"Organisms face a succession of environmental challenges as they grow and develop and are equipped with an adaptive plasticity as the phenotype of traits develop in response to the imposed conditions. The developmental norm of reaction for any given trait is essential to the correction of adaptation as it affords a kind of biological insurance or resilience to varying environments."
This is fundamentally incorrect and should be removed. Organisms are not equipped with a magic button—selection may favor the evolution of plasticity, but there are strict requirements that have been modeled extensively (see Via and Lande, etc), and evaluated empirically. The same goes for the following statement on developmental reaction norms, which is unintelligible—there is no one developmental reaction norm. What trait is being discussed? What does 'biological insurance' mean? It is true that developmental biologists may discuss these topics in this manner, but evolutionary biologists would almost all disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.66.163 ( talk) 20:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Should be qualified as evolutionary adaptation. Does it cover temporary adaptaion viz endocrine fluctuations? Wblakesx ( talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I came to this page and saw some idoitic vandislier put "your gay" at the top. I removed it. ( Rhinomantis88 ( talk) 12:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC))
There's a very obvious mistake in the last few lines of the explanation: Transcription is certainly not a one-way process. It's translation that is considered to be one-way only.
Is an evolutionary process in the opening paragraph a pattern or a design?
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.Hipeople
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
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
beware of the usage of "long-term reproductive success" - evolution s short-sighted, and cannot anticipate success. Any adaptation can merely be in response to differences in reproductive success among indidividuals of the currently living population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueil77 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This description is pretty well-done, but it needs verifiable sources and it needs to be placed in the body of the article rather than after the categories and interlanguage links at the bottom. I just want to say "good effort" to the IP user that wrote it. Joie de Vivre 19:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Some examples of Adaptation are The armadillo lizard has a prey adaptation. It has a hard spiky outer body. This is a physical adaptation. Also when it feels that it is in danger it will grab its tail in its mouth and curl up, only exposing its hard and spiky outer body. This protects its soft under belly. This is a behavioral adaptation.
The desert kangaroo rat has predator adaptations. It has big eyes so it can see in the dark. The reason the eyes are big is so they can let in more light to see in the dark. This is a physical adaptation. Also the desert kangaroo rat is nocturnal, hunts during the night. Hunting at night in the desert is cooler than hunting in the hot desert sun. This is a behavioral adaptation.
The javelina has prey and predator adaptations. It has a great sense of smell. The javelina uses its sense of smell to smell for plants and other sources of food. This is a predator and physical adaptation. The javelina also looks for food in groups. This is so if a predator comes they can fight back together. There is safety in numbers. This is a behavioral and prey adaptation.
I think a category concerning adaptation, function and perfection/teleology/design in biology would be good. Category:Evolutionary biology gets enough thrown into it as it is, so this could help break it down a little in one area. Articles to be included that I can think of would be function (biology), adaptation, adaptive value, Darwinian puzzle, adaptationism, spandrel, preadaptation, exaptation, bauplan, Lamarkism, orthogenesis, teleological argument, argument from poor design. I would go ahead and create it myself, but what on earth should it be called? Category:Adaptation, function and perfection? I can't think of anything brief that ties it all together. Richard001 09:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the "does not cite any sources" with "needs more sources". As there are sources cited, just not enough. nut-meg 15:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think someone has deleted something? It says "It is important that i am cool" I don't really understand how to use this completely, so I'm just pointing it out so someone who actually knows what they're doing can come a long and fix it because I don't want to make it worse. 122.105.129.43 ( talk) 05:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is a little unclear at the moment. It concentrates solely on adaptation as a result of natural selection, which of course is important, but I think should also have a section on adaptation over time of an individual, also called acclimatisation or (more in the USA I think) acclimation. For example at the end of http://bruceowen.com/introbiological/20104s12.htm
Also, in the context of natural selection, it is said that being adaptive is insufficient for being an adaptation - there is an example of it adaptations that are no longer adaptive, but not of something that is adaptive but not an adaptation.
