Does Adaptation Confirm Evolution?

Adaptation is a reality of science, we see it from the smallest of things in life such a viruses all the way to larger animals. Evolution says that adaptations stacked onto each other over millions of years produce a better and new species.
But if that was true where is the entire fossil record of all the changing species?
We are not talking about just one species but thousands, the fossil record shows nothing for thousands of missing links, not just for humans.

The fossil record seems to indicate that indeed animals did adapt but basically they have stayed the same.
Fish and animals such as the Sturgeon and Crocodile thought to have survived from prehistoric time have changed very little.

Adaptation does not rewrite DNA/RNA. Look at the all experiments with fruit fly's where accelerated generations of adaptations and mutations can be observed. In the end they are still fruit flies.

How does a flower,know exactly which scent to produce,to draw an insect to feed on it's pollen,and spread it's genetic material to another plant of it's same species?.

I am not religious BTW.

I do not believe in anything at all.

But my initial question still puzzles me.

Originally posted by chiponbothshoulders
How does a flower,know exactly which scent to produce,to draw an insect to feed on it's pollen,and spread it's genetic material to another plant of it's same species?.

I am not religious BTW.

I do not believe in anything at all.

But my initial question still puzzles me.

Because all the flowers of that species who's scent did NOT attract the right insect to spread its pollen to another flower of the same species DID NOT SURVIVE.

What are you suggesting? What's another rational explanation of how new species appeared on earth all throughout time as we know it?

I just wanted to put out there, that fossils are created under very rare circumstances.. and it's possible that large amounts of time were lost in our history (or the fossils haven't been found yet) to explain the missing links.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Adaptation is a reality of science, we see it from the smallest of things in life such a viruses all the way to larger animals. Evolution says that adaptations stacked onto each other over millions of years produce a better and new species.
But if that was true where is the entire fossil record of all the changing species?
We are not talking about just one species but thousands, the fossil record shows nothing for thousands of missing links, not just for humans.

The fossil record seems to indicate that indeed animals did adapt but basically they have stayed the same.
Fish and animals such as the Sturgeon and Crocodile thought to have survived from prehistoric time have changed very little.

Adaptation does not rewrite DNA/RNA. Look at the all experiments with fruit fly's where accelerated generations of adaptations and mutations can be observed. In the end they are still fruit flies.

Mother nature has had hundreds of millions of years to hide the fossil record, and we've only been judiciously looking for a scant 150 years or so at best - cut humanity some slack.

Mutation and adaptation go hand in hand with survival of the fittest, adaptation can be achieved through a behavioral method or a mutative method.

An insect has slight mutation that kinda makes it look more like a leaf than it's brothers and sisters, so those that kinda look like leaves live longer than the insects of the same species that basically look like an all you can eat bird buffet.

The result: more insects that look even more like leaves as succeeding generations are born and breed, eventually differentiating into an entirely different species.

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


One thing to add onto that is; the lifespan of those insects / smaller creatures, are a very small fraction of our own. They get to retry over and over, maybe even thousands of times in one of our lifetimes. They also have way, way more offspring, to make up for the failed mutations.

evolution is merely an old greek word meaning change
second line

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


We've repeatedly observed, and I've repeatedly shown you, instances of speciation. I can link them again if you'd like, but I'm tired and there's little indication that you've ever read them the other times.

Now, as for adaptation not showing up in DNA...what?

I'm sorry, but adaptations are novel mutations in DNA that happen to aid in survival, not things that develop during the course of a lifetime (except in the case of behaviors). If a species adapts for survival, and the adaptations are passed on form generation to generation, then the adaptation is in the DNA.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

But if that was true where is the entire fossil record of all the changing species?

You're joking right? Here's a hint, Google: Transitional Fossils. You'll find numerous sites with the actual transitional species listed and images of the fossils and information on the species and why it is transitional. Literally five minutes of research puts this tired old canard of Creationists to bed.

The easiest transitional to point to is Tiktaalik which marks the transition between fish and land based amphibians.

Tiktaalik

The fossil record seems to indicate that indeed animals did adapt but basically they have stayed the same.

