From the standpoint of "the controversy" the biggest issue is: does one kind of animal give rise to another kind of animal? The adaptation seen in this population of guppies does not contribute to that debate.
Evolution is defined as genetic change over time, sometimes leading to new species, sometimes sub-species, sometimes breeds or races.
correct. i’ve heard it described also as “microevoltion” or “macroevolution”. The former of course is observable...the latter is not. The former is change within a species or kind, and the latter—complete change of species or kind has not been demonstrated.
but they keep graspin’, don’t they? ;-)
‘They are equating Adaptation with Evolution.’
Exactly. Adaptation is not evolution. If the guppies turned into Great Danes, then we’d see an example of evolution. Back to the drawing board...
Amen! The fact that one body of water now has more ‘high-predation’ females **MIGHT** be a reflection of changes in the prominence of certain members of the gene pool AND their more successful reproduction, BUT that is NOT evolution.
If this article is about “evolution” then we should conclude that Swedes (dare I say Aryans) — blonde, fair, blue eyes — represent more highly evolved members of the human race than those in geographies and [older] gene populations in equatorial zones.
That of course is preposterous. We are all Homo sapiens sapiens — just like these are all the same species of ‘guppy’.
This is evolution at work. It is not about creating a new creature, but a more environment oriented species. The fact the female lays less eggs, and has larger babies is an evolution of the DNA that controls the production of eggs. Its a clear change to respond to the environment surrounding it.
Adaptation, on the other hand, doesn't involve changing the basic DNA of a creature, but also works in the circumstances surrounding it. For example: During seasons of heavy snows and lots of moisture, deer have a tendency to have 2-3 foals, during high periods of drought, they tend to have 1 or none.
I’m seeing that more and more often ... trying to pass adaptation off as macro-evolution. Can’t tell if it’s just an under-educated few or another example of the liberal attempt at word redefinition to suit political purpose.