Possibly all this was covered in an earlier version, and there needs to be some kind of rollback -- 79.75.3.43 ( talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism had indeed deleted a section. I've added it back with a note about the usage of "adaptation" to mean acclimatization - using the Oxford Dictionary of Science definition, this usage would be valid, and it was current when I was at Uni in the 1980s. -- 79.75.3.43 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The new intro points up the main angles, and provides, I hope, a good foundation for the article. It stresses the tracking aspect of the organism and its habitat. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross has done a great rewrite of the article. I'm going to make some suggestions, and may do some minor editing, but I want to acknowledge that this area is an interest to me (not a profession), and I will not be at all concerned if my ideas are reverted. I have previously tried devising some text to help with the article, but it is surprisingly difficult.
I suggest that the beginning of the article (and perhaps some sections) should be slightly modified to suit a more general reader (say a bright 12-year old student). Consider the General principles section. The word "adaptation" is a noun, and I don't think this section makes it very clear just what it is about a parasite that is an adaptation (of course it's obvious, but the article has to spell it out). The section jumps too quickly towards discussing the distinction between a process and a product, without spending sufficient time on exactly what is meant by adaptation is a process and also adaptation is a product. The mention of vestigial organs should occur later, after settling the issue of exactly what adaptation is (with examples). It might be worth mentioning things which are not adaptations. The issue of whether an ornamental tail is an adaptation needs to be specifically addressed. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The Genetic change section may cause a reader to assume that a habitat change leads to habitat tracking or genetic change (not both), as if some cosmic force decides what is in the best long-term interests of the species. Once again, I don't know quite know how to fix this, but probably need a sentence to the effect that genetic changes will always randomly occur; it's only if they happen to be sufficient for a response to a habitat change that something useful for the future species will result. If the organism is able to move, and if alternative competition-free habitat is available, presumably habitat tracking would almost always be an easier option for changes to habitat on the thousand-year time scale.
The comment about "cryptic physiological activity" needs reworking; perhaps something about how genetic changes may result in visible structures that we would call adaptations, or may adjust physiological activity in a way that suits the changed habitat.
The points under Shifts in function may benefit from more work. The pre-adaptation paragraph raises questions. Probably need to add some words to the first sentence to indicate that it's just a matter of luck, and "ideally suited" is probably an exaggeration. The first sentence says that the conditions have not yet arisen, but the second sentence says a certain rice-grass is better suited than its parent species to their own habitat.
The Preadaptation article exists, but it is currently weak and may not be suitable for a "Main article" link (note that it and exaptation both claim fossil/bird feathers). Need to decide if "preadaptation" is hyphenated. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Lamarck's ideas do not "fail" per se - in fact they work very well in a context such as technological or cultural evolution which does not depend on heredity - it's just that they don't work in biological evolution. Have therefore softened the language accordingly ElectricRay ( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the recent change to the lead by Stevertigo is a little too large to occur without discussion, so I have undone the changes pending comments here. The established and proposed leads are:
Established lead | Proposal |
---|---|
Adaptation is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[1] It is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat.[2] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a characteristic which is especially important for an organism's survival.[3] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection. | In biology, adaptation is an observed effect of the process of evolution —wherein canonical organisms (species) appear to change over time to survive more efficiently within their habitat. The concept of adaptation was developed before the theory of evolution — Lamarck had made some groundbreaking observations which in turn inspired Darwin's insights into the underlying processes. "Adaptation" in reality does not refer to changes within individual organisms, but to the canonical form of the species — changes brought about by a processes of natural selection and punctuated equilibrium (a recent insight into how environmental change influences evolution). Thus, "Adaptation" in the context of biology, is largely a colloquialism for "natural selection" and "punctuated equilibrium."[4][5][6] |
The proposed opening line is better than the old "one of the basic phenomena of biology" because the lead should quickly say what adaptation is, although I'm not sure that "obverved" is needed. Some issues with the proposed text are: usage of "canonical" is obscure and not in article (the lead should inform); discussion of Lamarck/Darwin is unhelpful in the lead (it's incidental history); I don't think the lead needs "recent insight", and possibly the lead (as a summary) should not introduce the two dictionary definitions. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead might be recast to clarify that an individual organism does not adapt in the sense of this article (despite the second sentence which makes that obvious). Perhaps Adaptation is the process whereby organisms in a population become better suited to their habitat. I do not have a problem when reading the current first sentence because I understand what point is being made, however some clarification may be worthwhile. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The terminology is not too precise, so I appreciate you two working on it a bit. "Population" is an improvement, but the latter usage of "organism" is inaccurate. In both cases, the term "species" probably works best: "Adaptation is the process whereby a species (or a sub-population thereof) becomes better suited to its habitat."
