Jump to content

Adaptation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 623007229 by Stomperinky (talk)
Baloug (talk | contribs)
m Philosophical issues: Removed unwarranted italics (not present in the original quote) on "a posteriori" which is a common English word (MOS:FORITA)
 
(766 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Process that fits organisms to their environment}}
{{About|the evolutionary process}}
{{About|the evolutionary process}}
{{distinguish|Adoption|Acclimatization}}
{{Distinguish|Adoption|Acclimatization}}
{{Good article}}
{{use dmy dates|date=March 2022}}
{{Evolutionary biology}}
{{Evolutionary biology}}
{{Complex systems}}
In biology, an '''adaptation''', also called an '''adaptive trait''', is a [[Phenotypic trait|trait]] with a current functional role in the life history of an organism that is maintained and [[evolution|evolved]] by means of [[natural selection]]. '''Adaptation''' refers to both the current state of being adapted and to the dynamic evolutionary process that leads to the adaptation. Adaptations contribute to the [[Fitness (biology)|fitness]] and survival of individuals. Organisms face a succession of environmental challenges as they grow and develop and are equipped with an adaptive [[Phenotypic plasticity|plasticity]] as the [[phenotype]] of traits develop in response to the imposed conditions. The [[Ontogeny|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.


In [[biology]], '''adaptation''' has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic [[evolution]]ary process of [[natural selection]] that fits [[organism]]s to their environment, enhancing their [[Fitness (biology)|evolutionary fitness]]. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a [[phenotypic trait]] or '''adaptive trait''', with a functional role in each individual [[organism]], that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.
== General principles ==
{{quotation|The significance of an adaptation can only be understood in relation to the total biology of the species.|''[[Julian Huxley]]''<ref>Huxley, Julian 1942. ''Evolution the modern synthesis''. Allen & Unwin, London. p449</ref>}}
Adaptation is, first of all, a ''process'', rather than a physical part of a body.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mayr |first1= Ernst |title=The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance |publisher=Belknap Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |year=1982 | edition=1st |isbn=0-674-36445-7 |page= 483 | quote=Adaptation... could no longer be considered a static condition, a product of a creative past, and became instead a continuing dynamic process. }}</ref> An internal [[parasite]] (such as a [[liver fluke|fluke]]) can illustrate the distinction: such a parasite may have a very simple bodily structure, but nevertheless the organism is highly adapted to its specific environment. From this we see that adaptation is not just a matter of visible [[Trait (biology)|traits]]: in such parasites critical adaptations take place in the [[biological life cycle|life-cycle]], which is often quite complex.<ref>Price P.W. 1980. ''The evolutionary biology of parasites''. Princeton.</ref> However, as a practical term, adaptation is often used for the ''product'': those features of a species which result from the process. Many aspects of an animal or plant can be correctly called adaptations, though there are always some features whose function is in doubt. By using '''the term ''adaptation'' for the evolutionary ''process'', and ''adaptive trait''''' '''for the bodily part or function (the product), the two senses of the word may be distinguished'''.<ref>The ''Oxford Dictionary of Science'' defines ''adaptation'' as "Any change in the structure or functioning of an organism that makes it better suited to its environment".</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1=Bowler |first1=P.J. |year=2003 |title=Evolution: the history of an idea |page=10 |isbn=0-520-23693-9 |edition=3rd | publisher= University of California Press | origyear=1984 }}</ref><ref>Patterson C. 1999. ''Evolution''. Natural History Museum, London. p1</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Williams |first1= George C |year= 1966 |title=Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought | quote = Evolutionary adaptation is a phenomenon of pervasive importance in biology |page=5 | isbn= 0-691-02357-3 | publisher= Princeton University Press | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=p_UrcAAACAAJ }}</ref>


Historically, adaptation has been described from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers such as [[Empedocles]] and [[Aristotle]]. In 18th and 19th century [[natural theology]], adaptation was taken as evidence for the existence of a deity. [[Charles Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]] proposed instead that it was explained by natural selection.
Adaptation is one of the two main processes that explain the diverse species we see in biology, such as the different species of [[Darwin's finches]]. The other is [[speciation]] (species-splitting or [[cladogenesis]]), caused by [[geographical isolation]] or some other mechanism.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mayr |first= Ernst |title=Animal species and evolution |publisher=Belknap Press of Harvard University Press |location=Cambridge |year=1963 |pages= |isbn=0-674-03750-2 |edition=1st}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Mayr |first1= Ernst |title=The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance |publisher=Belknap Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |year=1982 | edition=1st |pages= 562&ndash;566|isbn=0-674-36445-7}}</ref> A favorite example used today to study the interplay of adaptation and speciation is the evolution of [[cichlid]] fish in African lakes, where the question of reproductive isolation is much more complex.<ref name="Salzburger">{{cite journal | author = Salzburger W., Mack T., Verheyen E., Meyer A.|year = 2005 | title = Out of Tanganyika: Genesis, explosive speciation, key-innovations and phylogeography of the haplochromine cichlid fishes | journal = BMC Evolutionary Biology | volume = 5 | url = http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-5-17.pdf | format = PDF | doi = 10.1186/1471-2148-5-17 | pages = 17 | pmid = 15723698 | pmc = 554777}}</ref><ref name = "Kornfield">{{cite journal | author = Kornfield, Irv|author2= Smith, Peter| url = http://arjournals.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.163 | title = African Cichlid Fishes: Model Systems for Evolutionary Biology| journal = Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics | volume = 31 | pages = 163 |date=November 2000 | doi= 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.163}}</ref>


Adaptation is related to [[biological fitness]], which governs the rate of evolution as measured by change in [[allele frequencies]]. Often, two or more species co-adapt and [[co-evolve]] as they develop adaptations that interlock with those of the other species, such as with [[flowering plant]]s and [[pollinating insect]]s. In [[mimicry]], species evolve to resemble other species; in [[Müllerian mimicry|mimicry]] this is a mutually beneficial co-evolution as each of a group of strongly defended species (such as wasps able to sting) come to advertise their defenses in the same way. Features evolved for one purpose may be [[Exaptation|co-opted]] for a different one, as when the insulating [[feather]]s of dinosaurs were co-opted for [[bird flight]].
Adaptation is not always a simple matter, where the ideal phenotype evolves for a given external environment. An organism must be viable at all stages of its development and at all stages of its evolution. This places ''constraints'' on the evolution of development, behaviour and structure of organisms. The main constraint, over which there has been much debate, is the requirement that each genetic and phenotypic change during evolution should be relatively small, because developmental systems are so complex and interlinked. However, it is not clear what "relatively small" should mean, for example [[polyploidy]] in plants is a reasonably common large genetic change.<ref>Stebbins, G. Ledyard, Jr. 1950. ''Variation and evolution in plants''. Columbia. ''Polyploidy'', chapters 8 and 9.</ref> The origin of [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] [[symbiosis]] is a more dramatic example.<ref>Margulis, Lynn (ed) 1991. ''Symbiosis as a source of evolutionary innovation: speciation and morphogenesis'' MIT. ISBN 0-262-13269-9</ref>


Adaptation is a major topic in the [[philosophy of biology]], as it concerns function and purpose ([[Teleology in biology|teleology]]). Some biologists try to avoid terms which imply purpose in adaptation, not least because it suggests a deity's intentions, but others note that adaptation is necessarily purposeful.
All adaptations help organisms survive in their [[ecological niche]]s.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Hutchinson |first1=G. Evelyn | year= 1965 | title=The ecological theatre and the evolutionary play | publisher=Yale | isbn=0-300-00586-5 }} The niche is the central concept in evolutionary ecology; see especially part II The niche: an abstractly inhabited hypervolume. p26&ndash;78</ref> These adaptive traits may be structural, behavioral or physiological. Structural adaptations are physical features of an organism (shape, body covering, armament; and also the [[comparative anatomy|internal organization]]). [[Behaviour]]al adaptations are composed of inherited behaviour chains and/or the ability to learn: behaviours may be inherited in detail ([[instincts]]), or a capacity for [[learning]] may be inherited (see [[neuropsychology]]). Examples: [[Foraging|searching for food]], [[mating]], [[Animal communication|vocalizations]]. [[Physiological]] adaptations permit the organism to perform special functions (for instance, making [[venom]], secreting [[slime]], [[phototropism]]); but also more general functions such as [[human development (biology)|growth]] and [[developmental biology|development]], [[temperature regulation]], [[ions|ionic]] balance and other aspects of [[homeostasis]]. Adaptation, then, affects all aspects of the life of an organism.


==History ==
=== Definitions ===
{{Main|History of evolutionary thought}}
The following definitions are mainly due to [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]].
:1. ''Adaptation'' is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its [[habitat]] or habitats.<ref name="Dobzhansky T 1968">{{cite book | last1 = Dobzhansky | first1 = T. | last2=Hecht |first2=MK |last3=Steere | first3= WC |year = 1968 | chapter = On some fundamental concepts of evolutionary biology | url = | title = Evolutionary biology volume 2 | pages = 1–34 | publisher=Appleton-Century-Crofts | location=New York | edition=1st }}</ref>
:2. ''Adaptedness'' is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Dobzhansky |first1=T. |year=1970 | title=Genetics of the evolutionary process | publisher=Columbia |location= N.Y. |pages=4&ndash;6, 79&ndash;82, 84&ndash;87 | isbn = 0-231-02837-7 }}</ref>
:3. An ''adaptive trait'' is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.2307/2406099 | last1 = Dobzhansky | first1 = T. | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 1956 | title = Genetics of natural populations XXV. Genetic changes in populations of ''Drosophila pseudoobscura'' and ''Drosphila persimilis'' in some locations in California | jstor = 2406099| journal = Evolution | volume = 10 | issue = 1| pages = 82–92 }}</ref>


Adaptation is an observable fact of life accepted by philosophers and natural historians from ancient times, independently of their views on [[evolution]], but their explanations differed. [[Empedocles]] did not believe that adaptation required a [[final cause]] (a purpose), but thought that it "came about naturally, since such things survived." [[Aristotle]] did believe in final causes, but assumed that [[Aristotle's biology#Scale of being|species were fixed]].<ref>{{cite book |author-link=Armand Marie Leroi |last=Leroi |first=Armand Marie |title=The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science |title-link=Aristotle's Lagoon |publisher=Bloomsbury |date=2015 |isbn=978-1-4088-3622-4 |pages=91–92, 273, 288}}</ref>
=== Adaptedness and fitness ===
{{Main|Fitness (biology)}}


[[File:Lamarck's Two-Factor Theory.svg|thumb|upright=1.7|The second of [[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]]'s two factors (the first being a complexifying force) was an adaptive force that causes animals with a given [[body plan]] to adapt to circumstances by [[inheritance of acquired characteristics]], creating a diversity of [[species]] and [[genus|genera]].]]
From the above definitions, it is clear that there is a relationship between adaptedness and ''[[Fitness (biology)|fitness]]'' (a key [[population genetics]] concept). Differences in fitness between [[genotype]]s predict the rate of evolution by natural selection. Natural selection changes the relative frequencies of alternative phenotypes, insofar as they are [[heritable]].<ref name="Endler 33">{{cite book | last1=Endler |first1= John A |year= 1986 |title=Natural selection in the wild |chapterurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=MYk1XbelDssC&lpg=PA27&pg=PA33#v=onepage&q&f=false | pages=33&ndash;51 | chapter=Fitness and adaptation | isbn=0-691-08387-8 | publisher=Princeton University Press }}</ref> Although the two are connected, the one does not imply the other: a phenotype with high adaptedness may not have high fitness. Dobzhansky mentioned the example of the [[Californian redwood]], which is highly adapted, but a [[relict]] species in danger of extinction.<ref name="Dobzhansky T 1968" /> [[Elliott Sober]] commented that adaptation was a retrospective concept since it implied something about the history of a trait, whereas fitness predicts a trait's future.<ref name=Sober2>{{cite book |last=Sober |first= Elliott |title=The nature of selection: evolutionary theory in philosophical focus |publisher=MIT Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |year=1984 |pages= |isbn=0-262-19232-2 |authorlink=Elliott Sober}}</ref><sup>p210</sup>


In [[natural theology]], adaptation was interpreted as the work of a deity and as evidence for the existence of God.<ref>{{harvnb|Desmond|1989|pp=31–32, fn 18}}</ref> [[William Paley]] believed that organisms were perfectly adapted to the lives they led, an argument that shadowed [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz]], who had argued that God had brought about "[[best of all possible worlds|the best of all possible worlds]]." [[Voltaire]]'s satire [[Candide|Dr. Pangloss]]<ref>{{cite book |author=Voltaire |title=Candide |publisher=Cramer et al |date=1759}}</ref> is a parody of this optimistic idea, and [[David Hume]] also argued against design.<ref>{{harvnb|Sober|1993|loc=chpt. 2}}</ref> [[Charles Darwin]] broke with the tradition by emphasising the flaws and limitations which occurred in the animal and plant worlds.<ref>{{harvnb|Darwin|1872|p=[http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=425&itemID=F391&viewtype=side 397: "Rudimentary, Atrophied, and Aborted Organs"]}}</ref>
:1. Relative fitness. The average contribution to the next generation by a genotype or a class of genotypes, relative to the contributions of other genotypes in the population.<ref name=Fut>Futuyma D.J. 1986. ''Evolution''. 2nd ed, Sinauer, Sunderland, Massachusetts.</ref><sup>p552</sup> This is also known as ''Darwinian fitness'', ''selective coefficient'', and other terms.
:2. Absolute fitness. The absolute contribution to the next generation by a genotype or a class of genotypes. Also known as the [[Malthusian parameter]] when applied to the population as a whole.<ref name="Endler 33" />
:3. Adaptedness. The extent to which a phenotype fits its local ecological niche. This can sometimes be tested through a [[Transplant experiment|reciprocal transplant]] experiment.


[[Jean-Baptiste Lamarck]] proposed a tendency for organisms to become more complex, moving up a ladder of progress, plus "the influence of circumstances", usually expressed as ''use and disuse''.<ref>{{cite book |last=Bowler |first=Peter J. |author-link=Peter J. Bowler |title=Evolution: The History of an Idea |date=1989 |publisher=University of California Press |isbn=978-0-520-06386-0 |page=[https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl/page/86 86] |edition=Revised |orig-year=1983 |url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl/page/86 }}</ref> This second, subsidiary element of his theory is what is now called [[Lamarckism]], a proto-evolutionary hypothesis of the [[inheritance of acquired characteristics]], intended to explain adaptations by natural means.<ref>See, for example, the discussion in {{harvnb|Bowler|2003|pp=86–95}}: "Whatever the true nature of Lamarck's theory, it was his mechanism of adaptation that caught the attention of later naturalists." (p. 90)</ref>
== Brief history ==
{{Main|History of evolutionary thought}}


Other natural historians, such as [[Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon|Buffon]], accepted adaptation, and some also accepted evolution, without voicing their opinions as to the mechanism. This illustrates the real merit of Darwin and [[Alfred Russel Wallace]], and secondary figures such as [[Henry Walter Bates]], for putting forward a mechanism whose significance had only been glimpsed previously. A century later, experimental field studies and breeding experiments by people such as [[E. B. Ford]] and [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]] produced [[Evidence of common descent|evidence that natural selection]] was not only the 'engine' behind adaptation, but was a much stronger force than had previously been thought.<ref name="Provine 1986">{{harvnb|Provine|1986}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Ford|1975}}</ref><ref name="Orr_2005">{{cite journal |last=Orr |first=H. Allen |author-link=H. Allen Orr |date=February 2005 |title=The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history |journal=[[Nature Reviews Genetics]] |volume=6 |issue=2 |pages=119–127 |doi=10.1038/nrg1523 |pmid=15716908|s2cid=17772950 }}</ref>
Adaptation is a fact of life that has been accepted by many of the great thinkers who have tackled the world of living organisms. It is their explanations of how adaptation arises that separates these thinkers. A few of the most significant ideas:<ref>references and details in their articles</ref>
*[[Empedocles]] did not believe that adaptation required a final cause (~ purpose), but "came about naturally, since such things survived". [[Aristotle]], however, did believe in final causes.
*In [[natural theology]], adaptation was interpreted as the work of a deity, even as evidence for the existence of God.<ref>[[Adrian Desmond|Desmond, Adrian]] 1989. ''The politics of evolution''. Chicago. p31/32, footnote 18.</ref> [[William Paley]] believed that organisms were perfectly adapted to the lives they lead, an argument that shadowed [[Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz|Leibniz]], who had argued that God had brought about the [[best of all possible worlds]]. [[Voltaire]]'s Dr Pangloss<ref>In ''[[Candide]], ou l'optimisme''.</ref> is a parody of this optimistic idea, and [[David Hume|Hume]] also argued against design.<ref>Sober, Elliott 1993. ''Philosophy of biology''. Oxford. Chapter 2</ref> The ''Bridgewater Treatises'' are a product of natural theology, though some of the authors managed to present their work in a fairly neutral manner. The series was lampooned by [[Robert Knox]], who held quasi-evolutionary views, as the ''Bilgewater Treatises''. Darwin broke with the tradition by emphasising the flaws and limitations which occurred in the animal and plant worlds.<ref>Darwin, Charles. 1872. ''The origin of species''. 6th edition, p397: Rudimentary, atrophied and aborted organs.</ref>
[[Image:Jean-Baptiste Lamarck.jpg|thumb|right|120px|Lamarck]]
*[[Lamarck]]'s is a proto-evolutionary theory of the [[inheritance of acquired traits]], whose main purpose is to explain adaptations by natural means.<ref>see, for example, the discussion in Bowler, Peter H. 2003. ''Evolution: the history of an idea''. 3rd ed, California. p86&ndash;95, especially "Whatever the true nature of Lamark's theory, it was his mechanism of adaptation that caught the attention of later naturalists". (p90)</ref> He proposed a tendency for organisms to become more complex, moving up a ladder of progress, plus "the influence of circumstances", usually expressed as ''use and disuse''. His evolutionary ideas, and those of [[Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire|Geoffroy]], fail because they cannot be reconciled with heredity. This was known even before [[Gregor Mendel|Mendel]] by medical men interested in human races ([[William Charles Wells|Wells]], [[Sir William Lawrence, 1st Baronet|Lawrence]]), and especially by [[August Weismann|Weismann]].


