? If they did not branch out from other
animal species, how did they come to be? Did they appear by Gods hand? Or did God adapt them from something else?
3. Considering that the idea of adaptation or micro-evolution dismisses the idea that animals, organisms, share a common ancestor, how did all these
species, or bubbles of species" come to exist with one another? Or is that still being worked out by supporters of this alternative explanation to the
origins of life? Did they all exist at once? Did humans exist with dinosaurs, considering they are in no way related to them or any other animals? Or
doe the idea of adaption support the idea that the appeared later on by some unknown means later again?
4. Considering that animal species and organisms are not related to one another at all, considering that branched all on their own, how do they share
common genetic relations much like those of the apes and humans? Is that because of a common environment that just coincidentally made these genetic
similarities appear? Remember that we're not focusing on the God fact here as "adaptation" or "micro-evolution" has nothing to do with creationism or
Intelligent design, supposedly.
edit on 29-1-2013 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)