Sentences like these "also, the term adaptation may refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival" indicate that the terminology of "adaptation" are not quite scientific (something that should clarified also). And in the end the word "adaptation" is simply a semantic unit for a conceptualization of reactive and successful change within the composition and function of biological life forms.
I may be in fact be confusing things by writing on a level different than most of these sources, but my point rests on the fact that, within any article about inexact conceptualizations, the semantics and etymology for any terminology are fundamental to its definition, and should be entirely primary within the article. A "word" is an encapsulation of a concept or conceptualization. This word "adaptation" has historically been applied to not just bio-physiological change over time, but to behavioural changes over time - both those changes intrinsic to the behaviour of the species and likewise to the behaviour of individuals. All of which just substantiates the fact that the term "adaptation" is an inexact encapsulation that deals largely in non-scientific semantics.
So keep in mind that an article about "species/population change" that does not have "evolution" in its lede presents us with a serious problem. Even if "adaptation" had nothing to do with "evolution" (via a process of "natural selection)" we would still have to employ the latter concepts anyway, just to clarify the usual ambiguities that arise from those normal associations. Regards - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 07:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people tend to separate adaptation from evolution (usually for religious reasons). If adaptation is a subset of evolution I think it should be made a bit clearer on this page.-- Coching ( talk) 01:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"adaptation to climate change, if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation", comes from this source. [1]. Would folks mind a sentence or section in this article about global warming adaptation theories? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross ( talk) 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I checked the reference to Sober (1984), but couldn't find where he made the comment about adaptedness pertaining to history and fitness to future. He does, however, state explicitly that he uses the terms interchangeably (174n4). Did I just miss it, or is this comment entirely false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.229.202 ( talk) 12:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The lead has a very peculiar definition of adaptation and it is not consistent with the definitions given in the citations provided. One of the most highly cited journal articles on this topic is Gould and Vrba's (1982) paper - Exaptation a missing term in the science of form. [2] That paper has been cited more than any other paper on the history of this topic - and continues to be cited for the historical functional perspective on an adaptation. They define adaptation as:
Sober defines adaptation thus:
The classical book on adaptation (George Williams) [4] defines adaptation in a way that is consistent with Sober's definition offered above.
(See: [5], for a review and access to the literature quoted).
This article has a very peculiar definition: "Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat." - This is the weirdest definition of adaptation I have ever come across and it is wrong. This may apply to a group selectionist argument, but even then it falls far short of anything that appears in the literature. Two citations are given for that definition - neither offers that kind of definition. No textbook on evolution offers this kind of definition either, so it needs to go.
I propose an immediate fix that is consistent with the literature, will insert it right way, and others can debate its specifics. "An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection." Thompsma ( talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the WP policy on what is to be used in text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 ( talk) 08:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In terms of adaptation, the term vestigial is rather broad. This section could have a more distinct in adding comments and information on anatomical vestigially, if room allows. Bennett.829 ( talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)bennett.829
I think that there could be some pictures of popular adaptations added such as a giraffe neck or an elephant neck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna.225 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Adaptive evolution and adaptation seem to mean the same thing (1st box in [1]) , but it isn't mentioned on the page. Additionally, in the article :
/info/en/?search=Adaptive_evolution_in_the_human_genome
is the term adaptive evolution mentioned and linked to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adaptive_evolution&redirect=no
this redirects to adaptation.
-- 134.99.112.2 ( talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Perhaps the entire Philosophical issues section could be removed? Anything and everything could and does possibly or possibly not have philosophical issues.
Perhaps one of the most important philosphical issues is whether or not a particular joke is funny or not, because if a joke is not actually funny, then is it actually a joke?