==General principles ==
Many other students of natural history, such as [[Georges-Louis Leclerc, Comte de Buffon|Buffon]], accepted adaptation, and some also accepted evolution, without voicing their opinions as to the mechanism. This illustrates the real merit of [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] and [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace]], and secondary figures such as [[Henry Walter Bates|Bates]], for putting forward a mechanism whose significance had only been glimpsed previously. A century later, experimental field studies and breeding experiments by people such as [[E.B. Ford|Ford]] and [[Theodosius Dobzhansky|Dobzhansky]] produced evidence that natural selection was not only the 'engine' behind adaptation, but was a much stronger force than had previously been thought.<ref name="Provine 1986">Provine, William 1986. ''Sewall Wright and evolutionary biology''. University of Chicago Press.</ref><ref>Ford E.B. 1975. ''Ecological genetics'', 4th ed. Chapman and Hall, London.
</ref><ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1038/nrg1523 | last1 = Orr | first1 = H. | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 2005 | title = The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history | url = | journal = Nature Reviews Genetics | volume = 6 | issue = 2| pages = 119–127 | pmid=15716908}}</ref>


{{Blockquote|''The significance of an adaptation can only be understood in relation to the total biology of the species.''|[[Julian Huxley]]|''[[Evolution: The Modern Synthesis]]''<ref>{{harvnb|Huxley|1942|p=449}}</ref>}}
== Types of adaptations==
<blockquote>"Adaptation is the heart and soul of evolution." -''Niles Eldredge''<ref>Eldredge, Niles 1995. ''Reinventing Darwin: the great evolutionary debate''. Wiley N.Y. p33</ref></blockquote>


=== Changes in habitat ===
===What adaptation is===
Before [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]], adaptation was seen as a fixed relationship between an organism and its habitat. It was not appreciated that as the [[climate]] changed, so did the habitat; and as the habitat changed, so did the biota. Also, habitats are subject to changes in their [[Biota (ecology)|biota]]: for example, [[Invasive species|invasions]] of species from other areas. The relative numbers of species in a given habitat are always changing. Change is the rule, though much depends on the speed and degree of the change.


Adaptation is primarily a process rather than a physical form or part of a body.<ref>{{harvnb|Mayr|1982|p=483}}: "Adaptation... could no longer be considered a static condition, a product of a creative past, and became instead a continuing dynamic process."</ref> An internal [[parasite]] (such as a [[liver fluke]]) can illustrate the distinction: such a parasite may have a very simple bodily structure, but nevertheless the organism is highly adapted to its specific environment. From this we see that adaptation is not just a matter of visible traits: in such parasites critical adaptations take place in the [[biological life cycle|life cycle]], which is often quite complex.<ref>{{harvnb |Price |1980}}</ref> However, as a practical term, "adaptation" often refers to a ''product'': those features of a [[species]] which result from the process. Many aspects of an animal or plant can be correctly called adaptations, though there are always some features whose function remains in doubt. By using the term ''adaptation'' for the evolutionary ''process'', and ''adaptive trait'' for the bodily part or function (the product), one may distinguish the two different senses of the word.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |editor1-last=Daintith |editor1-first=John |editor2-last=Martin |editor2-first=Elizabeth A. |encyclopedia=A Dictionary of Science |title=adaptation |orig-year=First published 1984 as ''Concise Science Dictionary'' |edition=6th |year=2010 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |series=Oxford Paperback Reference |isbn=978-0-19-956146-9 |lccn=2010287468 |oclc=444383696 |page=13 |quote=Any change in the structure or functioning of successive generations of a population that makes it better suited to its environment.}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb |Bowler |2003 |p=10}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb |Patterson |1999 |p=1}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb |Williams |1966 |p=5}}: "Evolutionary adaptation is a phenomenon of pervasive importance in biology."</ref>
When the habitat changes, three main things may happen to a resident population: habitat tracking, genetic change or [[extinction]]. In fact, all three things may occur in sequence. ''Of these three effects, only genetic change brings about adaptation''.


Adaptation is one of the two main processes that explain the observed diversity of species, such as the different species of [[Darwin's finches]]. The other process is [[speciation]], in which new species arise, typically through [[reproductive isolation]].<ref>{{harvnb |Mayr |1963}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb |Mayr |1982 |pp=562–566}}</ref> An example widely used today to study the interplay of adaptation and speciation is the evolution of [[cichlid]] fish in African lakes, where the question of reproductive isolation is complex.<ref name="Salzburger">{{cite journal |last1=Salzburger |first1=Walter |last2=Mack |first2=Tanja |last3=Verheyen |first3=Erik |last4=Meyer |first4=Axel |author-link4=Axel Meyer |date=21 February 2005 |title=Out of Tanganyika: Genesis, explosive speciation, key-innovations and phylogeography of the haplochromine cichlid fishes |journal=[[BMC Evolutionary Biology]] |volume=5 |pages=17 |number=17 |doi=10.1186/1471-2148-5-17 |pmc=554777 |pmid=15723698 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Kornfield">{{cite journal |last1=Kornfield |first1=Irv |last2=Smith |first2=Peter F. |date=November 2000 |title=African Cichlid Fishes: Model Systems for Evolutionary Biology |journal=[[Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics|Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics]] |volume=31 |pages=163–196 |doi=10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.163}}</ref>
==== Habitat tracking ====
When a habitat changes, the most common thing to happen is that the resident population moves to another locale which suits it; this is the typical response of flying insects or oceanic organisms, who have wide (though not unlimited) opportunity for movement.<ref>Eldredge, Niles 1986. ''Time frames: the rethinking of Darwinian evolution and the theory of punctuated equilibria''. p136, ''Of glaciers and beetles''.</ref> This common response is called ''habitat tracking''. It is one explanation put forward for the periods of apparent stasis in the fossil record (the [[punctuated equilibrium]] thesis).<ref>Eldredge, Niles 1995. ''Reinventing Darwin: the great evolutionary debate''. Wiley, N.Y. p64</ref>


Adaptation is not always a simple matter where the ideal phenotype evolves for a given environment. An organism must be viable at all stages of its development and at all stages of its evolution. This places ''constraints'' on the evolution of development, behaviour, and structure of organisms. The main constraint, over which there has been much debate, is the requirement that each [[Genetics|genetic]] and phenotypic change during evolution should be relatively small, because developmental systems are so complex and interlinked. However, it is not clear what "relatively small" should mean, for example [[polyploid]]y in plants is a reasonably common large genetic change.<ref>{{harvnb|Stebbins|1950|loc=chs. 8 and 9}}</ref> The origin of [[eukaryote|eukaryotic]] [[endosymbiosis]] is a more dramatic example.<ref>{{harvnb|Margulis|Fester|1991}}</ref>
==== Genetic change ====
Genetic change is what occurs in a population when natural selection acts on the [[genetic variability]] of the population; moreover, some mutations may create genetic variation that will lead to differing characteristics of offspring and hence abet adaptation.<ref>C.Michael Hogan. 2010. [http://www.eoearth.org/article/Mutation?topic=49496 ''Mutation''. ed. E.Monosson and C.J.Cleveland. Encyclopedia of Earth. National Council for Science and the Environment. Washington DC]</ref>
The first pathways of enzyme-based metabolism may have been parts of [[purine]] nucleotide metabolism, with previous metabolic pathways being part of the ancient [[RNA world hypothesis|RNA world]]. By this means, the population adapts genetically to its circumstances.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1038/nrg1523 | last1 = Orr | first1 = H. | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 2005 | title = The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history | url = http://pages.uoregon.edu/pphil/courses/genarch/orr2005.pdf | journal = Nature Reviews Genetics | volume = 6 | issue = 2| pages = 119–127 | pmid=15716908 }}</ref> Genetic changes may result in visible structures, or may adjust [[Physiology|physiological activity]] in a way that suits the habitat.


All adaptations help organisms survive in their [[ecological niche]]s. The adaptive traits may be structural, behavioural or [[Physiology|physiological]]. Structural adaptations are physical features of an organism, such as shape, body covering, armament, and [[comparative anatomy|internal organization]]. [[Ethology|Behavioural]] adaptations are inherited systems of behaviour, whether inherited in detail as [[instinct]]s, or as a [[neuropsychology|neuropsychological]] capacity for [[learning]]. Examples include [[Foraging|searching for food]], [[mating]], and [[Animal communication|vocalizations]]. Physiological adaptations permit the organism to perform special functions such as making [[venom]], secreting [[Snail slime|slime]], and [[phototropism]], but also involve more general functions such as [[developmental biology|growth and development]], [[Thermoregulation|temperature regulation]], [[ions|ionic]] balance and other aspects of [[homeostasis]]. Adaptation affects all aspects of the life of an organism.<ref>{{harvnb|Hutchinson|1965}}. The niche is the central concept in evolutionary ecology; see especially part II: "The niche: an abstractly inhabited hypervolume." (pp. 26–78)</ref>
It is now clear that habitats and biota do frequently change. Therefore, it follows that the process of adaptation is never finally complete.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mayr |first1= Ernst |title=The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance |publisher=Belknap Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |year=1982 | edition=1st |isbn=0-674-36445-7 |pages= }} p481 (and sequence) tells how Darwin's ideas on adaptation developed as he came to appreciate it as "a continuing dynamic process" (bottom p483).</ref> Over time, it may happen that the environment changes little, and the species comes to fit its surroundings better and better. On the other hand, it may happen that changes in the environment occur relatively rapidly, and then the species becomes less and less well adapted. Seen like this, adaptation is a genetic ''tracking process'', which goes on all the time to some extent, but especially when the population cannot or does not move to another, less hostile area. Also, to a greater or lesser extent, the process affects every species in a particular [[ecosystem]].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Sterelny |first1=K. |last2= Griffiths |first2=P.E. |year= 1999 |title=Sex and death: an introduction to philosophy of biology |publisher= University of Chicago Press |page=217 | isbn= 0-226-77304-3 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1=Freeman |first1=S. |last2= Herron |first2=J.C. |year=2007 |title=Evolutionary analysis |publisher= Pearson Education |page= 364 |isbn= 0-13-227584-8 }}</ref>


The following definitions are given by the evolutionary biologist [[Theodosius Dobzhansky]]:
[[Leigh Van Valen|Van Valen]] thought that even in a stable environment, competing species had to constantly adapt to maintain their relative standing. This became known as the [[Red Queen's Hypothesis|Red Queen's hypothesis]].
:1. ''Adaptation'' is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its [[habitat]] or habitats.<ref name="Dobzhansky T 1968">{{harvnb |Dobzhansky |1968 |pp=1–34}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Wang |first1=G |title=Analysis of Complex Diseases: A Mathematical Perspective |publisher=Taylor Francis |year=2014 |chapter=Chapter 5.6—Zero Order Adaptivity |pages=69 |isbn=978-1-4665-7223-2 |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=DmDSBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA69 |access-date=31 March 2018 |archive-date=30 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240630095058/https://books.google.com/books?id=DmDSBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA69#v=onepage&q&f=false |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Climate Change Impact on Livestock: Adaptation and Mitigation |publisher=Springer |editor1-last=Sejian |editor1-first=V. |editor2-last=Gaughan |editor2-first=J. |editor3-last=Baumgard |editor3-first=L. |editor4-last=Prasad |editor4-first=C. |year=2015 |pages=515 |isbn=978-81-322-2265-1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=D-G9BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA515 |access-date=31 March 2018 |archive-date=24 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200724234323/https://books.google.com/books?id=D-G9BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA515 |url-status=live }}</ref>
:2. ''Adaptedness'' is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.<ref>{{harvnb |Dobzhansky |1970 |pp=4–6; 79–82}}</ref>
:3. An ''adaptive trait'' is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Dobzhansky |first=Theodosius |author-link=Theodosius Dobzhansky |date=March 1956 |title=Genetics of Natural Populations. XXV. Genetic Changes in Populations of ''Drosophila pseudoobscura'' and ''Drosophila persimilis'' in Some Localities in California |journal=[[Evolution (journal)|Evolution]] |volume=10 |issue=1 |pages=82–92 |doi=10.2307/2406099 |jstor=2406099}}</ref>


===What adaptation is not===
=== Intimate relationships: co-adaptations ===
[[File:Falke vor LKW.jpg|thumb|The common kestrel has adapted successfully to urban areas]]
{{Main|Co-adaptation}}


Adaptation differs from flexibility, [[acclimatization]], and learning, all of which are changes during life which are not inherited. Flexibility deals with the relative capacity of an organism to maintain itself in different habitats: its degree of [[Generalist and specialist species|specialization]]. Acclimatization describes automatic physiological adjustments during life;<ref name="Rymer2013">{{cite journal |last1=Rymer |first1=Tasmin |last2=Pillay |first2=Neville |last3=Schradin |first3=Carsten |title=Extinction or Survival? Behavioral Flexibility in Response to Environmental Change in the African Striped Mouse Rhabdomys |journal=Sustainability |volume=5 |issue=1 |year=2013 |doi=10.3390/su5010163 |pages=163–186|doi-access=free }}</ref> learning means alteration in behavioural performance during life.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gross |first=Richard |title=Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour |edition=6th |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Cle1Fcr_6_QC&pg=PT335 |year=2012 |publisher=Hodder |isbn=978-1-4441-6436-7 |page=335 |access-date=31 March 2018 |archive-date=30 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240630095059/https://books.google.com/books?id=Cle1Fcr_6_QC&pg=PT335 |url-status=live }}</ref>
In [[co-evolution]], where the existence of one species is tightly over bound up with the life of another species, new or 'improved' adaptations which occur in one species are often followed by the appearance and spread of corresponding features in the other species. There are many examples of this; the idea emphasises that the life and death of living things is intimately connected, not just with the physical environment, but with the life of other species. These relationships are intrinsically dynamic, and may continue on a trajectory for millions of years, as has the relationship between flowering plants and insects ([[pollination]]).


Flexibility stems from [[phenotypic plasticity]], the ability of an organism with a given [[genotype]] (genetic type) to change its [[phenotype]] (observable characteristics) in response to changes in its [[habitat]], or to move to a different habitat.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Price |first1=Trevor D. |last2=Qvarnström |first2=Anna |last3=Irwin |first3=Darren E. |date=July 2003 |title=The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution |journal=[[Proceedings of the Royal Society#Proceedings of the Royal Society B|Proceedings of the Royal Society B]] |volume=270 |issue=1523 |pages=1433–1440 |doi=10.1098/rspb.2003.2372 |pmc=1691402 |pmid=12965006}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Price |first=Trevor D. |date=June 2006 |title=Phenotypic plasticity, sexual selection and the evolution of colour patterns |journal=[[The Journal of Experimental Biology]] |volume=209 |issue=12 |pages=2368–2376 |doi=10.1242/jeb.02183 |pmid=16731813|doi-access= }}</ref> The degree of flexibility is inherited, and varies between individuals. A highly specialized animal or plant lives only in a well-defined habitat, eats a specific type of food, and cannot survive if its needs are not met. Many [[herbivore]]s are like this; extreme examples are [[koala]]s which depend on ''[[Eucalyptus]]'', and [[giant panda]]s which require [[bamboo]]. A generalist, on the other hand, eats a range of food, and can survive in many different conditions. Examples are humans, rats, crabs and many carnivores. The ''tendency'' to behave in a specialized or exploratory manner is inherited—it is an adaptation. Rather different is developmental flexibility: "An animal or plant is developmentally flexible if when it is raised in or transferred to new conditions, it changes in structure so that it is better fitted to survive in the new environment," writes the [[evolutionary biology|evolutionary biologist]] [[John Maynard Smith]].<ref>{{harvnb|Maynard Smith|1993|p=33}}</ref>
Pollinator constancy: these honeybees selectively visit flowers from only one species, as can be seen by the colour of the pollen in their baskets:
<gallery>
File:Plumpollen0060.jpg
File:Bee PD foto explained1.jpg
File:Carnica bee on Hylotelephium 'Herbstfreude'.jpg
</gallery>
<!--[[Image:TwoBees.jpg|thumb|right|400px|'''Pollinator constancy''': these two honeybees, active at the same time and place, selectively visit flowers from only one species, as can be seen by the colour of the pollen in their baskets]]-->


If humans move to a higher altitude, respiration and physical exertion become a problem, but after spending time in high altitude conditions they acclimatize to the reduced partial pressure of oxygen, such as by producing more [[red blood cell]]s. The ability to acclimatize is an adaptation, but the acclimatization itself is not. The reproductive rate declines, but deaths from some tropical diseases also go down. Over a longer period of time, some people are better able to reproduce at high altitudes than others. They contribute more heavily to later generations, and gradually by natural selection the whole population becomes adapted to the new conditions. This has demonstrably occurred, as the observed performance of long-term communities at higher altitude is significantly better than the performance of new arrivals, even when the new arrivals have had time to acclimatize.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Moore |first1=Lorna G. |last2=Regensteiner |first2=Judith G. |date=October 1983 |title=Adaptation to High Altitude |journal=[[Annual Review of Anthropology]] |volume=12 |pages=285–304 |doi=10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.001441}}</ref>
*[[Co-extinction]]
*[[Infection]]-resistance
*[[Mimicry]]
*[[Mutualism (biology)|Mutualism]]
*[[Host (biology)|Parasite-host]]
*[[Pollination syndrome]]
*[[Predator-prey]]
*[[Symbiosis]]


===Adaptedness and fitness ===
The gut contents, wing structures, and mouthpart morphologies of fossilized [[Coleoptera|beetles]] and [[Diptera|flies]] suggest that they acted as early pollinators. The association between [[Coleoptera|beetles]] and [[angiosperm]]s during the early [[Cretaceous]] period led to parallel radiations of angiosperms and insects into the late Cretaceous. The evolution of [[nectaries]] in late Cretaceous flowers signals the beginning of the [[Mutualism (biology)|mutualism]] between [[hymenoptera]]ns and angiosperms.<ref>{{cite book | isbn=0-674-30685-6
{{main|Fitness (biology)|Fitness landscape}}
|publisher= Belknap Press | last1=Stebbins |first1= G. Ledyard, Jr. |year=1974 |title=Flowering plants: evolution above the species level |authorlink=G. Ledyard Stebbins }}</ref>


There is a relationship between adaptedness and the concept of fitness used in [[population genetics]]. Differences in fitness between genotypes predict the rate of evolution by natural selection. Natural selection changes the relative frequencies of alternative phenotypes, insofar as they are [[Heritability|heritable]].<ref name="Endler 33">{{harvnb|Endler|1986|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=MYk1XbelDssC&pg=PA33 33–51]}}</ref> However, a phenotype with high adaptedness may not have high fitness. Dobzhansky mentioned the example of the [[Sequoia sempervirens|Californian redwood]], which is highly adapted, but a [[Relict (biology)|relict]] species in danger of [[extinction]].<ref name="Dobzhansky T 1968" /> [[Elliott Sober]] commented that adaptation was a retrospective concept since it implied something about the history of a trait, whereas fitness predicts a trait's future.<ref name="Sober2">{{harvnb|Sober|1984|p=210}}</ref>
==== Mimicry ====
{{Main|Mimicry}}
[[Image:Wasp mimicry.jpg|thumb|right|A and B show real wasps; the rest are mimics: three [[hoverflies]] and one beetle.]]


