Q: Is adaptation an observable fact of life accepted by philosophers and natural historians from ancient times? ¶
A: Yes, and independently of their views on evolution, but their explanations differed.
Q: Is adaptation primarily a process rather than a physical form or part of a body? ¶
Q: Is adaptation a genetic tracking process? ¶
A: Yes, and which goes on all the time to some extent, but especially when the population cannot or does not move to another, less hostile area.
Q: Is adaptation not just a matter of visible traits: in such parasites critical adaptations take place in the life cycle? ¶
A: Yes, and which is often quite complex.
Q: Are adaptations physical features of an organism? ¶
A: Yes, Behavioral adaptations are inherited behavior chains and the ability to learn.
Q: Was adaptation a retrospective concept since it implied something about the history of a trait? ¶
A: Yes, and whereas fitness predicts a trait's future.
Q: Is adaptation never finally complete? ¶
Q: Is adaptation obviously purposeful: natural selection chooses what works and eliminates what does not? ¶
Q: Is adaptation not always a simple matter where the ideal phenotype evolves for a given external environment? ¶
Q: Was adaptation interpreted as the work of a deity and as evidence for the existence of God? ¶
Q: Is adaptation the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats? ¶
Q: Is adaptation one of the two main processes that explain the observed diversity of species? ¶
A: Yes, such as the different species of Darwin's finches.
Q: Are adaptations termed vestigial? ¶
Q: Is adaptation the heart and soul of evolution? ¶
Q: Was adaptation seen as a fixed relationship between an organism and its habitat? ¶