Is this joke really really funny? Should it be moved completely to the teleology topic? Should we continue to cringe at its assumptions?
Should Wikipedia continue to encourage the poor taste of specific dead scientists, who now have no possible chance of defending themselves against any possible suggestions of taselessness?
It is of note that the particular witticism is neither on the pages of Hull or Haldane anywhere mentioned. However it is on the teleology page.
It might also be of note that there is some interesting dichotomous looking material and strange sort of wording in the section generally, eg:
"that a feature evolved by natural selection for a specific reason – and potentially of supernatural intervention – that features and organisms exist because of a deity's conscious intentions"
For something to to have evolved for a specific reason, somebody would have to know what that reason was, and if a person did know what that reason was then they would have to be God, however it would seem that since a mere mortal cannot comprehend the infinite majesty of any sort of supreme deity, for such a mortal to make an assertion that there are specific reasons that features exist, might possibly seem a little presumptious.
In regards to the specific wording, perhaps it might be useful to differentiate the word 'reason' with 'perception' which then might lead to a hypothesis, which could be developed into a Theory, which might look something like the clearest peer reviewed explanation, whith the most currently useful predictive ability, with the most generally availible evidence.
Perhaps talking about teleology at all in the article on adaptation might be best left with "some people argue about the relationship between teleology and science" if the Philisophical Issues of the joke are found to be somehow resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.129.239 ( talk) 21:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The text states:
The following definitions are given by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky:
1. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats
We have a secondary source definition given by an eminent expert in a quality evolutionary biology text. However, the lead states:
Firstly it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits a population of organisms to their environment.
So how did we get from an organism to a population of organisms? Where is the citation for that? William Harris • (talk) • 00:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
"Organisms face a succession of environmental challenges as they grow and develop and are equipped with an adaptive plasticity as the phenotype of traits develop in response to the imposed conditions. The developmental norm of reaction for any given trait is essential to the correction of adaptation as it affords a kind of biological insurance or resilience to varying environments."
This is fundamentally incorrect and should be removed. Organisms are not equipped with a magic button—selection may favor the evolution of plasticity, but there are strict requirements that have been modeled extensively (see Via and Lande, etc), and evaluated empirically. The same goes for the following statement on developmental reaction norms, which is unintelligible—there is no one developmental reaction norm. What trait is being discussed? What does 'biological insurance' mean? It is true that developmental biologists may discuss these topics in this manner, but evolutionary biologists would almost all disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.66.163 ( talk) 20:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Should be qualified as evolutionary adaptation. Does it cover temporary adaptaion viz endocrine fluctuations? Wblakesx ( talk) 18:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
I came to this page and saw some idoitic vandislier put "your gay" at the top. I removed it. ( Rhinomantis88 ( talk) 12:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC))
There's a very obvious mistake in the last few lines of the explanation: Transcription is certainly not a one-way process. It's translation that is considered to be one-way only.
Is an evolutionary process in the opening paragraph a pattern or a design?
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.Hipeople
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
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
beware of the usage of "long-term reproductive success" - evolution s short-sighted, and cannot anticipate success. Any adaptation can merely be in response to differences in reproductive success among indidividuals of the currently living population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueil77 ( talk • contribs) 22:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
This description is pretty well-done, but it needs verifiable sources and it needs to be placed in the body of the article rather than after the categories and interlanguage links at the bottom. I just want to say "good effort" to the IP user that wrote it. Joie de Vivre 19:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Some examples of Adaptation are The armadillo lizard has a prey adaptation. It has a hard spiky outer body. This is a physical adaptation. Also when it feels that it is in danger it will grab its tail in its mouth and curl up, only exposing its hard and spiky outer body. This protects its soft under belly. This is a behavioral adaptation.
The desert kangaroo rat has predator adaptations. It has big eyes so it can see in the dark. The reason the eyes are big is so they can let in more light to see in the dark. This is a physical adaptation. Also the desert kangaroo rat is nocturnal, hunts during the night. Hunting at night in the desert is cooler than hunting in the hot desert sun. This is a behavioral adaptation.