:1. Relative fitness. The average contribution to the next generation by a genotype or a class of genotypes, relative to the contributions of other genotypes in the population.<ref name="Futuyma_Evolution">{{harvnb|Futuyma|1986|p=552}}</ref> This is also known as ''Darwinian fitness'', ''[[selection coefficient]]'', and other terms.
[[Henry Walter Bates]]' work on Amazonian [[butterflies]] led him to develop the first scientific account of [[mimicry]], especially the kind of mimicry which bears his name: [[Batesian mimicry]].<ref>Carpenter GDH and Ford EB 1933. ''Mimicry''. Methuen, London.</ref> This is the mimicry by a palatable species of an unpalatable or noxious species. A common example seen in temperate gardens is the [[hover-fly]], many of which – though bearing no sting – mimic the warning colouration of [[hymenoptera]] ([[wasps]] and [[bees]]). Such mimicry does not need to be perfect to improve the survival of the palatable species.<ref>{{cite book | last1=Wickler |first1=W. |year= 1968 | title=Mimicry in plants and animals | isbn=0-07-070100-8 | publisher=McGraw-Hill | edition=1st }}</ref>
:2. Absolute fitness. The absolute contribution to the next generation by a genotype or a class of genotypes. Also known as the [[Malthusian growth model|Malthusian parameter]] when applied to the population as a whole.<ref name="Endler 33" /><ref>{{harvnb|Fisher|1930|p=25}}</ref>
:3. Adaptedness. The extent to which a phenotype fits its local ecological niche. Researchers can sometimes test this through a [[Transplant experiment|reciprocal transplant]].<ref>{{cite journal |last1=de Villemereuil |first1=P. |last2=Gaggiotti |first2=O. E. |last3=Mouterde |first3=M. |last4=Till-Bottraud |first4=I |title=Common garden experiments in the genomic era: new perspectives and opportunities |journal=Heredity |volume=116 |issue=3 |date=21 October 2015 |doi=10.1038/hdy.2015.93 |pmid=26486610 |pages=249–254 |pmc=4806574 }}</ref>


[[File:fitness-landscape-cartoon.png|thumb|In this sketch of a [[fitness landscape]], a population can evolve by following the arrows to the adaptive peak at point B, and the points A and C are local optima where a population could become trapped.]]
Bates, [[Alfred Russel Wallace|Wallace]] and [[Fritz Müller|Müller]] believed that Batesian and [[Müllerian mimicry]] provided evidence for the action of [[natural selection]], a view which is now standard amongst biologists.<ref>Moon H.P. 1976. ''Henry Walter Bates FRS 1825-1892: explorer, scientist and darwinian''. Leicestershire Museums, Leicester.</ref> All aspects of this situation can be, and have been, the subject of research.<ref>{{cite book | isbn=0-19-852859-0 |last1=Ruxton |first1= GD |last2= Sherratt |first2=TN |last3= Speed |first3=MP |year=2004 |authorlink=Graeme Ruxton |title=Avoiding attack: the evolutionary ecology of crypsis, warning signals and mimicry |publisher=Oxford University Press }}</ref> Field and experimental work on these ideas continues to this day; the topic connects strongly to [[speciation]], [[genetics]] and [[Evolutionary developmental biology|development]].<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00342.x | last1 = Mallet | first1 = James | year = 2001 | title = The speciation revolution | url = http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/malletjeb01.pdf |format=PDF | journal = J Evolutionary Biology | volume = 14 | issue = 6| pages = 887–8 }}</ref>


[[Sewall Wright]] proposed that populations occupy ''adaptive peaks'' on a fitness landscape. To evolve to another, higher peak, a population would first have to pass through a valley of maladaptive intermediate stages, and might be "trapped" on a peak that is not optimally adapted.<ref>{{harvnb|Wright|1932|pp=[http://www.esp.org/books/6th-congress/facsimile/contents/6th-cong-p356-wright.pdf 356–366]}}</ref>
=== The basic machinery: internal adaptations ===
There are some important adaptations to do with the overall coordination of the systems in the body. Such adaptations may have significant consequences. Examples, in [[vertebrates]], would be [[temperature regulation]], or improvements in [[brain function]], or an effective [[immune system]]. An example in plants would be the development of the reproductive system in [[flowering plants]].<ref>Stebbins, G. Ledyard, Jr. 1974. ''Flowering plants: evolution above the species level''. Harvard. Contains an extensive analysis of the evolution of adaptations in the radiation of [[Angiosperms]].</ref> Such adaptations may make the [[clade]] ([[monophyletic]] group) more viable in a wide range of habitats. The acquisition of such major adaptations has often served as the spark for [[adaptive radiation]], and huge success over long periods of time for a whole group of animals or plants.


==Types==
=== Compromise and conflict between adaptations ===
<blockquote>"It is a profound truth that Nature does not know best; that genetical evolution... is a story of waste, makeshift, compromise and blunder." -''Peter Medawar''.<ref>Medawar, Peter 1960. ''The future of Man''. Methuen, London.</ref></blockquote>


{{Blockquote|Adaptation is the heart and soul of evolution.|[[Niles Eldredge]]|''Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory''<ref>{{harvnb|Eldredge|1995|p=33}}</ref>}}
All adaptations have a downside: horse legs are great for running on grass, but they can't scratch their backs; mammals' hair helps temperature, but offers a niche for [[ectoparasites]]; the only flying penguins do is under water. Adaptations serving different functions may be mutually destructive. Compromise and makeshift occur widely, not perfection. Selection pressures pull in different directions, and the adaptation that results is some kind of compromise.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1126/science.860134 | last1 = Jacob | first1 = Francois | year = 1977 | title = Evolution and tinkering | url = | journal = Science | volume = 196 | issue = 4295| pages = 1161–1166 | pmid = 860134 }}</ref>


===Changes in habitat ===
<blockquote>Since the phenotype as a whole is the target of selection, it is impossible to improve simultaneously all aspects of the phenotype to the same degree. ''Ernst Mayr''.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mayr |first1= Ernst |title=The growth of biological thought: diversity, evolution, and inheritance |publisher=Belknap Press |location=Cambridge, Mass |year=1982 | edition=1st |isbn=0-674-36445-7 |pages= 589 }}</ref></blockquote>


Before Darwin, adaptation was seen as a fixed relationship between an organism and its habitat. It was not appreciated that as the [[climate]] changed, so did the habitat; and as the habitat changed, so did the [[Biota (ecology)|biota]]. Also, habitats are subject to changes in their biota: for example, [[Invasive species|invasions]] of species from other areas. The relative numbers of species in a given habitat are always changing. Change is the rule, though much depends on the speed and degree of the change.
Consider the antlers of the [[Irish elk]], (often supposed to be far too large; in [[deer]] antler size has an [[allometric]] relationship to body size). Obviously antlers serve positively for defence against predators, and to score victories in the annual [[rut (mammalian reproduction)|rut]]. But they are costly in terms of resource. Their size during the [[last glacial period]] presumably depended on the relative gain and loss of reproductive capacity in the population of elks during that time.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = It | first1 = S. J.| last2 = Gould | first2 = Stephen J. | year = 1974 | title = Origin and function of 'bizarre' structures - antler size and skull size in 'Irish Elk', ''Megaloceros giganteus'' | jstor = 2407322| journal = [[Evolution (journal)|Evolution]] | volume = 28 | issue = 2| pages = 191–220 | doi = 10.2307/2407322 }}</ref> Another example: [[camouflage]] to avoid detection is destroyed when vivid colors are displayed at mating time. Here the risk to life is counterbalanced by the necessity for reproduction.
When the habitat changes, three main things may happen to a resident population: habitat tracking, genetic change or extinction. In fact, all three things may occur in sequence. Of these three effects only genetic change brings about adaptation.
When a habitat changes, the resident population typically moves to more suitable places; this is the typical response of flying insects or oceanic organisms, which have wide (though not unlimited) opportunity for movement.<ref>{{harvnb|Eldredge|1985|p=136: "Of glaciers and beetles"}}</ref> This common response is called ''habitat tracking''. It is one explanation put forward for the periods of apparent stasis in the [[Fossil#Dating|fossil record]] (the [[punctuated equilibrium]] theory).<ref>{{harvnb|Eldredge|1995|p=64}}</ref>


=== Genetic change ===
Stream-dwelling salamanders, such as [[Caucasian Salamander]] or [[Gold-striped salamander]] have very slender, long bodies, perfectly adapted to life at the banks of fast small rivers and mountain [[brook]]s. Elongated body protects their [[larvae]] from being washed out by current. However, elongated body increases risk of desiccation and decreases dispersal ability of the salamanders; it also negatively affects their fecundity. As a result, [[fire salamander]], less perfectly adapted to the mountain brook habitats, is in general more successful, have a higher fecundity and broader geographic range.<ref>Tarkhnishvili, D. N., 1994. Interdependences between populational, developmental and morphological features of the Caucasian salamander, ''Mertensiella caucasica''. - ''Mertensiella'' (Bonn), '''4''': 315-325</ref>


Without [[mutation]], the ultimate source of all [[genetic variation]], there would be no genetic changes and no subsequent adaptation through evolution by natural selection. Genetic change occurs in a population when mutation increases or decreases in its initial frequency followed by random genetic drift, migration, recombination or natural selection act on this genetic variation.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Hogan |first=C. Michael |editor-last=Monosson |editor-first=Emily |encyclopedia=[[Encyclopedia of Earth]] |title=Mutation |url=https://www.eoearth.org/view/article/159530/ |access-date=18 August 2015 |date=12 October 2010 |publisher=Environmental Information Coalition, [[National Council for Science and the Environment]] |oclc=72808636 |archive-date=24 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924044631/http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/159530/ |url-status=live }}</ref> One example is that the first pathways of enzyme-based metabolism at the very origin of life on Earth may have been co-opted components of the already-existing [[Purine metabolism|purine nucleotide metabolism]], a metabolic pathway that evolved in an ancient [[RNA world]]. The co-option requires new mutations and through natural selection, the population then adapts genetically to its present circumstances.<ref name="Orr_2005" /> Genetic changes may result in entirely new or gradual change to visible structures, or they may adjust physiological activity in a way that suits the habitat. The varying shapes of the beaks of Darwin's finches, for example, are driven by adaptive mutations in the ALX1 gene.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lamichhaney |first1=Sangeed |last2=Berglund |first2=Jonas |date=19 February 2015 |title=Evolution of Darwin's finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing |journal=Nature |volume=518 |issue=7539 |pages=371–375 |doi=10.1038/nature14181 |pmid=25686609 |bibcode=2015Natur.518..371L |s2cid=4462253 }}</ref> The coat color of different wild mouse species matches their environments, whether black lava or light sand, owing to adaptive mutations in the [[melanocortin 1 receptor]] and other [[melanin]] pathway genes.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Nachman |first1=Michael W. |last2=Hoekstra |first2=Hopi E. |last3=D'Agostino |first3=Susan L. |date=2003-04-29 |title=The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |language=en |volume=100 |issue=9 |pages=5268–5273 |doi=10.1073/pnas.0431157100 |issn=0027-8424 |pmid=12704245 |pmc=154334 |bibcode=2003PNAS..100.5268N |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hoekstra |first1=Hopi E. |last2=Hirschmann |first2=Rachel J. |last3=Bundey |first3=Richard A. |last4=Insel |first4=Paul A. |last5=Crossland |first5=Janet P. |date=7 July 2006 |title=A Single Amino Acid Mutation Contributes to Adaptive Beach Mouse Color Pattern |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1126121 |journal=Science |volume=313 |issue=5783 |pages=101–104 |doi=10.1126/science.1126121 |pmid=16825572 |bibcode=2006Sci...313..101H |s2cid=33376626 |access-date=18 December 2021 |archive-date=30 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240630095102/https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1126121 |url-status=live }}</ref> Physiological resistance to the heart poisons ([[cardiac glycoside]]s) that [[Monarch butterfly|monarch butterflies]] store in their bodies to protect themselves from predators<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Brower |first1=Lincoln P. |last2=Glazier |first2=Susan C. |date=4 April 1975 |title=Localization of Heart Poisons in the Monarch Butterfly |url=|journal=Science |volume=188 |issue=4183 |pages=19–25 |doi=10.1126/science.188.4183.19 |pmid=17760150 |bibcode=1975Sci...188...19B |s2cid=44509809 |issn=0036-8075}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last=Agrawal |first=Anurag |url=|title=Monarchs and Milkweed |date=7 March 2017 |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |doi=10.1515/9781400884766 |isbn=978-1-4008-8476-6}}</ref> are driven by adaptive mutations in the target of the poison, the [[Na+/K+-ATPase|sodium pump]], resulting in target site insensitivity.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Reichstein |first1=T. |last2=von Euw |first2=J. |last3=Parsons |first3=J. A. |last4=Rothschild |first4=Miriam |date=30 August 1968 |title=Heart Poisons in the Monarch Butterfly |url=|journal=Science |volume=161 |issue=3844 |pages=861–866 |doi=10.1126/science.161.3844.861 |pmid=4875496 |bibcode=1968Sci...161..861R |issn=0036-8075}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Holzinger |first1=F. |last2=Frick |first2=C. |last3=Wink |first3=M. |date=21 December 1992 |title=Molecular basis for the insensitivity of the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) to cardiac glycosides |journal=FEBS Letters |volume=314 |issue=3 |pages=477–480 |doi=10.1016/0014-5793(92)81530-y |issn=0014-5793 |pmid=1334851 |s2cid=7427771|doi-access=free |bibcode=1992FEBSL.314..477H }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Karageorgi |first1=Marianthi |last2=Groen |first2=Simon C. |last3=Sumbul |first3=Fidan |last4=Pelaez |first4=Julianne N. |last5=Verster |first5=Kirsten I. |last6=Aguilar |first6=Jessica M. |last7=Hastings |first7=Amy P. |last8=Bernstein |first8=Susan L. |last9=Matsunaga |first9=Teruyuki |last10=Astourian |first10=Michael |last11=Guerra |first11=Geno |display-authors=3 |date=2 October 2019 |title=Genome editing retraces the evolution of toxin resistance in the monarch butterfly |url=|journal=Nature |volume=574 |issue=7778 |pages=409–412 |doi=10.1038/s41586-019-1610-8 |pmid=31578524 |pmc=7039281 |issn=0028-0836}}</ref> These same adaptive mutations and similar changes at the same amino acid sites were found to evolve in a parallel manner in distantly related insects that feed on the same plants, and even in a bird that feeds on monarchs through [[convergent evolution]], a hallmark of adaptation.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Dobler |first1=S. |last2=Dalla |first2=S. |last3=Wagschal |first3=V. |last4=Agrawal |first4=A. A. |date=23 July 2012 |title=Community-wide convergent evolution in insect adaptation to toxic cardenolides by substitutions in the Na,K-ATPase |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences |volume=109 |issue=32 |pages=13040–13045 |doi=10.1073/pnas.1202111109 |pmid=22826239 |pmc=3420205 |issn=0027-8424 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Groen |first1=Simon C. |last2=Whiteman |first2=Noah K. |date=November 2021 |title=Convergent evolution of cardiac-glycoside resistance in predators and parasites of milkweed herbivores |url=|journal=Current Biology |volume=31 |issue=22 |pages=R1465–R1466 |doi=10.1016/j.cub.2021.10.025 |pmid=34813747 |pmc=8892682 |bibcode=2021CBio...31R1465G |s2cid=244485686 |issn=0960-9822}}</ref> Convergence at the gene-level across distantly related species can arise because of evolutionary constraint.<ref>{{cite book |last=Losos |first=Jonathan B. |url=http://worldcat.org/oclc/1024108339 |title=Improbable destinies: fate, chance, and the future of evolution |date=7 August 2018 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-0-525-53413-6 |oclc=1024108339 |access-date=18 December 2021 |archive-date=30 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240630095104/https://search.worldcat.org/title/1024108339 |url-status=live }}</ref>
[[Image:Pfau imponierend.jpg|thumb|200px|An [[Indian Peacock]]'s train<br />in full display]]