Which is exactly what we would expect to see if Evolution is true. Cats and Dogs both evolved from the same ancestor which had features that were both feline and canine and some that were unique. Evolution never states that we could get something absurd or ridiculous such as the famous Ray Comfort creation known as the Crocoduck. We would expect to see life staying fundamentally similar. Now we do have examples of some pretty extreme bio-diversity but all present species are descendant from earlier forms that had things in common.

In the end they are still fruit flies.

it really is mentally painful to see someone state something like this as though its a statement AGAINST Evolution. Again Evolution never says that we're going to get something completely separated from its ancestors, that would be ludicrous and stupid. The DNA is being modified over the course of a great many generations and new information through mutation is fairly rare so Evolution is usually just variations of an already existing genetic structure.

If you keep those fruit flies separate however and alter their environment my guess is that in a few million years they won't look anything like what they used to.

Evolution is gradual, just look at the hominid fossils we've found leading up to modern humans, clearly they weren't all that different from us. Again this is what we expect if Evolution is true, it isn't what we expect from magical creation or alien intervention. Yes they are still fruit flies and we humans are STILL apes.



Caniforms
Feliforms
Transitional Fossils

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33

Adaptation does not rewrite DNA/RNA. Look at the all experiments with fruit fly's where accelerated generations of adaptations and mutations can be observed. In the end they are still fruit flies.

Well they are strains of fruitfly. However many of them do not like quite like fruitfly.There is an issue of semantics. some of these physiological adaptations may mean that some strains can only mate within their strain hence in time these could leave to different specis if the experiments are run for long enough.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

The easiest transitional to point to is Tiktaalik which marks the transition between fish and land based amphibians.

That fish isn't so different than a snakehead.
Here is a question is the snakehead evolving or adapting to it's environments?
SnakeHead Fish

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
Here is a question is the snakehead evolving or adapting to it's environments?

It can be both, they aren't mutually exclusive. If a population is adapting to it's environment, then it's likely that their allele frequency is changing, thus evolving.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33

Here is a question is the snakehead evolving or adapting to it's environments?

Evolution by natural selection is adaptation to the environment.

Adaptation IS Evolution. Adaptations occur through changes in population genotype, through either;

a) Horizontal evolution (gene transfer - most common in bacteria, but also to a lesser extent in other organisms as a by-product of viral infection), or

b) vertical evolution (sexual or asexual reproduction with different reproductive outputs for different genotypes).


In fact, adaptation - the process by which a population becomes composed largely of the offspring of ancestral individuals most suited to the pressures imposed upon that particular population - is the long-term outcome of evolution by natural selection, not the other way around.



NB - when changes allowing organisms to survive better are not heritable (i.e., if you take the baby away, it won't have that particular trait), they are referred to as acclimation, not adaption.

NB pt. ii - mutations in Drosophila fruit flies in labs are evolution - the fruit flies have acquired heritable changes - but, until you consider scientists selecting for the novel traits produced by such mutations to be a selective force, these are not adaptive changes in population.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


First of all, we have a VERY complete fossil record. If you're asking for a picture of ALL fossils for all species...that picture would be so big, your computer wouldn't load. The fossil record is VERY complete for a ton of species, including ourselves.



We've witnessed speciation in nature for crying out loud...

I believe OP is confusing two distinct issues.

Adaptation on the organism level that does not rewrite DNA and thus does not get passed (growing muscles when exercising, tanning, memory etc..) is very different from adaptation on the population level due to alelle frequency changing and natural selection (evolution). While they influence each other, they are fundamentally different.

reply to post by Maslo


Actually I have been waiting for somebody like you to make this very point.
Thank You.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Ok, so you'll admit that your question was sort of pointless?

And remember, there's species-wide adaptation, which is evolution and has associated genetic markers.

Originally posted by TheWill
Adaptation IS Evolution. Adaptations occur through changes in population genotype

*Snip*

....Or epigenetic regulation.

reply to post by Thain Esh Kelch


Epigenetics are still [by definition] heritable, though, even if alterations to epigenetics are more reversible in the short term than changes in DNA. So, while I will admit that I overlooked it (it took me six months to learn that it wasn't the same thing as epistasis), I feel that epigenetics are just another substrate for adaptation to occur through evolution.