The javelina has prey and predator adaptations. It has a great sense of smell. The javelina uses its sense of smell to smell for plants and other sources of food. This is a predator and physical adaptation. The javelina also looks for food in groups. This is so if a predator comes they can fight back together. There is safety in numbers. This is a behavioral and prey adaptation.
I think a category concerning adaptation, function and perfection/teleology/design in biology would be good. Category:Evolutionary biology gets enough thrown into it as it is, so this could help break it down a little in one area. Articles to be included that I can think of would be function (biology), adaptation, adaptive value, Darwinian puzzle, adaptationism, spandrel, preadaptation, exaptation, bauplan, Lamarkism, orthogenesis, teleological argument, argument from poor design. I would go ahead and create it myself, but what on earth should it be called? Category:Adaptation, function and perfection? I can't think of anything brief that ties it all together. Richard001 09:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the "does not cite any sources" with "needs more sources". As there are sources cited, just not enough. nut-meg 15:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think someone has deleted something? It says "It is important that i am cool" I don't really understand how to use this completely, so I'm just pointing it out so someone who actually knows what they're doing can come a long and fix it because I don't want to make it worse. 122.105.129.43 ( talk) 05:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
This article is a little unclear at the moment. It concentrates solely on adaptation as a result of natural selection, which of course is important, but I think should also have a section on adaptation over time of an individual, also called acclimatisation or (more in the USA I think) acclimation. For example at the end of http://bruceowen.com/introbiological/20104s12.htm
Also, in the context of natural selection, it is said that being adaptive is insufficient for being an adaptation - there is an example of it adaptations that are no longer adaptive, but not of something that is adaptive but not an adaptation.
Possibly all this was covered in an earlier version, and there needs to be some kind of rollback -- 79.75.3.43 ( talk) 09:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism had indeed deleted a section. I've added it back with a note about the usage of "adaptation" to mean acclimatization - using the Oxford Dictionary of Science definition, this usage would be valid, and it was current when I was at Uni in the 1980s. -- 79.75.3.43 ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 10:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The new intro points up the main angles, and provides, I hope, a good foundation for the article. It stresses the tracking aspect of the organism and its habitat. Macdonald-ross ( talk) 21:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross has done a great rewrite of the article. I'm going to make some suggestions, and may do some minor editing, but I want to acknowledge that this area is an interest to me (not a profession), and I will not be at all concerned if my ideas are reverted. I have previously tried devising some text to help with the article, but it is surprisingly difficult.
I suggest that the beginning of the article (and perhaps some sections) should be slightly modified to suit a more general reader (say a bright 12-year old student). Consider the General principles section. The word "adaptation" is a noun, and I don't think this section makes it very clear just what it is about a parasite that is an adaptation (of course it's obvious, but the article has to spell it out). The section jumps too quickly towards discussing the distinction between a process and a product, without spending sufficient time on exactly what is meant by adaptation is a process and also adaptation is a product. The mention of vestigial organs should occur later, after settling the issue of exactly what adaptation is (with examples). It might be worth mentioning things which are not adaptations. The issue of whether an ornamental tail is an adaptation needs to be specifically addressed. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
The Genetic change section may cause a reader to assume that a habitat change leads to habitat tracking or genetic change (not both), as if some cosmic force decides what is in the best long-term interests of the species. Once again, I don't know quite know how to fix this, but probably need a sentence to the effect that genetic changes will always randomly occur; it's only if they happen to be sufficient for a response to a habitat change that something useful for the future species will result. If the organism is able to move, and if alternative competition-free habitat is available, presumably habitat tracking would almost always be an easier option for changes to habitat on the thousand-year time scale.
The comment about "cryptic physiological activity" needs reworking; perhaps something about how genetic changes may result in visible structures that we would call adaptations, or may adjust physiological activity in a way that suits the changed habitat.
The points under Shifts in function may benefit from more work. The pre-adaptation paragraph raises questions. Probably need to add some words to the first sentence to indicate that it's just a matter of luck, and "ideally suited" is probably an exaggeration. The first sentence says that the conditions have not yet arisen, but the second sentence says a certain rice-grass is better suited than its parent species to their own habitat.