Habitats and biota do frequently change over time and space. Therefore, it follows that the process of adaptation is never fully complete.<ref>{{harvnb|Mayr|1982|pp=481–483}}: This sequence tells how Darwin's ideas on adaptation developed as he came to appreciate it as "a continuing dynamic process."</ref> Over time, it may happen that the environment changes little, and the species comes to fit its surroundings better and better, resulting in stabilizing selection. On the other hand, it may happen that changes in the environment occur suddenly, and then the species becomes less and less well adapted. The only way for it to climb back up that fitness peak is via the introduction of new genetic variation for natural selection to act upon. Seen like this, adaptation is a genetic ''tracking process'', which goes on all the time to some extent, but especially when the population cannot or does not move to another, less hostile area. Given enough genetic change, as well as specific demographic conditions, an adaptation may be enough to bring a population back from the brink of extinction in a process called [[evolutionary rescue]]. Adaptation does affect, to some extent, every species in a particular [[ecosystem]].<ref>{{harvnb|Sterelny|Griffiths|1999|p=217}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Freeman|Herron|2007|p=364}}</ref>
The [[peacock]]'s ornamental train (grown anew in time for each mating season) is a famous adaptation. It must reduce his maneuverability and flight, and is hugely conspicuous; also, its growth costs food resources. Darwin's explanation of its advantage was in terms of [[sexual selection]]: "it depends on the advantage which certain individuals have over other individuals of the same sex and species, in exclusive relation to reproduction".<ref>Darwin, Charles 1871. ''The Descent of Man and selection in relation to sex''. Murray, London.</ref> The kind of sexual selection represented by the peacock is called 'mate choice', with an implication that the process selects the more fit over the less fit, and so has survival value.<ref>The case was treated by Fisher R.A. 1930. ''Genetical theory of natural selection''. Oxford. p134&ndash;139.</ref> The recognition of sexual selection was for a long time in abeyance, but has been rehabilitated.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cronin |first1= Helen |year= 1991 |title=The ant and the peacock: altruism and sexual selection from Darwin to the present day | publisher=Cambridge University Press | isbn = 0-521-32937-X }}</ref> In practice, the blue peafowl ''[[Pavo cristatus]]'' is a pretty successful species, with a big natural range in India, so the overall outcome of their mating system is quite viable.


[[Leigh Van Valen]] thought that even in a stable environment, because of antagonistic species interactions and limited resources, a species must constantly had to adapt to maintain its relative standing. This became known as the [[Red Queen hypothesis]], as seen in host-[[parasite]] interactions.<ref>{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/sciadv.1501548 |pmid=26973878 |pmc=4783124 |last=Rabajante |first=J. |title=Host-parasite Red Queen dynamics with phase-locked rare genotypes |journal=[[Science Advances]] |year=2016 |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=e1501548 |display-authors=etal |bibcode=2016SciA....2E1548R}}</ref>
The conflict between the size of the human [[foetus|foetal]] brain at birth, (which cannot be larger than about 400ccs, else it will not get through the mother's [[pelvis]]) and the size needed for an adult brain (about 1400ccs), means the brain of a newborn child is quite immature. The most vital things in human life (locomotion, speech) just have to wait while the brain grows and matures. That is the result of the birth compromise. Much of the problem comes from our upright [[bipedal]] stance, without which our pelvis could be shaped more suitably for birth. [[Neanderthals]] had a similar problem.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Rosenberg | first1 = K.R. | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 2005 | title = The evolution of modern human childbirth | url = | journal = Am J. Physical Anthropology | volume = 35 | issue = | pages = 89–124 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.1330350605 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Friedlander | first1 = Nancy | authorlink2 = David K. Jordan | last2 = David | first2 = K. | last3 = Jordan | first3 = | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 1995 | title = Obstetric implications of Neanderthal robusticity and bone density |journal=Human Evolution | url = |doi=10.1007/BF02435519 | volume = 9 | issue = 4| pages = 331–342 }}</ref><ref>Miller, Geoffrey 2007. Brain evolution. In Gangestad S.W. and Simpson J.A. (eds) ''The evolution of mind: fundamental questions and controversies''. Guildford.</ref>


Existing genetic variation and mutation were the traditional sources of material on which natural selection could act. In addition, [[horizontal gene transfer]] is possible between organisms in different species, using mechanisms as varied as [[gene cassette]]s, [[plasmid]]s, [[transposon]]s and viruses such as [[bacteriophage]]s.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gogarten |first1=J. Peter |last2=Doolittle |first2=W. Ford |date=1 December 2002 |title=Prokaryotic Evolution in Light of Gene Transfer |journal=Molecular Biology and Evolution |volume=19 |issue=12 |pages=2226–2238 |doi=10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004046 |pmid=12446813 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=de la Cruz |first1=Fernando |last2=Davies |first2=Julian |date=1 March 2000 |title=Horizontal gene transfer and the origin of species: lessons from bacteria |journal=Trends in Microbiology |volume=8 |issue=3 |pages=128–133 |doi=10.1016/s0966-842x(00)01703-0 |pmid=10707066}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |title=Genetics: From Genes to Genomes |last1=Hartwell |first1=Leland |last2=Goldberg |first2=Michael |last3=Fischer |first3=Janice |last4=Hood |first4=Lee |last5=Aquardo |first5=Charles |last6=Bejcek |first6=Bruce |publisher=McGraw- Hill Education |year=2015 |isbn=978-0-07-352531-0 |edition=5th |location=New York City |pages=475–479}}</ref>
== Shifts in function ==
<blockquote>Adaptation and function are two aspects of one problem. ''Julian Huxley''<ref>Huxley, Julian 1942. ''Evolution the modern synthesis''. Allen & Unwin, London. p417</ref></blockquote>


=== Pre-adaptations ===
=== Co-adaptation ===
{{main|Co-adaptation}}
This occurs when a species or population has characteristics which (by chance) are suited for conditions which have not yet arisen. For example, the [[polyploid]] rice-grass ''Spartina townsendii'' is better adapted than either of its parent species to their own habitat of saline marsh and mud-flats.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Huskins | first1 = C.L. | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 1931 | title = The origin of ''Spartina townsendii'' | url = | journal = Genetica | volume = 12 | issue = 6| page = 531 |doi=10.1007/BF01487665}}</ref> [[White Leghorn]] [[fowl]] are markedly more resistant to [[vitamin B]] deficiency than other breeds.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Lamoreux | first1 = W.F | last2 = Hutt | first2 = F.B. | year = 1939 | title = Breed differences in resistance to a deficiency in vitamin B<sub>1</sub> in the fowl | url = | journal = J. Agric. Res. Washington | volume = 58 | issue = | pages = 307–315 }}</ref> On a plentiful diet there is no difference, but on a restricted diet this preadaptation could be decisive.


[[File:Plumpollen0060.jpg|thumb|Pollinating insects are [[Co-adaptation|co-adapted]] with flowering plants.]]
Pre-adaptation may occur because a natural population carries a huge quantity of [[genetic variability]].<ref name="Dobzhansky T 1981">[Dobzhansky T.] 1981. ''Dobzhansky's genetics of natural populations''. eds Lewontin RC, Moore JA, Provine WB and Wallace B. Columbia University Press N.Y.</ref> In [[diploid]] [[eukaryotes]], this is a consequence of the system of [[sexual reproduction]], where mutant alleles get partially shielded, for example, by the selective advantage of [[heterozygotes]]. Micro-organisms, with their huge populations, also carry a great deal of genetic variability.


In [[coevolution]], where the existence of one species is tightly bound up with the life of another species, new or 'improved' adaptations which occur in one species are often followed by the appearance and spread of corresponding features in the other species. In other words, each species triggers reciprocal natural selection in the other. These [[co-adaptation]]al relationships are intrinsically dynamic, and may continue on a trajectory for millions of years, as has occurred in the relationship between [[flowering plant]]s and [[pollination|pollinating]] insects.<ref>{{cite book |title=Coevolution |editor1=Futuyma, D. J. |editor-link1=Douglas J. Futuyma |editor2=M. Slatkin |year=1983 |publisher=[[Sinauer Associates]] |isbn=978-0-87893-228-3 |pages=whole book}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Thompson |first= J. N. |title=The Coevolutionary Process |year=1994 |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-79759-5 |pages=whole book}}</ref>
The first experimental evidence of the pre-adaptive nature of genetic variants in micro-organisms was provided by [[Salvador Luria]] and [[Max Delbrück]] who developed [[Luria-Delbruck experiment|fluctuation analysis]], a method to show the random fluctuation of pre-existing genetic changes that conferred resistance to phage in the bacterium ''[[Escherichia coli]]''.


=== Mimicry ===
=== Co-option of existing traits: exaptation ===
{{Main|Exaptation}}
{{main|Mimicry}}
[[File:Wasp mimicry.jpg|thumb|Images A and B show real [[wasps]]; the others show [[Batesian mimicry|Batesian mimics]]: three [[Hoverfly|hoverflies]] and one [[beetle]].]]


Bates' work on Amazonian [[Butterfly|butterflies]] led him to develop the first scientific account of [[mimicry]], especially the kind of mimicry which bears his name: [[Batesian mimicry]].<ref>{{harvnb|Carpenter|Ford|1933}}</ref> This is the mimicry by a palatable species of an unpalatable or noxious species (the model), gaining a selective advantage as [[predator]]s avoid the model and therefore also the mimic. Mimicry is thus an [[anti-predator adaptation]]. A common example seen in temperate gardens is the [[hoverfly]] (Syrphidae), many of which—though bearing no sting—mimic the [[warning coloration]] of aculeate [[Hymenoptera]] ([[wasp]]s and [[bee]]s). Such mimicry does not need to be perfect to improve the survival of the palatable species.<ref>{{harvnb|Wickler|1968}}</ref>
The classic example is the [[Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles|ear ossicles of mammals]], which we know from palaeontological and embryological studies originated in the upper and lower jaws and the hyoid of their [[Synapsid]] ancestors, and further back still were part of the gill arches of early fish.<ref>Egdar F. Allin and James A. Hopson 1992. Evolution of the auditory system in Synapsida ("Mammal-like reptiles" and primitive mammals) as seen in the fossil record. Section IV (Mammals), Chapter 28, pages 587-614 in ''The evolutionary biology of hearing'' edited by Douglas B. Webster, Richard R. Fay, and Arthur N. Popper. Springer-Verlag. ISBN 0-387-97588-8.</ref><ref>[[Neil Shubin]] 2008. ''Your Inner Fish: a journey into the 3.5-billion-year history of the human body'' Pantheon Books 2008. ISBN 978-0-375-42447-2. Chapter 10, "Ears"
</ref> We owe this esoteric knowledge to the comparative anatomists, who, a century ago, were at the cutting edge of evolutionary studies.<ref>Panchen, Alec. 1992. ''Classification, evolution and the nature of biology''. Cambridge. Chapter 4 Homology and the evidence for evolution.</ref> The word ''[[exaptation]]'' was coined to cover these shifts in function, which are surprisingly common in evolutionary history.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Gould | first1 = Stephen Jay | last2 = Vrba | first2 = Elizabeth S. | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 1982 | title = Exaptation &ndash; a missing term in the science of form | jstor =2400563 | journal = Paleobiology | volume = 8 | issue = 1| pages = 4–15 }}</ref> The origin of wings from feathers that were originally used for
temperature regulation is a more recent discovery (see [[Feathered dinosaurs#List of dinosaur genera with preserved feathers|feathered dinosaurs]]).


Bates, Wallace and [[Fritz Müller]] believed that Batesian and [[Müllerian mimicry]] provided [[coloration evidence for natural selection|evidence for the action of natural selection]], a view which is now standard amongst biologists.<ref>{{harvnb|Moon|1976}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Ruxton|Sherratt|Speed|2004}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Mallet |first=James |author-link=James Mallet |date=November 2001 |title=The speciation revolution |url=http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/malletjeb01.pdf |journal=[[Journal of Evolutionary Biology]] |volume=14 |issue=6 |pages=887–888 |doi=10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00342.x |s2cid=36627140 |doi-access=free |access-date=28 December 2010 |archive-date=3 March 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160303203454/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/malletjeb01.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>
== Related issues ==


=== Non-adaptive traits ===
=== Trade-offs ===
All adaptations have a downside: horse legs are great for running on grass, but they cannot scratch their backs; [[mammal]]s' hair helps temperature, but offers a niche for [[Parasitism#Types|ectoparasites]]; the only flying penguins do is under water. Adaptations serving different functions may be mutually destructive. Compromise and makeshift occur widely, not perfection. Selection pressures pull in different directions, and the adaptation that results is some kind of compromise.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Jacob |first=François |s2cid=29756896 |author-link=François Jacob |date=10 June 1977 |title=Evolution and Tinkering |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=196 |issue=4295 |pages=1161–1166 |doi=10.1126/science.860134 |pmid=860134 |bibcode=1977Sci...196.1161J }}</ref>{{Blockquote|It is a profound truth that Nature does not know best; that genetical evolution... is a story of waste, makeshift, compromise and blunder.|[[Peter Medawar]]|''The Future of Man''<ref>{{harvnb|Medawar|1960}}</ref>}}
Some traits do not appear to be adaptive, that is, they appear to have a neutral or even deleterious effect on fitness in the current environment. Because genes have [[pleiotropic]] effects, not all traits may be functional (i.e. [[Spandrel (biology)|spandrels]]). Alternatively, a trait may have been adaptive at some point in an organism's evolutionary history, but a change in habitats caused what used to be an adaptation to become unnecessary or even a hindrance ([[maladaptation]]s). Such adaptations are termed [[vestigial]].


{{Blockquote|Since the phenotype as a whole is the target of selection, it is impossible to improve simultaneously all aspects of the phenotype to the same degree.|[[Ernst Mayr]]|''[[The Growth of Biological Thought|The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance]]''<ref>{{harvnb|Mayr|1982|p=589}}</ref>}}
==== Vestigial organs ====
{{Main|Vestigiality}}


==== Examples ====
Many organisms have vestigial organs, which are the remnants of fully functional structures in their ancestors. As a result of changes in lifestyle the organs became redundant, and are either not functional or reduced in functionality. With the loss of function goes the loss of positive selection, and the subsequent accumulation of deleterious [[mutations]]. Since any structure represents some kind of cost to the general economy of the body, an advantage may accrue from their elimination once they are not functional. Examples: [[wisdom teeth]] in humans; the loss of pigment and functional eyes in cave fauna; the loss of structure in [[Intestinal parasite|endoparasites]].<ref>Charles Darwin was the first to put forward such ideas: Barrett P.H. (ed) 1987. ''Charles Darwin's notebooks'' (1836&ndash;1844). Cambridge.</ref>
Consider the antlers of the [[Irish elk]], (often supposed to be far too large; in [[deer]] antler size has an [[Allometry|allometric]] relationship to body size). Antlers serve positively for defence against [[Predation|predator]]s, and to score victories in the annual [[rut (mammalian reproduction)|rut]]. But they are costly in terms of resources. Their size during the [[last glacial period]] presumably depended on the relative gain and loss of reproductive capacity in the population of elks during that time.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |date=June 1974 |title =The Origin and Function of 'Bizarre' Structures: Antler Size and Skull Size in the 'Irish Elk,' ''Megaloceros giganteus'' |journal=Evolution |volume=28 |issue=2 |pages=191–220 |doi=10.2307/2407322 |pmid=28563271 |jstor=2407322}}</ref> As another example, [[camouflage]] to avoid detection is destroyed when vivid [[animal coloration|coloration]] is displayed at mating time. Here the risk to life is counterbalanced by the necessity for reproduction.<ref name="Garcia2013">{{cite journal |last1=Garcia |first1=J. E. |last2=Rohr |first2=D. |last3=Dyer |first3=A. G. |title=Trade-off between camouflage and sexual dimorphism revealed by UV digital imaging: the case of Australian Mallee dragons (Ctenophorus fordi) |journal=Journal of Experimental Biology |volume=216 |issue=22 |year=2013 |doi=10.1242/jeb.094045 |pmid=23997198 |pages=4290–4298|doi-access=free }}</ref>


Stream-dwelling salamanders, such as [[Caucasian salamander]] or [[Gold-striped salamander]] have very slender, long bodies, perfectly adapted to life at the banks of fast small rivers and mountain [[Stream|brook]]s. Elongated body protects their [[larva]]e from being washed out by current. However, elongated body increases risk of desiccation and decreases dispersal ability of the salamanders; it also negatively affects their [[fecundity]]. As a result, [[fire salamander]], less perfectly adapted to the mountain brook habitats, is in general more successful, have a higher fecundity and broader geographic range.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Tarkhnishvili |first=David N. |year=1994 |title=Interdependences between Populational, Developmental and Morphological Features of the Caucasian salamander, ''Mertensiella caucasica'' |url=http://eprints.iliauni.edu.ge/usr/share/eprints3/data/814/1/Caucasian%20Salamander%20Ecological%20Constraints.pdf |journal=Mertensiella |volume=4 |pages=315–325 |access-date=18 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084347/http://eprints.iliauni.edu.ge/usr/share/eprints3/data/814/1/Caucasian%20Salamander%20Ecological%20Constraints.pdf |archive-date=4 March 2016 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
=== Fitness landscapes ===
{{Main|Fitness landscape}}


[[File:Pfau imponierend.jpg|thumb|left|An [[Indian peafowl|Indian peacock]]'s train<br />in full display]]
[[Sewall Wright]] proposed that populations occupy ''adaptive peaks'' on a [[fitness landscape]]. In order to evolve to another, higher peak, a population would first have to pass through a valley of maladaptive intermediate stages.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Wright |first1= Sewall |year=1932 |title= The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding, and selection in evolution |journal=Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Genetics |pages=355&ndash;366 |url=http://www.esp.org/books/6th-congress/facsimile/contents/6th-cong-p356-wright.pdf | format=PDF }}</ref> A given population might be "trapped" on a peak that is not optimally adapted.


