Talk:Adaptation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology. |
I think the eye is a very poor example illustration, because adaptation has a different meaning when applied to eyes
In speaking with a devout believer in Christianity, I discovered that adaptation has a very negative connotation when used in context to discuss the particulars of physical traits of an organism. This, of course, stemmed from the notion that adaptation involves evolution. I feel that the definitional use of evolution in describing what an adaptation refers to needs to be restated. I feel this way because of behavioral changes animals undergo that enables the individual to cope to new situations/environments. A man may have an adaptation to a cold climate come about by putting on clothes. This is a very short term behavioral change that will probably convey expected long-term reproductive success of the species. Additionally, if species are placed in certain environmental situations, it is not uncommon for the individual to survive but not be able to reproduce. This can be seen in a broad array of plants that have been transplanted to adorn our ornamental gardens around the world. Can it not be said that these plants have all the necessary adaptations to grow, even thrive, when subjected to new environmental conditions in spite of never being reproductively successful? I just feel adaptation, as a definition, could be viewed from an individual perspective as well as a species-level perspective.
I feel the definition should be restated along the lines of something like this:
A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that allows it cope with its environment in such a way that a healthy individual does not die when exposed to that environment; an adaptation may give rise to the expected long-term reproductive success of the individual and, according to the majority of the scientific data currently available, evolve within the species of the individual over a period of time by the process of natural selection
- Basically it's just the same definition, but giving a little ground to creationists. On Wikipedia we treat evolution as fact, as do biologists, so I don't see any need for this. Richard001 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The page contradicts itself: "Adaptation can be viewed as taking place over geological time, or within the lifetime of one individual or a group." "Adaptation occurs over many generations; it is generally a slow process caused by natural selection." 156.34.213.42
- Short term acclimative mechanisms are the result of long term selection. Richard001 07:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] adaptation and natural selection
I recall reading/hearing that natural selection is the only known mechanism for producing adaptation. That suggests that it might be appropriate to change the introduction from...
- A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time by the process of natural selection such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism.
to...
- A biological adaptation is an anatomical structure, physiological process or behavioral trait of an organism that has evolved over a period of time such that it increases the expected long-term reproductive success of the organism. The only known mechanism for producing adaptation is natural selection.
Perhaps if there is a biologist editing this article, they could comment on this here. Thanks! --Nethgirb 04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