The Preadaptation article exists, but it is currently weak and may not be suitable for a "Main article" link (note that it and exaptation both claim fossil/bird feathers). Need to decide if "preadaptation" is hyphenated. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Lamarck's ideas do not "fail" per se - in fact they work very well in a context such as technological or cultural evolution which does not depend on heredity - it's just that they don't work in biological evolution. Have therefore softened the language accordingly ElectricRay ( talk) 04:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
I think the recent change to the lead by Stevertigo is a little too large to occur without discussion, so I have undone the changes pending comments here. The established and proposed leads are:
Established lead | Proposal |
---|---|
Adaptation is one of the basic phenomena of biology.[1] It is the process whereby an organism becomes better suited to its habitat.[2] Also, the term adaptation may refer to a characteristic which is especially important for an organism's survival.[3] For example, the adaptation of horses' teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection. | In biology, adaptation is an observed effect of the process of evolution —wherein canonical organisms (species) appear to change over time to survive more efficiently within their habitat. The concept of adaptation was developed before the theory of evolution — Lamarck had made some groundbreaking observations which in turn inspired Darwin's insights into the underlying processes. "Adaptation" in reality does not refer to changes within individual organisms, but to the canonical form of the species — changes brought about by a processes of natural selection and punctuated equilibrium (a recent insight into how environmental change influences evolution). Thus, "Adaptation" in the context of biology, is largely a colloquialism for "natural selection" and "punctuated equilibrium."[4][5][6] |
The proposed opening line is better than the old "one of the basic phenomena of biology" because the lead should quickly say what adaptation is, although I'm not sure that "obverved" is needed. Some issues with the proposed text are: usage of "canonical" is obscure and not in article (the lead should inform); discussion of Lamarck/Darwin is unhelpful in the lead (it's incidental history); I don't think the lead needs "recent insight", and possibly the lead (as a summary) should not introduce the two dictionary definitions. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead might be recast to clarify that an individual organism does not adapt in the sense of this article (despite the second sentence which makes that obvious). Perhaps Adaptation is the process whereby organisms in a population become better suited to their habitat. I do not have a problem when reading the current first sentence because I understand what point is being made, however some clarification may be worthwhile. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The terminology is not too precise, so I appreciate you two working on it a bit. "Population" is an improvement, but the latter usage of "organism" is inaccurate. In both cases, the term "species" probably works best: "Adaptation is the process whereby a species (or a sub-population thereof) becomes better suited to its habitat."
Sentences like these "also, the term adaptation may refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism's survival" indicate that the terminology of "adaptation" are not quite scientific (something that should clarified also). And in the end the word "adaptation" is simply a semantic unit for a conceptualization of reactive and successful change within the composition and function of biological life forms.
I may be in fact be confusing things by writing on a level different than most of these sources, but my point rests on the fact that, within any article about inexact conceptualizations, the semantics and etymology for any terminology are fundamental to its definition, and should be entirely primary within the article. A "word" is an encapsulation of a concept or conceptualization. This word "adaptation" has historically been applied to not just bio-physiological change over time, but to behavioural changes over time - both those changes intrinsic to the behaviour of the species and likewise to the behaviour of individuals. All of which just substantiates the fact that the term "adaptation" is an inexact encapsulation that deals largely in non-scientific semantics.