The [[Peafowl|peacock]]'s ornamental train (grown anew in time for each mating season) is a famous adaptation. It must reduce his maneuverability and flight, and is hugely conspicuous; also, its growth costs food resources. Darwin's explanation of its advantage was in terms of [[sexual selection]]: "This depends on the advantage which certain individuals have over other individuals of the same sex and species, in exclusive relation to reproduction."<ref>{{harvnb|Darwin|1871|p=[http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=269&itemID=F937.1&viewtype=side 256]}}</ref> The kind of sexual selection represented by the peacock is called '[[mate choice]],' with an implication that the process selects the more fit over the less fit, and so has survival value.<ref>The case was treated by {{harvnb|Fisher|1930|pp=134–139}}</ref> The recognition of sexual selection was for a long time in abeyance, but has been rehabilitated.<ref>{{harvnb|Cronin|1991}}</ref>
=== Extinction ===
{{Main|Extinction}}


The conflict between the size of the human [[Fetus|foetal]] brain at birth, (which cannot be larger than about 400&nbsp;cm<sup>3</sup>, else it will not get through the mother's [[pelvis]]) and the size needed for an adult brain (about 1400 cm<sup>3</sup>), means the brain of a newborn child is quite immature. The most vital things in human life (locomotion, speech) just have to wait while the brain grows and matures. That is the result of the birth compromise. Much of the problem comes from our upright [[Bipedalism|bipedal]] stance, without which our pelvis could be shaped more suitably for birth. [[Neanderthal]]s had a similar problem.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Rosenberg |first=Karen R. |year=1992 |title=The evolution of modern human childbirth |journal=American Journal of Physical Anthropology |volume=35 |issue=Supplement S15 |pages=89–124 |doi=10.1002/ajpa.1330350605|doi-access= }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Friedlander |first1=Nancy J. |last2=Jordan |first2=David K. |author-link2=David K. Jordan |date=October–December 1994 |title=Obstetric implications of Neanderthal robusticity and bone density |journal=Human Evolution |volume=9 |issue=4 |pages=331–342 |doi=10.1007/BF02435519|s2cid=86590348 }}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Miller|2007}}</ref>
If a population cannot move or change sufficiently to preserve its long-term viability, then obviously, it will become extinct, at least in that locale. The species may or may not survive in other locales. Species [[extinction]] occurs when the death rate over the entire species (population, gene pool ...) exceeds the birth rate for a long enough period for the species to disappear. It was an observation of [[Leigh Van Valen|Van Valen]] that groups of species tend to have a characteristic and fairly regular rate of extinction.<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Van Valen | first1 = L. | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 1973 | title = A new evolutionary law | url = | journal = Evolutionary Theory | volume = 1 | issue = | pages = 1–30 }}</ref>


As another example, the long neck of a giraffe brings benefits but at a cost. The neck of a giraffe can be up to {{convert|2|m|abbr=on}} in length.<ref>{{harvnb|Williams|2010|p=29}}</ref> The benefits are that it can be used for inter-species competition or for foraging on tall trees where shorter herbivores cannot reach. The cost is that a long neck is heavy and adds to the animal's body mass, requiring additional energy to build the neck and to carry its weight around.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Altwegg |first1=Robert E. |last2=Simmons |first2=Res |title=Necks-for-sex or competing browsers? A critique of ideas on the evolution of giraffe |date=September 2010 |journal=[[Journal of Zoology]] |volume=282 |issue=1 |pages=6–12 |doi=10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00711.x}}</ref>
==== Co-extinction ====
{{Main|Co-extinction}}


==Shifts in function ==
Just as we have co-adaptation, there is also co-extinction. Co-extinction refers to the loss of a species due to the extinction of another; for example, the extinction of [[parasitism|parasitic]] insects following the loss of their hosts. Co-extinction can also occur when a flowering plant loses its [[pollinator]], or through the disruption of a [[food chain]].<ref>Darwin in the ''Origin of Species'' tells the story of "a web of complex relations" involving heartsease (''[[Viola tricolor]]''), red clover (''[[Trifolium pratense]]''), humble-bees ([[bumblebees]]), mice and cats. ''Origin'', 6th edition, p57.</ref> "Species co-extinction is a manifestation of the interconnectedness of organisms in complex ecosystems ... While co-extinction may not be the most important cause of species extinctions, it is certainly an insidious one".<ref name="Koh">{{cite journal |doi=10.1126/science.1101101 |last1=Koh |first1= Lian Pih |title=Species Coextinctions and the Biodiversity Crisis |date=September 2004 |journal=[[Science (journal)|Science]] |volume=305 |issue= 5690 |pages= 1632–1634 |pmid=15361627 |last2=Dunn |first2=RR |last3=Sodhi |first3=NS |last4=Colwell |first4=RK |last5=Proctor |first5=HC |last6=Smith |first6=VS}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|Adaptation and function are two aspects of one problem.|Julian Huxley|''Evolution: The Modern Synthesis''<ref>{{harvnb|Huxley|1942|p=417}}</ref>}}


===Pre-adaptation===
=== Flexibility, acclimatization, learning ===
''Flexibility'' deals with the relative capacity of an organism to maintain themselves in different habitats: their degree of [[Specialisation (biology)|specialization]]. ''[[Acclimatization]]'' is a term used for automatic [[physiological]] adjustments during life; ''[[learning]]'' is the term used for improvement in behavioral performance during life. In biology these terms are preferred, not adaptation, for changes during life which improve the performance of individuals. These adjustments are not inherited genetically by the next generation.


Pre-adaptation occurs when a population has characteristics which by chance are suited for a set of conditions not previously experienced. For example, the polyploid [[Spartina|cordgrass]] ''Spartina townsendii'' is better adapted than either of its parent species to their own habitat of saline marsh and mud-flats.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Huskins |first=C. Leonard |author-link=Charles Leonard Huskins |year=1930 |title=The origin of Spartina Townsendii |journal=[[Genetica]] |volume=12 |issue=6 |pages=531–538 |doi=10.1007/BF01487665|s2cid=30321360 }}</ref> Among domestic animals, the [[Leghorn chicken|White Leghorn]] chicken is markedly more resistant to [[Thiamine|vitamin B<sub>1</sub>]] deficiency than other breeds; on a plentiful diet this makes no difference, but on a restricted diet this preadaptation could be decisive.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Lamoreux |first1=Wilfred F. |last2=Hutt |first2=Frederick B. |date=15 February 1939 |title=Breed differences in resistance to a deficiency in vitamin B<sub>1</sub> in the fowl |url=http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43969284/PDF |journal=Journal of Agricultural Research |volume=58 |issue=4 |pages=307–316 |access-date=20 August 2015 |archive-date=23 February 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160223003741/http://naldc.nal.usda.gov/download/IND43969284/PDF |url-status=dead }}</ref>
Adaptation, on the other hand, occurs over many generations; it is a [[gradualism|gradual]] process caused by natural selection which changes the genetic make-up of a population so the collective performs better in its niche.


Pre-adaptation may arise because a natural population carries a huge quantity of genetic variability.<ref name="Dobzhansky T 1981">{{harvnb|Dobzhansky|1981}}</ref> In [[Ploidy#Diploid|diploid]] eukaryotes, this is a consequence of the system of [[sexual reproduction]], where mutant alleles get partially shielded, for example, by [[dominance (genetics)|genetic dominance]].<ref>{{cite book |first=R. C. |last=King |date=2006 |title=A Dictionary of Genetics |edition=7th |page=129 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-530761-0 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ykp-7oJ5pREC&pg=PA129 |quote=Dominance [refers] to alleles that fully manifest their phenotype when present in the [[zygosity|heterozygous]] ... state. |display-authors=etal}}</ref> [[Microorganism]]s, with their huge populations, also carry a great deal of genetic variability. The first experimental evidence of the pre-adaptive nature of genetic variants in microorganisms was provided by [[Salvador Luria]] and [[Max Delbrück]] who developed the [[Luria–Delbrück experiment|Fluctuation Test]], a method to show the random fluctuation of pre-existing genetic changes that conferred resistance to bacteriophages in ''[[Escherichia coli]]''.<ref name="Luria 1943 491–511">{{cite journal |last1=Luria |first1=S. E. |last2=Delbrück |first2=M. |year=1943 |title=Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance |journal=[[Genetics (journal)|Genetics]] |volume=28 |issue=6 |pages=491–511 |doi=10.1093/genetics/28.6.491 |pmid=17247100 |pmc=1209226 |url=https://www.genetics.org/cgi/reprint/28/6/491 |access-date=19 December 2019 |archive-date=30 June 2024 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240630095104/https://academic.oup.com/genetics/article/28/6/491/6033179 |url-status=live }}</ref> The word is controversial because it is [[Teleology|teleological]] and the entire concept of natural selection depends on the presence of genetic variation, regardless of the population size of a species in question.
==== Flexibility ====
Populations differ in their [[phenotypic plasticity]], which is the ability of an organism with a given [[genotype]] to change its [[phenotype]] in response to changes in its habitat, or to move to a different habitat.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1098/rspb.2003.2372 | last1 = Price | first1 = TD | last2 = Qvarnström | first2 = A | last3 = Irwin | first3 = DE | year = 2003 | title = The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution | url = | journal = Proc. Biol. Sci. | volume = 270 | issue = 1523| pages = 1433–1440 | pmid = 12965006 | pmc = 1691402 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1242/jeb.02183 | last1 = Price | first1 = T.D. | author-separator =, | author-name-separator= | year = 2006 | title = Phenotypic plasticity, sexual selection and the evolution of colour patterns | url = | journal = J Exp Biol. | volume = 209 | issue = Pt 12| pages = 2368–2376 | pmid = 16731813 }}</ref>


===Co-option of existing traits: exaptation ===
To a greater or lesser extent, all living things can adjust to circumstances. The degree of flexibility is inherited, and varies to some extent between individuals. A highly specialized animal or plant lives only in a well-defined habitat, eats a specific type of food, and cannot survive if its needs are not met. Many herbivores are like this; extreme examples are [[koalas]] which depend on [[eucalyptus]], and [[Giant panda|pandas]] which require [[bamboo]]. A generalist, on the other hand, eats a range of food, and can survive in many different conditions. Examples are humans, [[rat]]s, [[crab]]s and many carnivores. The ''tendency'' to behave in a specialized or exploratory manner is inherited – it is an adaptation.
[[File:Sinosauropteryxfossil.jpg|thumb|upright=1.2|The feathers of ''[[Sinosauropteryx]]'', a dinosaur with feathers, were used for insulation or display, making them an [[exaptation]] for flight.]]
{{main|Exaptation}}


Features that now appear as adaptations sometimes arose by co-option of existing traits, evolved for some other purpose. The classic example is the [[Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles|ear ossicles of mammals]], which we know from [[Paleontology|paleontological]] and [[Embryology|embryological]] evidence originated in the upper and lower [[jaw]]s and the [[hyoid bone]] of their [[synapsid]] ancestors, and further back still were part of the [[Branchial arch|gill arch]]es of early fish.<ref>{{harvnb|Allin|Hopson|1992|pp=587–614}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Panchen|1992|loc=chpt. 4, "Homology and the evidence for evolution"}}</ref> The word ''exaptation'' was coined to cover these common evolutionary shifts in function.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Gould |first1=Stephen Jay |author1-link=Stephen Jay Gould |last2=Vrba |first2=Elizabeth S. |author-link2=Elisabeth Vrba |date=Winter 1982 |title=Exaptation–A Missing Term in the Science of Form |journal=[[Paleobiology (journal)|Paleobiology]] |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=4–15 |jstor=2400563|doi=10.1017/S0094837300004310 |bibcode=1982Pbio....8....4G |s2cid=86436132 }}</ref> The flight [[feather]]s of birds evolved from the much earlier [[Feathered dinosaur#Non-avian dinosaur species preserved with evidence of feathers|feathers of dinosaur]]s,<ref name="Ornithoscelida">{{cite journal |last1=Baron |first1=M.G. |last2=Norman |first2=D.B. |last3=Barrett |first3=P.M. |year=2017 |title=A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution |journal=Nature |volume=543 |issue=7646 |pages=501–506 |doi=10.1038/nature21700 |pmid=28332513 |bibcode=2017Natur.543..501B |s2cid=205254710 |url=http://eprints.esc.cam.ac.uk/3857/2/Supplementary%20Information%20_%20MGB%20_%20DBN%20_%20PMB.pdf |access-date=11 February 2019 |archive-date=26 April 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210426223325/http://eprints.esc.cam.ac.uk/3857/2/Supplementary%20Information%20_%20MGB%20_%20DBN%20_%20PMB.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> which might have been used for insulation or for display.<ref name="Dimond et al">{{Cite journal|author1=Dimond, C. C. |author2=Cabin, R. J. |author3=Brooks, J. S. |journal=BIOS |title=Feathers, Dinosaurs, and Behavioral Cues: Defining the Visual Display Hypothesis for the Adaptive Function of Feathers in Non-Avian Theropods |volume=82|year=2011 |pages=58–63 |doi=10.1893/011.082.0302 |issue=3|s2cid=98221211 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |author1=Sumida, S. S. |author2=C. A. Brochu |journal=American Zoologist|title=Phylogenetic Context for the Origin of Feathers |volume=40 |issue=4 |year=2000 |pages=485–503 |doi=10.1093/icb/40.4.486 |doi-access=free }}</ref>
Rather different is ''developmental flexibility:'' "An animal or plant is developmentally flexible if when it is raised or transferred to new conditions it develops so that it is better fitted to survive in the new circumstances".<ref>Maynard Smith J. 1993. ''The theory of evolution''. Cambridge. 3rd ed, p33.</ref> Once again, there are huge differences between species, and the ''capacities'' to be flexible are inherited.


==== Acclimatization ====
== Niche construction ==
{{Main|Acclimatization}}
If humans move to a higher altitude, respiration and physical exertion become a problem, but after spending time in high altitude conditions they ''acclimatize'' to the pressure by increasing production of [[Red blood cell|red blood corpuscles]]. The ''ability'' to acclimatize is an adaptation, but not the acclimatization itself. [[Fecundity]] goes down, but deaths from some tropical diseases also goes down.


Animals including [[earthworm]]s, [[beaver]]s and humans use some of their adaptations to modify their surroundings, so as to maximize their chances of surviving and reproducing. Beavers create dams and lodges, changing the ecosystems of the valleys around them. Earthworms, as Darwin noted, improve the topsoil in which they live by incorporating organic matter. Humans have constructed extensive civilizations with cities in environments as varied as the Arctic and hot deserts.
Over a longer period of time, some people will reproduce better at these high altitudes than others. They will contribute more heavily to later generations. Gradually the whole population becomes adapted to the new conditions. This we know takes place, because the performance of long-term communities at higher altitude is significantly better than the performance of new arrivals, even when the new arrivals have had time to make physiological adjustments.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.001441 | last1 = Moore Lorna | first1 = G. | last2 = Regensteiner Judith | first2 = G. | year = 1983 | title = Adaptation to high altitude | url = | journal = Ann. Rev. Anthropology | volume = 12 | issue = | pages = 285–304 }}</ref>
In all three cases, the construction and maintenance of ecological niches helps drive the continued selection of the genes of these animals, in an environment that the animals have modified.<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Odling-Smee |first1=John |last2=Laland |first2=Kevin |title=Niche Construction and Evolution |url=https://synergy.st-andrews.ac.uk/niche/niche-construction-and-evolution/ |publisher=University of St Andrews |access-date=17 October 2019 |archive-date=8 August 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190808041055/https://synergy.st-andrews.ac.uk/niche/niche-construction-and-evolution/ |url-status=live }}</ref>


==Non-adaptive traits ==
Some kinds of acclimatization happen so rapidly that they are better called reflexes. The rapid colour changes in some [[flatfish]], [[cephalopods]], [[chameleons]] are examples.<ref>Maynard Smith uses the term ''physiologically versatile'' for such animals. Maynard Smith J. 1993. ''The theory of evolution''. Cambridge. 3rd ed, p32.</ref>
{{main|Spandrel (biology)|Vestigiality}}


Some traits do not appear to be adaptive as they have a neutral or deleterious effect on fitness in the current environment. Because genes often have [[Pleiotropy|pleiotropic]] effects, not all traits may be functional: they may be what [[Stephen Jay Gould]] and [[Richard Lewontin]] called [[Spandrel (biology)|spandrels]], features brought about by neighbouring adaptations, on the analogy with the often highly decorated triangular areas between pairs of arches in architecture, which began as functionless features.<ref name=Wagner2014>[[Günter P. Wagner|Wagner, Günter P.]], ''Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation''. Princeton University Press. 2014. Chapter 1: The Intellectual Challenge of Morphological Evolution: A Case for Variational Structuralism. Page 7</ref>
==== Learning ====
Social learning is supreme for humans, and is possible for quite a few mammals and birds: of course, that does not involve genetic transmission except to the extent that the capacities are inherited. Similarly, the ''capacity to learn'' is an inherited adaptation, but not what is learnt; the capacity for human speech is inherited, but not the details of language.


Another possibility is that a trait may have been adaptive at some point in an organism's evolutionary history, but a change in habitats caused what used to be an adaptation to become unnecessary or even [[maladaptation|maladapted]]. Such adaptations are termed [[Vestigiality|vestigial]]. Many organisms have vestigial organs, which are the remnants of fully functional structures in their ancestors. As a result of changes in lifestyle the organs became redundant, and are either not functional or reduced in functionality. Since any structure represents some kind of cost to the general economy of the body, an advantage may accrue from their elimination once they are not functional. Examples: [[Wisdom tooth|wisdom teeth]] in humans; the loss of pigment and functional eyes in cave fauna; the loss of structure in [[Intestinal parasite|endoparasites]].<ref>{{harvnb|Barrett|Gautrey|Herbert|Kohn|1987}}. Charles Darwin was the first to put forward such ideas.</ref>
== Function and teleonomy ==


==Extinction and coextinction ==
Adaptation raises some issues concerning how biologists use key terms such as ''function''.
{{Main|Extinction|Coextinction}}


If a population cannot move or change sufficiently to preserve its long-term viability, then it will become extinct, at least in that locale. The species may or may not survive in other locales. Species extinction occurs when the death rate over the entire species exceeds the birth rate for a long enough period for the species to disappear. It was an observation of Van Valen that groups of species tend to have a characteristic and fairly regular rate of extinction.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Van Valen |first=Leigh |author-link=Leigh Van Valen |date=July 1973 |title=A New Evolutionary Law |url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18310184/evolutionary-theory/vol-01/Vol.1%2CNo.1%2C1-30%2CL.%20Van%20Valen%2C%20A%20new%20evolutionary%20law..pdf |journal=Evolutionary Theory |volume=1 |pages=1–30 |access-date=22 August 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141222094258/https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/18310184/evolutionary-theory/vol-01/Vol.1%2CNo.1%2C1-30%2CL.%20Van%20Valen%2C%20A%20new%20evolutionary%20law..pdf |archive-date=22 December 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>
=== Function ===
To say something has a [[Function (biology)|function]] is to say something about what it does for the organism, obviously. It also says something about its history: how it has come about. A [[heart]] pumps blood: that is its function. It also emits sound, which is just an ancillary side-effect. That is not its function. The heart has a history (which may be well or poorly understood), and that history is about how natural selection formed and maintained the heart as a pump. Every aspect of an organism that has a function has a history. Now, an adaptation must have a functional history: therefore we expect it must have undergone selection caused by relative survival in its habitat. It would be quite wrong to use the word adaptation about a trait which arose as a by-product.<ref name=Sober1>Sober, Elliott 1993. ''Philosophy of biology''. Oxford. p85&ndash;86</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1=Williams |first1= George C | origyear=1966 |year=1993 | title=Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought | publisher=Princeton University Press |pages=8&ndash;10 | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=wWZEq87CqO0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA8#v=onepage&q&f=false | isbn=0-691-02615-7 | format=paperback }}</ref>


Just as there is co-adaptation, there is also coextinction, the loss of a species due to the extinction of another with which it is coadapted, as with the extinction of a [[parasitism|parasitic]] insect following the loss of its host, or when a flowering plant loses its pollinator, or when a [[food chain]] is disrupted.<ref name="Koh">{{cite journal |last1=Koh |first1=Lian Pin |last2=Dunn |first2=Robert R. |author-link2=Robert Dunn (biologist) |last3=Sodhi |first3=Navjot S. |last4=Colwell |first4=Robert K. |last5=Proctor |first5=Heather C. |last6=Smith |first6=Vincent S. |s2cid=30713492 |display-authors=3 |title=Species Coextinctions and the Biodiversity Crisis |date=September 2004 |journal=Science |volume=305 |issue=5690 |pages=1632–1634 |doi=10.1126/science.1101101 |pmid=15361627|bibcode=2004Sci...305.1632K }}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Darwin|1872|pp=[http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=84&itemID=F391&viewtype=side 57–58]}}. Darwin in tells the story of "a web of complex relations" involving heartsease (''[[Viola tricolor]]''), red clover (''[[Trifolium pratense]]''), [[bumblebee]]s, mice and cats.</ref>
It is widely regarded as unprofessional for a biologist to say something like "A wing is for flying", although that is their normal function. A biologist would be conscious that sometime in the remote past feathers on a small dinosaur had the function of retaining heat, and that later many wings were not used for flying (e.g. [[penguins]], [[ostrich]]es). So, the biologist would rather say that the wings on a bird or an insect usually had the ''function'' of aiding flight. That would carry the connotation of being an adaptation with a history of evolution by natural selection.


==Origin of adaptive capacities==
=== Teleonomy ===
{{Main|Teleonomy}}


The first stage in the evolution of life on earth is often hypothesized to be the [[RNA world]] in which short self-replicating [[RNA]] molecules proliferated before the evolution of [[DNA]] and [[protein]]s. By this hypothesis, [[biogenesis|life started]] when RNA chains began to self-replicate, initiating the three mechanisms of Darwinian selection: heritability, variation of type, and competition for resources. The fitness of an RNA replicator (its per capita rate of increase) would likely have been a function of its intrinsic adaptive capacities, determined by its [[nucleic acid sequence|nucleotide sequence]], and the availability of resources.<ref name = Bernstein1983>Bernstein, H., Byerly, H.C., Hopf, F.A., Michod, R.E., and Vemulapalli, G.K. (1983) The Darwinian dynamic. Q. Rev. Biol. 58(2), 185–207. {{doi|10.1086/413216}}. {{JSTOR|2828805}}. {{S2CID|83956410}}</ref><ref name = Michod1999>Michod, R. E. 1999. Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. {{ISBN|978-0-691-02699-2}}. {{LCCN|98004166}}. {{OCLC|38948118}}</ref> The three primary adaptive capacities may have been: (1) replication with moderate fidelity, giving rise to heritability while allowing variation of type, (2) resistance to decay, and (3) acquisition of resources.<ref name = Bernstein1983/><ref name = Michod1999/> These adaptive capacities would have been determined by the folded configurations of the RNA replicators resulting from their nucleotide sequences.
[[Teleonomy]] is a term invented to describe the study of goal-directed functions which are not guided by the conscious forethought of man or any supernatural entity. It is contrasted with [[Aristotle]]'s [[teleology]], which has connotations of intention, purpose and foresight. Evolution is teleonomic; ''adaptation hoards hindsight rather than foresight''. The following is a definition for its use in biology:
:Teleonomy: The hypothesis that adaptations arise without the existence of a prior purpose, but by the action of natural selection on genetic variability.<ref>"The hypothesis that adaptations arise without the existence of a prior purpose, but by chance may change the fitness of an organism." ''Oxford Dictionary of Zoology''. But one might question the word ''chance'', since natural selection, by its operation in particular habitats, is not a random process (it may be a ''[[stochastic]]'' or [[Probabilistic logic|probabilistic]] process, however).</ref>


==Philosophical issues==
The term may have been suggested by [[Colin Pittendrigh]] in 1958;<ref>Pittendrigh C.S. 1958. Adaptation, natural selection and behavior. In A. Roe and [[George Gaylord Simpson]] (eds) ''Behavior and evolution''. Yale.</ref> it grew out of [[cybernetics]] and [[self-organising systems]]. [[Ernst Mayr]], [[George C. Williams]] and [[Jacques Monod]] picked up the term and used it in evolutionary biology.<ref>Mayr, Ernst 1965. Cause and effect in biology. In D. Lerner (ed) ''Cause and effect''. [[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]], New York. p33&ndash;50.</ref><ref>Mayr, Ernst 1988. ''Toward a new philosophy of biology''. Chapter 3 "The multiple meanings of teleological".</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1=Williams |first1= George C | origyear=1966 |year=1993 | title=Adaptation and natural selection: a critique of some current evolutionary thought | publisher=Princeton University Press | chapterurl=http://books.google.com/books?id=wWZEq87CqO0C&lpg=PP1&pg=PA251#v=onepage&q&f=false | isbn=0-691-02615-7 | format=paperback |chapter=The Scientific Study of Adaptation}}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last1=Monod |first1= Jacques |year=1971 | title=Chance and necessity: an essay on the natural philosophy of modern biology | publisher= Knopf |location= New York | isbn= 0-394-46615-2 }}</ref>
[[File:Springbok pronk.jpg|thumb|"Behaviour with a purpose": a young [[springbok]] [[stotting]]. A biologist might argue that this has the [[function (biology)|function]] of [[signalling theory|signalling to predators]], helping the springbok to survive and allowing it to reproduce.<ref name=Caro>{{cite journal |title=The functions of stotting in Thomson's gazelles: Some tests of the predictions |author=Caro, TM |author-link=Tim Caro |journal=Animal Behaviour |year=1986 |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=663–684 |doi=10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80052-5|s2cid=53155678 }}</ref><ref name=Stanford>{{cite web |title=Teleological Notions in Biology |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/ |website=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |access-date=28 July 2016 |date=18 May 2003 |archive-date=13 March 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200313041857/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/teleology-biology/ |url-status=live }}</ref>]]


{{main|Adaptationism|Teleology in biology}}
Philosophers of science have also commented on the term. [[Ernest Nagel]] analysed the concept of goal-directedness in biology;<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.2307/2025745 | last1 = Nagel | first1 = E. | year = 1977 | title = Teleology revisited: goal-directed processes in biology | jstor = 2025745| journal = Journal of Philosophy | volume = 74 | issue = 5| pages = 261–301 }}</ref> and [[David Hull]] commented on the use of teleology and teleonomy by biologists:

:[[J.B.S. Haldane|Haldane]] can be found remarking, "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he’s unwilling to be seen with her in public". Today the mistress has become a lawfully wedded wife. Biologists no longer feel obligated to apologize for their use of teleological language; they flaunt it. The only concession which they make to its disreputable past is to rename it ‘teleonomy’.<ref>Hull D. L. 1981. Philosophy and biology. In G. Fløistad (ed) ''Philosophy of Science'' Nijhoff.</ref>
Adaptation raises [[Philosophy of biology|philosophical issues]] concerning how biologists speak of function and purpose, as this carries implications of evolutionary history – 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.<ref name="Sober1">{{harvnb|Sober|1993|pp=85–86}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Williams|1966|pp=8–10}}</ref> [[Aristotle's biology|In his biology, Aristotle]] introduced [[teleology]] to describe the adaptedness of organisms, but without accepting the supernatural intention built into [[Plato]]'s thinking, which Aristotle rejected.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Nagel |first=Ernest |author-link=Ernest Nagel |date=May 1977 |title=Goal-Directed Processes in Biology |journal=[[The Journal of Philosophy]] |volume=74 |issue=5 |pages=261–279 |doi=10.2307/2025745 |jstor=2025745}} Teleology Revisisted: The Dewy Lectures 1977 (first lecture)</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Nagel |first=Ernest |author-link=Ernest Nagel |date=May 1977 |title=Functional Explanations in Biology |journal=The Journal of Philosophy |volume=74 |issue=5 |pages=280–301 |doi=10.2307/2025746 |jstor=2025746}} Teleology Revisisted: The Dewy Lectures 1977 (second lecture)</ref> Modern biologists continue to face the same difficulty.<ref>{{harvnb|Pittendrigh|1958}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Mayr|1965|pp=33–50}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Mayr|1988|loc=ch. 3, "The Multiple Meanings of Teleological"}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Williams|1966|loc="The Scientific Study of Adaptation"}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Monod|1971}}</ref> On the one hand, adaptation is purposeful: natural selection chooses what works and eliminates what does not. On the other hand, biologists by and large reject conscious purpose in evolution. The dilemma gave rise to a famous joke by the evolutionary biologist [[J. B. S. Haldane|Haldane]]: "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public.'" [[David Hull (philosopher)|David Hull]] commented that Haldane's mistress "has become a lawfully wedded wife. Biologists no longer feel obligated to apologize for their use of teleological language; they flaunt it."<ref>{{harvnb|Hull|1982}}</ref> [[Ernst Mayr]] stated that "adaptedness... is an [[Empirical evidence|a posteriori]] result rather than an a priori goal-seeking", meaning that the question of whether something is an adaptation can only be determined after the event.<ref>[[Ernst Mayr|Mayr, Ernst W.]] (1992). "The idea of teleology" ''Journal of the History of Ideas'', 53, 117–135.</ref>


==See also==
==See also==
{{Div col|colwidth=30em}}
{{Portal|Evolutionary biology}}
* [[Adaptive evolution in the human genome]]
* [[Adaptive evolution in the human genome]]
* [[Adaptive memory]]
* [[Adaptive memory]]
* [[Adaptive mutation]]
* [[Adaptive mutation]]
* [[Adaptive radiation]]
* [[Adaptive system]]
* [[Co-adaptation]]
* [[Anti-predator adaptation]]
* [[Co-evolution]]
* [[Body reactivity]]
* [[Ecological trap]]
* [[Ecological trap]]
* [[Evolutionary physiology]]
* [[Evolutionary pressure]]
* [[Evolvability]]
* [[Evolvability]]
* [[Exaptation]]
* [[Experimental evolution]]
* [[Intragenomic conflict]]
* [[Intragenomic conflict]]
* [[Mimicry]]
* [[Neutral theory of molecular evolution]]
* [[Neutral theory of molecular evolution]]
{{div col end}}
* [[Phenotypic plasticity]]
* [[Polymorphism (biology)]]