So keep in mind that an article about "species/population change" that does not have "evolution" in its lede presents us with a serious problem. Even if "adaptation" had nothing to do with "evolution" (via a process of "natural selection)" we would still have to employ the latter concepts anyway, just to clarify the usual ambiguities that arise from those normal associations. Regards - Stevertigo ( w | t | e) 07:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people tend to separate adaptation from evolution (usually for religious reasons). If adaptation is a subset of evolution I think it should be made a bit clearer on this page.-- Coching ( talk) 01:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
"adaptation to climate change, if necessary, is orders of magnitude more cost-effective than attempts at mitigation", comes from this source. [1]. Would folks mind a sentence or section in this article about global warming adaptation theories? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ ( talk) 02:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Macdonald-ross ( talk) 06:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I checked the reference to Sober (1984), but couldn't find where he made the comment about adaptedness pertaining to history and fitness to future. He does, however, state explicitly that he uses the terms interchangeably (174n4). Did I just miss it, or is this comment entirely false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.189.229.202 ( talk) 12:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
The lead has a very peculiar definition of adaptation and it is not consistent with the definitions given in the citations provided. One of the most highly cited journal articles on this topic is Gould and Vrba's (1982) paper - Exaptation a missing term in the science of form. [2] That paper has been cited more than any other paper on the history of this topic - and continues to be cited for the historical functional perspective on an adaptation. They define adaptation as:
Sober defines adaptation thus:
The classical book on adaptation (George Williams) [4] defines adaptation in a way that is consistent with Sober's definition offered above.
(See: [5], for a review and access to the literature quoted).
This article has a very peculiar definition: "Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat." - This is the weirdest definition of adaptation I have ever come across and it is wrong. This may apply to a group selectionist argument, but even then it falls far short of anything that appears in the literature. Two citations are given for that definition - neither offers that kind of definition. No textbook on evolution offers this kind of definition either, so it needs to go.
I propose an immediate fix that is consistent with the literature, will insert it right way, and others can debate its specifics. "An adaptation in biology is a trait with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and evolved by means of natural selection." Thompsma ( talk) 15:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
What is the WP policy on what is to be used in text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 ( talk) 08:07, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
In terms of adaptation, the term vestigial is rather broad. This section could have a more distinct in adding comments and information on anatomical vestigially, if room allows. Bennett.829 ( talk) 14:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)bennett.829
I think that there could be some pictures of popular adaptations added such as a giraffe neck or an elephant neck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanna.225 ( talk • contribs) 18:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Adaptive evolution and adaptation seem to mean the same thing (1st box in [1]) , but it isn't mentioned on the page. Additionally, in the article :
/info/en/?search=Adaptive_evolution_in_the_human_genome
is the term adaptive evolution mentioned and linked to:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Adaptive_evolution&redirect=no
this redirects to adaptation.
-- 134.99.112.2 ( talk) 12:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Perhaps the entire Philosophical issues section could be removed? Anything and everything could and does possibly or possibly not have philosophical issues.
Perhaps one of the most important philosphical issues is whether or not a particular joke is funny or not, because if a joke is not actually funny, then is it actually a joke?
Is this joke really really funny? Should it be moved completely to the teleology topic? Should we continue to cringe at its assumptions?
Should Wikipedia continue to encourage the poor taste of specific dead scientists, who now have no possible chance of defending themselves against any possible suggestions of taselessness?
It is of note that the particular witticism is neither on the pages of Hull or Haldane anywhere mentioned. However it is on the teleology page.
It might also be of note that there is some interesting dichotomous looking material and strange sort of wording in the section generally, eg:
"that a feature evolved by natural selection for a specific reason – and potentially of supernatural intervention – that features and organisms exist because of a deity's conscious intentions"
For something to to have evolved for a specific reason, somebody would have to know what that reason was, and if a person did know what that reason was then they would have to be God, however it would seem that since a mere mortal cannot comprehend the infinite majesty of any sort of supreme deity, for such a mortal to make an assertion that there are specific reasons that features exist, might possibly seem a little presumptious.
In regards to the specific wording, perhaps it might be useful to differentiate the word 'reason' with 'perception' which then might lead to a hypothesis, which could be developed into a Theory, which might look something like the clearest peer reviewed explanation, whith the most currently useful predictive ability, with the most generally availible evidence.
Perhaps talking about teleology at all in the article on adaptation might be best left with "some people argue about the relationship between teleology and science" if the Philisophical Issues of the joke are found to be somehow resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.223.129.239 ( talk) 21:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The text states:
The following definitions are given by the evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky:
1. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats
We have a secondary source definition given by an eminent expert in a quality evolutionary biology text. However, the lead states:
Firstly it is the dynamic evolutionary process that fits a population of organisms to their environment.
So how did we get from an organism to a population of organisms? Where is the citation for that? William Harris • (talk) • 00:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)