==References==
==References==
{{Reflist|colwidth=30em}}
{{Reflist|30em}}

==Sources==
{{Refbegin|30em}}
* {{cite book |last1=Allin |first1=Edgar F. |last2=Hopson |first2=James A. |pages=587–614 |author-link2=James Hopson |year=1992 |chapter=Evolution of the Auditory System in Synapsida ("Mammal-Like Reptiles" and Primitive Mammals) as Seen in the Fossil Record |editor1-last=Webster |editor1-first=Douglas B. |editor2-last=Fay |editor2-first=Richard R. |editor3-last=Popper |editor3-first=Arthur N. |title=The Evolutionary Biology of Hearing |publisher=[[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer-Verlag]] |doi=10.1007/978-1-4612-2784-7_37 |isbn=978-0-387-97588-7 |oclc=23582549 }} "Based on a conference held at the [[Mote Marine Laboratory]] in Sarasota, Fla., May 20–24, 1990."
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Barrett |editor1-first=Paul H. |editor2-last=Gautrey |editor2-first=Peter J. |editor3-last=Herbert |editor3-first=Sandra |editor4-last=Kohn |editor4-first=David |editor5-last=Smith |display-editors=3 |editor5-first=Sydney |year=1987 |title=Charles Darwin's Notebooks, 1836–1844: Geology, Transmutation of Species, Metaphysical Enquiries |publisher=[[Cornell University Press]] |isbn=978-0-521-09975-2 |oclc=16224403 }}
* {{cite book |last=Bowler |first=Peter J. |author-link=Peter J. Bowler |year=2003 |title=Evolution: The History of an Idea |edition=3rd completely rev. and expanded |publisher=[[University of California Press]] |isbn=978-0-520-23693-6 |oclc=49824702 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionhistory0000bowl_n7y8 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Carpenter |first1=G.D. Hale |author-link1=Geoffrey Douglas Hale Carpenter |last2=Ford |first2=E. B. |author-link2=E. B. Ford |year=1933 |title=Mimicry. With a Section on Its Genetic Aspect by E. B. Ford |series=Methuen's Monographs on Biological Subjects |publisher=[[Methuen Publishing|Methuen]] |oclc=875481859 }}
* {{cite book |last=Cronin |first=Helen |author-link=Helena Cronin |year=1991 |title=The Ant and the Peacock: Altruism and Sexual Selection from Darwin to Today |others=Foreword by [[John Maynard Smith]] |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press|Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge]] |isbn=978-0-521-32937-8 |oclc=23144516 |url=https://archive.org/details/antpeacockaltrui00cron }}
* {{cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Darwin |year=1871 |title=The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex |publisher=[[John Murray (publishing house)|John Murray]] |oclc=550912 |title-link=The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex }}
* {{cite book |last=Darwin |first=Charles |author-link=Charles Darwin |year=1872 |title=The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life |url=http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?pageseq=1&itemID=F391&viewtype=side |edition=6th |publisher=John Murray |oclc=1185571 |access-date=2015-08-17 |archive-date=18 October 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141018152414/http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=side&pageseq=1 |url-status=live }}
* {{cite book |last=Desmond |first=Adrian |author-link=Adrian Desmond |year=1989 |title=The Politics of Evolution: Morphology, Medicine, and Reform in Radical London |url=https://archive.org/details/politicsofevolut00adri |url-access=registration |series=Science and its Conceptual Foundations |publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]] |isbn=978-0-226-14346-0 |oclc=709606191 }}
* {{cite book |last=Dobzhansky |first=Theodosius |author-link=Theodosius Dobzhansky |year=1968 |chapter=On Some Fundamental Concepts of Darwinian Biology |editor1-last=Dobzhansky |editor1-first=Theodosius |editor2-last=Hecht |editor2-first=Max K. |editor3-last=Steere |editor3-first=William C. |title=Evolutionary Biology |volume=2 |pages=1–34 |publisher=[[Appleton-Century-Crofts]] |doi=10.1007/978-1-4684-8094-8_1 |oclc=24875357 |isbn=978-1-4684-8096-2 }}
* {{cite book |last=Dobzhansky |first=Theodosius |author-link=Theodosius Dobzhansky |year=1970 |title=Genetics of the Evolutionary Process |publisher=[[Columbia University Press]] |isbn=978-0-231-02837-0 |oclc=97663 }}
* {{cite book |last=Dobzhansky |first=Theodosius |author-link=Theodosius Dobzhansky |year=1981 |editor1-last=Lewontin |editor1-first=Richard C. |editor1-link=Richard Lewontin |editor2-last=Moore |editor2-first=John A. |editor2-link=John Alexander Moore |editor3-last=Provine |editor3-first=William B. |editor3-link=Will Provine |editor4-last=Wallace |editor4-first=Bruce|display-editors =3 |title=Dobzhansky's Genetics of Natural Populations I-XLIII |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-05132-3 |oclc=7276406 }} "Papers by Dobzhansky and his collaborators, originally published 1937-1975 in various journals."
* {{cite book |last=Eldredge |first=Niles |author-link=Niles Eldredge |year=1985 |title=Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria |publisher=[[Simon & Schuster]] |isbn=978-0-671-49555-8 |oclc=11443805 }}
* {{cite book |last=Eldredge |first=Niles |year=1995 |title=Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory |publisher=[[John Wiley & Sons]] |isbn=978-0-471-30301-5 |oclc=30975979 |url=https://archive.org/details/reinventingdarwi00eldr }}
* {{cite book |last=Endler |first=John A. |author-link=John Endler |year=1986 |chapter=Fitness and Adaptation |series=Monographs in Population Biology |volume=21 |title=Natural Selection in the Wild |publisher=[[Princeton University Press]] |isbn=978-0-691-08387-2 |oclc=12262762 }}
* {{cite book |last=Fisher |first=Ronald Aylmer |author-link=Ronald Fisher |year=1930 |title=The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection |publisher=[[Oxford University Press#Clarendon Press|The Clarendon Press]] |oclc=493745635 |title-link=The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection }}
* {{cite journal |last=Ford |first=E. B. |year=1975 |title=Ecological Genetics |edition=4th |publisher=[[Chapman & Hall]]; John Wiley & Sons |isbn=978-0-470-26576-5 |oclc=1890603 |title-link=Ecological Genetics (book) |journal=Advancement of Science |volume=25 |issue=124 |pages=227–35 |pmid=5701915 }}
* {{cite book |last1=Freeman |first1=Scott |last2=Herron |first2=Jon C. |year=2007 |title=Evolutionary Analysis |edition=4th |publisher=[[Prentice Hall|Pearson Prentice Hall]] |isbn=978-0-13-227584-2 |oclc=73502978 }}
* {{cite book |last=Futuyma |first=Douglas J. |author-link=Douglas J. Futuyma |year=1986 |title=Evolutionary Biology |edition=2nd |publisher=[[Sinauer Associates]] |isbn=978-0-87893-188-0 |oclc=13822044 |url=https://archive.org/details/evolutionarybiol00futu }}
* {{cite book |last=Hull |first=David L. |author-link=David Hull (philosopher) |year=1982 |chapter=Philosophy and biology |editor-last=Fløistad |editor-first=Guttorm |editor-link=Guttorm Fløistad |title=Philosophy of Science |series=Contemporary Philosophy: A New Survey |volume=2 |publisher=[[Martinus Nijhoff Publishers]]; [[Springer Science+Business Media|Springer Netherlands]] |doi=10.1007/978-94-010-9940-0 |isbn=978-90-247-2518-2 |oclc=502399533 }}
* {{cite book |last=Hutchinson |first=G. Evelyn |author-link=G. Evelyn Hutchinson |year=1965 |title=The Ecological Theater and the Evolutionary Play |url=https://archive.org/details/ecologicaltheate00hutc |url-access=registration |publisher=[[Yale University Press]] |oclc=250039 }}
* {{cite book |last=Huxley |first=Julian |author-link=Julian Huxley |year=1942 |title=Evolution: The Modern Synthesis |publisher=[[Allen & Unwin]] |oclc=1399386 |title-link=Evolution: The Modern Synthesis }}
* {{cite book |editor1-last=Margulis |editor1-first=Lynn |editor1-link=Lynn Margulis |editor2-last=Fester |editor2-first=René |year=1991 |title=Symbiosis as a Source of Evolutionary Innovation: Speciation and Morphogenesis |publisher=[[MIT Press]] |isbn=978-0-262-13269-5 |oclc=22597587 }} "Based on a conference held in Bellagio, Italy, June 25–30, 1989"
* {{cite book |last=Maynard Smith |first=John |author-link=John Maynard Smith |year=1993 |title=The Theory of Evolution |edition=Canto |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-45128-4 |oclc=27676642 |url=https://archive.org/details/theoryofevolutio00mayn }}
* {{cite book |last1=Mayr |first1=Ernst |author-link=Ernst Mayr |year=1963 |title=Animal Species and Evolution |url=https://archive.org/details/animalspeciesevo00mayr |url-access=registration |publisher=[[Harvard University Press|Belknap Press of Harvard University Press]] |isbn=978-0-674-03750-2 |oclc=899044868 }}
* {{cite book |last=Mayr |first=Ernst |author-link=Ernst Mayr |year=1965 |chapter=Cause and Effect in Biology |editor-last=Lerner |editor-first=Daniel |title=Cause and Effect |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/causeeffect00lern |chapter-url-access=registration |series=The Hayden Colloquium on Scientific Method and Concept |publisher=[[Free Press (publisher)|Free Press]] |oclc=384895 }}
* {{cite book |last=Mayr |first=Ernst |year=1982 |title=The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance |publisher=[[Harvard University Press|Belknap Press]] |isbn=978-0-674-36445-5 |oclc=7875904 |title-link=The Growth of Biological Thought }}
* {{cite book |last=Mayr |first=Ernst |author-link=Ernst Mayr |year=1988 |title=Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist |publisher=Belknap Press of Harvard University Press |isbn=978-0-674-89665-9 |oclc=17108004 |title-link=Toward a New Philosophy of Biology }}
* {{cite book |last=Medawar |first=Peter |author-link=Peter Medawar |year=1960 |title=The Future of Man |series=The BBC [[Reith Lectures]], 1959 |publisher=Methuen |oclc=1374615 }}
* {{cite book |last=Miller |first=Geoffrey |author-link=Geoffrey Miller (psychologist) |year=2007 |chapter=Brain Evolution |editor1-last=Gangestad |editor1-first=Steven W. |editor2-last=Simpson |editor2-first=Jeffry A. |title=The Evolution of Mind: Fundamental Questions and Controversies|publisher=[[Guilford Press]] |isbn=978-1-59385-408-9 |oclc=71005838 }}
* {{cite book |last=Monod |first=Jacques |author-link=Jacques Monod |year=1971 |title=Chance and Necessity: An Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology |others=Translation of ''Le hasard et la nécessité'' by [[Austryn Wainhouse]] |edition=1st American |publisher=[[Alfred A. Knopf|Knopf]] |isbn=978-0-394-46615-6 |oclc=209901 |url=https://archive.org/details/chancenecessity00jacq }}
* {{cite book |last=Moon |first=Harold Philip |year=1976 |title=Henry Walter Bates FRS, 1825-1892: Explorer, Scientist, and Darwinian |publisher=Leicestershire Museums, Art Galleries, and Records Service |isbn=978-0-904671-19-3 |oclc=3607387 }}
* {{cite book |last=Panchen |first=Alec L. |year=1992 |title=Classification, Evolution and the Nature of Biology|publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-31578-4 |oclc=24247430 }}
* {{cite book |last=Patterson |first=Colin |author-link=Colin Patterson (biologist) |year=1999 |title=Evolution |series=Comstock Book Series |edition=2nd illustrated, revised |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-0-8014-8594-7 |oclc=39724234 }}
* {{cite book |last=Pittendrigh |first=Colin S. |author-link=Colin Pittendrigh |year=1958 |chapter=Adaptation, Natural Selection, and Behavior |editor1-last=Roe |editor1-first=Anne |editor2-last=Simpson |editor2-first=George Gaylord |editor2-link=George Gaylord Simpson |title=Behavior and Evolution |chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/behaviorevolutio00roearich |chapter-url-access=registration |publisher=Yale University Press |oclc=191989 }}
* {{cite book |last=Price |first=Peter W. |year=1980 |title=The Evolutionary Biology of Parasites |series=Monographs in Population Biology |volume=15 |pages=1–237 |publisher=Princeton University Press |pmid=6993919 |isbn=978-0-691-08257-8 |oclc=5706295 }}
* {{cite book |last=Provine |first=William B. |year=1986 |title=Sewall Wright and Evolutionary Biology |series=Science and its Conceptual Foundations |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-68474-1 |oclc=12808844 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/sewallwrightevol00will }}
* {{cite book |last1=Ruxton |first1=Graeme D. |author-link1=Graeme Ruxton |last2=Sherratt |first2=Thomas N. |author2-link=Thomas N. Sherratt |last3=Speed |first3=Michael P. |year=2004 |title=Avoiding Attack: The Evolutionary Ecology of Crypsis, Warning Signals and Mimicry |series=Oxford Biology |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0-19-852859-3 |oclc=56644492 }}
* {{cite book |last=Sober |first=Elliott |author-link=Elliott Sober |year=1984 |title=The Nature of Selection: Evolutionary Theory in Philosophical Focus |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-19232-3 |oclc=11114517 }}
* {{cite book |last=Sober |first=Elliott |year=1993 |title=Philosophy of Biology |series=Dimensions of Philosophy Series |publisher=[[Westview Press]] |isbn=978-0-8133-0785-5|oclc=26974492 }}
* {{cite book |last=Stebbins |first=G. Ledyard Jr. |author-link=G. Ledyard Stebbins |year=1950 |title=Variation and Evolution in Plants |series=Columbia Biological Series |volume=16 |publisher=Columbia University Press |oclc=294016 |title-link=Variation and Evolution in Plants }}
* {{cite book |last1=Sterelny |first1=Kim |author-link1=Kim Sterelny |last2=Griffiths |first2=Paul E. |year=1999 |title=Sex and Death: An Introduction to Philosophy of Biology |series=Science and its Conceptual Foundations |publisher=University of Chicago Press |isbn=978-0-226-77304-9 |oclc=40193587 }}
* {{cite book |last=Wickler |first=Wolfgang |author-link=Wolfgang Wickler |year=1968 |title=Mimicry in Plants and Animals |url=https://archive.org/details/mimicryinplantsa00wick |url-access=registration |series=World University Library |others=Translated from the German by R. D. Martin |publisher=[[McGraw-Hill Education|McGraw-Hill]] |oclc=160314 }}
* {{cite book |last=Williams |first=Edgar |year=2010 |title=Giraffe |series=Animal (Reaktion Books) |publisher=[[Reaktion Books]] |isbn=978-1-86189-764-0 |oclc=587198932 }}
* {{cite book |last=Williams |first=George C. |author-link=George C. Williams (biologist) |year=1966 |title=Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought |series=Princeton Science Library |publisher=Princeton University Press |isbn=978-0-691-02615-2 |oclc=35230452 |title-link=Adaptation and Natural Selection }}
* {{cite book |last=Wright |first=Sewall |author-link=Sewall Wright |year=1932 |chapter=The Roles of Mutation, Inbreeding, Crossbreeding and Selection in Evolution |editor-last=Jones |editor-first=Donald F. |editor-link=Donald F. Jones |title=Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress of Genetics |volume=1 |publisher=[[Genetics Society of America]] |oclc=439596433 }}
{{Refend}}


{{Biology nav}}
{{Biology nav}}
{{Evolution}}
{{Evolution}}
{{Speciation}}
{{Portal bar|Evolutionary biology}}
{{Authority control}}


[[Category:Evolutionary biology]]
[[Category:Biological evolution]]
[[Category:Biology terminology]]
[[Category:Evolutionary biology terminology]]

Latest revision as of 12:08, 17 November 2024

In biology, adaptation has three related meanings. Firstly, it is the dynamic evolutionary process of natural selection that fits organisms to their environment, enhancing their evolutionary fitness. Secondly, it is a state reached by the population during that process. Thirdly, it is a phenotypic trait or adaptive trait, with a functional role in each individual organism, that is maintained and has evolved through natural selection.

Historically, adaptation has been described from the time of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Empedocles and Aristotle. In 18th and 19th century natural theology, adaptation was taken as evidence for the existence of a deity. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace proposed instead that it was explained by natural selection.

Adaptation is related to biological fitness, which governs the rate of evolution as measured by change in allele frequencies. Often, two or more species co-adapt and co-evolve as they develop adaptations that interlock with those of the other species, such as with flowering plants and pollinating insects. In mimicry, species evolve to resemble other species; in mimicry this is a mutually beneficial co-evolution as each of a group of strongly defended species (such as wasps able to sting) come to advertise their defenses in the same way. Features evolved for one purpose may be co-opted for a different one, as when the insulating feathers of dinosaurs were co-opted for bird flight.

Adaptation is a major topic in the philosophy of biology, as it concerns function and purpose (teleology). Some biologists try to avoid terms which imply purpose in adaptation, not least because it suggests a deity's intentions, but others note that adaptation is necessarily purposeful.

History

[edit]

Adaptation is an observable fact of life accepted by philosophers and natural historians from ancient times, independently of their views on evolution, but their explanations differed. Empedocles did not believe that adaptation required a final cause (a purpose), but thought that it "came about naturally, since such things survived." Aristotle did believe in final causes, but assumed that species were fixed.[1]

The second of Jean-Baptiste Lamarck's two factors (the first being a complexifying force) was an adaptive force that causes animals with a given body plan to adapt to circumstances by inheritance of acquired characteristics, creating a diversity of species and genera.

In natural theology, adaptation was interpreted as the work of a deity and as evidence for the existence of God.[2] William Paley believed that organisms were perfectly adapted to the lives they led, an argument that shadowed Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, who had argued that God had brought about "the best of all possible worlds." Voltaire's satire Dr. Pangloss[3] is a parody of this optimistic idea, and David Hume also argued against design.[4] Charles Darwin broke with the tradition by emphasising the flaws and limitations which occurred in the animal and plant worlds.[5]

Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed a tendency for organisms to become more complex, moving up a ladder of progress, plus "the influence of circumstances", usually expressed as use and disuse.[6] This second, subsidiary element of his theory is what is now called Lamarckism, a proto-evolutionary hypothesis of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, intended to explain adaptations by natural means.[7]

Other natural historians, such as Buffon, accepted adaptation, and some also accepted evolution, without voicing their opinions as to the mechanism. This illustrates the real merit of Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, and secondary figures such as Henry Walter Bates, for putting forward a mechanism whose significance had only been glimpsed previously. A century later, experimental field studies and breeding experiments by people such as E. B. Ford and Theodosius Dobzhansky produced evidence that natural selection was not only the 'engine' behind adaptation, but was a much stronger force than had previously been thought.[8][9][10]

General principles

[edit]

The significance of an adaptation can only be understood in relation to the total biology of the species.

What adaptation is

[edit]

Adaptation is primarily a process rather than a physical form or part of a body.[12] An internal parasite (such as a liver fluke) can illustrate the distinction: such a parasite may have a very simple bodily structure, but nevertheless the organism is highly adapted to its specific environment. From this we see that adaptation is not just a matter of visible traits: in such parasites critical adaptations take place in the life cycle, which is often quite complex.[13] However, as a practical term, "adaptation" often refers to a product: those features of a species which result from the process. Many aspects of an animal or plant can be correctly called adaptations, though there are always some features whose function remains in doubt. By using the term adaptation for the evolutionary process, and adaptive trait for the bodily part or function (the product), one may distinguish the two different senses of the word.[14][15][16][17]

Adaptation is one of the two main processes that explain the observed diversity of species, such as the different species of Darwin's finches. The other process is speciation, in which new species arise, typically through reproductive isolation.[18][19] An example widely used today to study the interplay of adaptation and speciation is the evolution of cichlid fish in African lakes, where the question of reproductive isolation is complex.[20][21]

Adaptation is not always a simple matter where the ideal phenotype evolves for a given environment. An organism must be viable at all stages of its development and at all stages of its evolution. This places constraints on the evolution of development, behaviour, and structure of organisms. The main constraint, over which there has been much debate, is the requirement that each genetic and phenotypic change during evolution should be relatively small, because developmental systems are so complex and interlinked. However, it is not clear what "relatively small" should mean, for example polyploidy in plants is a reasonably common large genetic change.[22] The origin of eukaryotic endosymbiosis is a more dramatic example.[23]

All adaptations help organisms survive in their ecological niches. The adaptive traits may be structural, behavioural or physiological. Structural adaptations are physical features of an organism, such as shape, body covering, armament, and internal organization. Behavioural adaptations are inherited systems of behaviour, whether inherited in detail as instincts, or as a neuropsychological capacity for learning. Examples include searching for food, mating, and vocalizations. Physiological adaptations permit the organism to perform special functions such as making venom, secreting slime, and phototropism, but also involve more general functions such as growth and development, temperature regulation, ionic balance and other aspects of homeostasis. Adaptation affects all aspects of the life of an organism.[24]

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.[25][26][27]
2. Adaptedness is the state of being adapted: the degree to which an organism is able to live and reproduce in a given set of habitats.[28]
3. An adaptive trait is an aspect of the developmental pattern of the organism which enables or enhances the probability of that organism surviving and reproducing.[29]

What adaptation is not

[edit]
The common kestrel has adapted successfully to urban areas

Adaptation differs from flexibility, acclimatization, and learning, all of which are changes during life which are not inherited. Flexibility deals with the relative capacity of an organism to maintain itself in different habitats: its degree of specialization. Acclimatization describes automatic physiological adjustments during life;[30] learning means alteration in behavioural performance during life.[31]

Flexibility stems from phenotypic plasticity, the ability of an organism with a given genotype (genetic type) to change its phenotype (observable characteristics) in response to changes in its habitat, or to move to a different habitat.[32][33] The degree of flexibility is inherited, and varies between individuals. A highly specialized animal or plant lives only in a well-defined habitat, eats a specific type of food, and cannot survive if its needs are not met. Many herbivores are like this; extreme examples are koalas which depend on Eucalyptus, and giant pandas which require bamboo. A generalist, on the other hand, eats a range of food, and can survive in many different conditions. Examples are humans, rats, crabs and many carnivores. The tendency to behave in a specialized or exploratory manner is inherited—it is an adaptation. Rather different is developmental flexibility: "An animal or plant is developmentally flexible if when it is raised in or transferred to new conditions, it changes in structure so that it is better fitted to survive in the new environment," writes the evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith.[34]

If humans move to a higher altitude, respiration and physical exertion become a problem, but after spending time in high altitude conditions they acclimatize to the reduced partial pressure of oxygen, such as by producing more red blood cells. The ability to acclimatize is an adaptation, but the acclimatization itself is not. The reproductive rate declines, but deaths from some tropical diseases also go down. Over a longer period of time, some people are better able to reproduce at high altitudes than others. They contribute more heavily to later generations, and gradually by natural selection the whole population becomes adapted to the new conditions. This has demonstrably occurred, as the observed performance of long-term communities at higher altitude is significantly better than the performance of new arrivals, even when the new arrivals have had time to acclimatize.[35]

Adaptedness and fitness

[edit]

There is a relationship between adaptedness and the concept of fitness used in population genetics. Differences in fitness between genotypes predict the rate of evolution by natural selection. Natural selection changes the relative frequencies of alternative phenotypes, insofar as they are heritable.[36] However, a phenotype with high adaptedness may not have high fitness. Dobzhansky mentioned the example of the Californian redwood, which is highly adapted, but a relict species in danger of extinction.[25] Elliott Sober commented that adaptation was a retrospective concept since it implied something about the history of a trait, whereas fitness predicts a trait's future.[37]

1. Relative fitness. The average contribution to the next generation by a genotype or a class of genotypes, relative to the contributions of other genotypes in the population.[38] This is also known as Darwinian fitness, selection coefficient, and other terms.
2. Absolute fitness. The absolute contribution to the next generation by a genotype or a class of genotypes. Also known as the Malthusian parameter when applied to the population as a whole.[36][39]
3. Adaptedness. The extent to which a phenotype fits its local ecological niche. Researchers can sometimes test this through a reciprocal transplant.[40]
In this sketch of a fitness landscape, a population can evolve by following the arrows to the adaptive peak at point B, and the points A and C are local optima where a population could become trapped.

Sewall Wright proposed that populations occupy adaptive peaks on a fitness landscape. To evolve to another, higher peak, a population would first have to pass through a valley of maladaptive intermediate stages, and might be "trapped" on a peak that is not optimally adapted.[41]

Types

[edit]

Adaptation is the heart and soul of evolution.

— Niles Eldredge, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory[42]

Changes in habitat

[edit]

Before Darwin, adaptation was seen as a fixed relationship between an organism and its habitat. It was not appreciated that as the climate changed, so did the habitat; and as the habitat changed, so did the biota. Also, habitats are subject to changes in their biota: for example, invasions of species from other areas. The relative numbers of species in a given habitat are always changing. Change is the rule, though much depends on the speed and degree of the change. When the habitat changes, three main things may happen to a resident population: habitat tracking, genetic change or extinction. In fact, all three things may occur in sequence. Of these three effects only genetic change brings about adaptation. When a habitat changes, the resident population typically moves to more suitable places; this is the typical response of flying insects or oceanic organisms, which have wide (though not unlimited) opportunity for movement.[43] This common response is called habitat tracking. It is one explanation put forward for the periods of apparent stasis in the fossil record (the punctuated equilibrium theory).[44]

Genetic change

[edit]

Without mutation, the ultimate source of all genetic variation, there would be no genetic changes and no subsequent adaptation through evolution by natural selection. Genetic change occurs in a population when mutation increases or decreases in its initial frequency followed by random genetic drift, migration, recombination or natural selection act on this genetic variation.[45] One example is that the first pathways of enzyme-based metabolism at the very origin of life on Earth may have been co-opted components of the already-existing purine nucleotide metabolism, a metabolic pathway that evolved in an ancient RNA world. The co-option requires new mutations and through natural selection, the population then adapts genetically to its present circumstances.[10] Genetic changes may result in entirely new or gradual change to visible structures, or they may adjust physiological activity in a way that suits the habitat. The varying shapes of the beaks of Darwin's finches, for example, are driven by adaptive mutations in the ALX1 gene.[46] The coat color of different wild mouse species matches their environments, whether black lava or light sand, owing to adaptive mutations in the melanocortin 1 receptor and other melanin pathway genes.[47][48] Physiological resistance to the heart poisons (cardiac glycosides) that monarch butterflies store in their bodies to protect themselves from predators[49][50] are driven by adaptive mutations in the target of the poison, the sodium pump, resulting in target site insensitivity.[51][52][53] These same adaptive mutations and similar changes at the same amino acid sites were found to evolve in a parallel manner in distantly related insects that feed on the same plants, and even in a bird that feeds on monarchs through convergent evolution, a hallmark of adaptation.[54][55] Convergence at the gene-level across distantly related species can arise because of evolutionary constraint.[56]

Habitats and biota do frequently change over time and space. Therefore, it follows that the process of adaptation is never fully complete.[57] Over time, it may happen that the environment changes little, and the species comes to fit its surroundings better and better, resulting in stabilizing selection. On the other hand, it may happen that changes in the environment occur suddenly, and then the species becomes less and less well adapted. The only way for it to climb back up that fitness peak is via the introduction of new genetic variation for natural selection to act upon. Seen like this, adaptation is a genetic tracking process, which goes on all the time to some extent, but especially when the population cannot or does not move to another, less hostile area. Given enough genetic change, as well as specific demographic conditions, an adaptation may be enough to bring a population back from the brink of extinction in a process called evolutionary rescue. Adaptation does affect, to some extent, every species in a particular ecosystem.[58][59]

Leigh Van Valen thought that even in a stable environment, because of antagonistic species interactions and limited resources, a species must constantly had to adapt to maintain its relative standing. This became known as the Red Queen hypothesis, as seen in host-parasite interactions.[60]

Existing genetic variation and mutation were the traditional sources of material on which natural selection could act. In addition, horizontal gene transfer is possible between organisms in different species, using mechanisms as varied as gene cassettes, plasmids, transposons and viruses such as bacteriophages.[61][62][63]

Co-adaptation

[edit]
Pollinating insects are co-adapted with flowering plants.

In coevolution, where the existence of one species is tightly bound up with the life of another species, new or 'improved' adaptations which occur in one species are often followed by the appearance and spread of corresponding features in the other species. In other words, each species triggers reciprocal natural selection in the other. These co-adaptational relationships are intrinsically dynamic, and may continue on a trajectory for millions of years, as has occurred in the relationship between flowering plants and pollinating insects.[64][65]

Mimicry

[edit]
Images A and B show real wasps; the others show Batesian mimics: three hoverflies and one beetle.

Bates' work on Amazonian butterflies led him to develop the first scientific account of mimicry, especially the kind of mimicry which bears his name: Batesian mimicry.[66] This is the mimicry by a palatable species of an unpalatable or noxious species (the model), gaining a selective advantage as predators avoid the model and therefore also the mimic. Mimicry is thus an anti-predator adaptation. A common example seen in temperate gardens is the hoverfly (Syrphidae), many of which—though bearing no sting—mimic the warning coloration of aculeate Hymenoptera (wasps and bees). Such mimicry does not need to be perfect to improve the survival of the palatable species.[67]

Bates, Wallace and Fritz Müller believed that Batesian and Müllerian mimicry provided evidence for the action of natural selection, a view which is now standard amongst biologists.[68][69][70]

Trade-offs

[edit]

All adaptations have a downside: horse legs are great for running on grass, but they cannot scratch their backs; mammals' hair helps temperature, but offers a niche for ectoparasites; the only flying penguins do is under water. Adaptations serving different functions may be mutually destructive. Compromise and makeshift occur widely, not perfection. Selection pressures pull in different directions, and the adaptation that results is some kind of compromise.[71]

It is a profound truth that Nature does not know best; that genetical evolution... is a story of waste, makeshift, compromise and blunder.

— Peter Medawar, The Future of Man[72]

Since the phenotype as a whole is the target of selection, it is impossible to improve simultaneously all aspects of the phenotype to the same degree.

Examples

[edit]

Consider the antlers of the Irish elk, (often supposed to be far too large; in deer antler size has an allometric relationship to body size). Antlers serve positively for defence against predators, and to score victories in the annual rut. But they are costly in terms of resources. Their size during the last glacial period presumably depended on the relative gain and loss of reproductive capacity in the population of elks during that time.[74] As another example, camouflage to avoid detection is destroyed when vivid coloration is displayed at mating time. Here the risk to life is counterbalanced by the necessity for reproduction.[75]

Stream-dwelling salamanders, such as Caucasian salamander or Gold-striped salamander have very slender, long bodies, perfectly adapted to life at the banks of fast small rivers and mountain brooks. Elongated body protects their larvae from being washed out by current. However, elongated body increases risk of desiccation and decreases dispersal ability of the salamanders; it also negatively affects their fecundity. As a result, fire salamander, less perfectly adapted to the mountain brook habitats, is in general more successful, have a higher fecundity and broader geographic range.[76]

An Indian peacock's train
in full display

The peacock's ornamental train (grown anew in time for each mating season) is a famous adaptation. It must reduce his maneuverability and flight, and is hugely conspicuous; also, its growth costs food resources. Darwin's explanation of its advantage was in terms of sexual selection: "This depends on the advantage which certain individuals have over other individuals of the same sex and species, in exclusive relation to reproduction."[77] The kind of sexual selection represented by the peacock is called 'mate choice,' with an implication that the process selects the more fit over the less fit, and so has survival value.[78] The recognition of sexual selection was for a long time in abeyance, but has been rehabilitated.[79]

The conflict between the size of the human foetal brain at birth, (which cannot be larger than about 400 cm3, else it will not get through the mother's pelvis) and the size needed for an adult brain (about 1400 cm3), means the brain of a newborn child is quite immature. The most vital things in human life (locomotion, speech) just have to wait while the brain grows and matures. That is the result of the birth compromise. Much of the problem comes from our upright bipedal stance, without which our pelvis could be shaped more suitably for birth. Neanderthals had a similar problem.[80][81][82]

As another example, the long neck of a giraffe brings benefits but at a cost. The neck of a giraffe can be up to 2 m (6 ft 7 in) in length.[83] The benefits are that it can be used for inter-species competition or for foraging on tall trees where shorter herbivores cannot reach. The cost is that a long neck is heavy and adds to the animal's body mass, requiring additional energy to build the neck and to carry its weight around.[84]

Shifts in function

[edit]

Adaptation and function are two aspects of one problem.

— Julian Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis[85]

Pre-adaptation

[edit]

Pre-adaptation occurs when a population has characteristics which by chance are suited for a set of conditions not previously experienced. For example, the polyploid cordgrass Spartina townsendii is better adapted than either of its parent species to their own habitat of saline marsh and mud-flats.[86] Among domestic animals, the White Leghorn chicken is markedly more resistant to vitamin B1 deficiency than other breeds; on a plentiful diet this makes no difference, but on a restricted diet this preadaptation could be decisive.[87]

Pre-adaptation may arise because a natural population carries a huge quantity of genetic variability.[88] In diploid eukaryotes, this is a consequence of the system of sexual reproduction, where mutant alleles get partially shielded, for example, by genetic dominance.[89] Microorganisms, with their huge populations, also carry a great deal of genetic variability. The first experimental evidence of the pre-adaptive nature of genetic variants in microorganisms was provided by Salvador Luria and Max Delbrück who developed the Fluctuation Test, a method to show the random fluctuation of pre-existing genetic changes that conferred resistance to bacteriophages in Escherichia coli.[90] The word is controversial because it is teleological and the entire concept of natural selection depends on the presence of genetic variation, regardless of the population size of a species in question.

Co-option of existing traits: exaptation

[edit]
The feathers of Sinosauropteryx, a dinosaur with feathers, were used for insulation or display, making them an exaptation for flight.

Features that now appear as adaptations sometimes arose by co-option of existing traits, evolved for some other purpose. The classic example is the ear ossicles of mammals, which we know from paleontological and embryological evidence originated in the upper and lower jaws and the hyoid bone of their synapsid ancestors, and further back still were part of the gill arches of early fish.[91][92] The word exaptation was coined to cover these common evolutionary shifts in function.[93] The flight feathers of birds evolved from the much earlier feathers of dinosaurs,[94] which might have been used for insulation or for display.[95][96]

Niche construction

[edit]

Animals including earthworms, beavers and humans use some of their adaptations to modify their surroundings, so as to maximize their chances of surviving and reproducing. Beavers create dams and lodges, changing the ecosystems of the valleys around them. Earthworms, as Darwin noted, improve the topsoil in which they live by incorporating organic matter. Humans have constructed extensive civilizations with cities in environments as varied as the Arctic and hot deserts. In all three cases, the construction and maintenance of ecological niches helps drive the continued selection of the genes of these animals, in an environment that the animals have modified.[97]

Non-adaptive traits

[edit]

Some traits do not appear to be adaptive as they have a neutral or deleterious effect on fitness in the current environment. Because genes often have pleiotropic effects, not all traits may be functional: they may be what Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin called spandrels, features brought about by neighbouring adaptations, on the analogy with the often highly decorated triangular areas between pairs of arches in architecture, which began as functionless features.[98]

Another possibility is that a trait may have been adaptive at some point in an organism's evolutionary history, but a change in habitats caused what used to be an adaptation to become unnecessary or even maladapted. Such adaptations are termed vestigial. Many organisms have vestigial organs, which are the remnants of fully functional structures in their ancestors. As a result of changes in lifestyle the organs became redundant, and are either not functional or reduced in functionality. Since any structure represents some kind of cost to the general economy of the body, an advantage may accrue from their elimination once they are not functional. Examples: wisdom teeth in humans; the loss of pigment and functional eyes in cave fauna; the loss of structure in endoparasites.[99]

Extinction and coextinction

[edit]

If a population cannot move or change sufficiently to preserve its long-term viability, then it will become extinct, at least in that locale. The species may or may not survive in other locales. Species extinction occurs when the death rate over the entire species exceeds the birth rate for a long enough period for the species to disappear. It was an observation of Van Valen that groups of species tend to have a characteristic and fairly regular rate of extinction.[100]

Just as there is co-adaptation, there is also coextinction, the loss of a species due to the extinction of another with which it is coadapted, as with the extinction of a parasitic insect following the loss of its host, or when a flowering plant loses its pollinator, or when a food chain is disrupted.[101][102]

Origin of adaptive capacities

[edit]

The first stage in the evolution of life on earth is often hypothesized to be the RNA world in which short self-replicating RNA molecules proliferated before the evolution of DNA and proteins. By this hypothesis, life started when RNA chains began to self-replicate, initiating the three mechanisms of Darwinian selection: heritability, variation of type, and competition for resources. The fitness of an RNA replicator (its per capita rate of increase) would likely have been a function of its intrinsic adaptive capacities, determined by its nucleotide sequence, and the availability of resources.[103][104] The three primary adaptive capacities may have been: (1) replication with moderate fidelity, giving rise to heritability while allowing variation of type, (2) resistance to decay, and (3) acquisition of resources.[103][104] These adaptive capacities would have been determined by the folded configurations of the RNA replicators resulting from their nucleotide sequences.

Philosophical issues

[edit]
"Behaviour with a purpose": a young springbok stotting. A biologist might argue that this has the function of signalling to predators, helping the springbok to survive and allowing it to reproduce.[105][106]

Adaptation raises philosophical issues concerning how biologists speak of function and purpose, as this carries implications of evolutionary history – 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.[107][108] In his biology, Aristotle introduced teleology to describe the adaptedness of organisms, but without accepting the supernatural intention built into Plato's thinking, which Aristotle rejected.[109][110] Modern biologists continue to face the same difficulty.[111][112][113][114][115] On the one hand, adaptation is purposeful: natural selection chooses what works and eliminates what does not. On the other hand, biologists by and large reject conscious purpose in evolution. The dilemma gave rise to a famous joke by the evolutionary biologist Haldane: "Teleology is like a mistress to a biologist: he cannot live without her but he's unwilling to be seen with her in public.'" David Hull commented that Haldane's mistress "has become a lawfully wedded wife. Biologists no longer feel obligated to apologize for their use of teleological language; they flaunt it."[116] Ernst Mayr stated that "adaptedness... is an a posteriori result rather than an a priori goal-seeking", meaning that the question of whether something is an adaptation can only be determined after the event.[117]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Leroi, Armand Marie (2015). The Lagoon: How Aristotle Invented Science. Bloomsbury. pp. 91–92, 273, 288. ISBN 978-1-4088-3622-4.
  2. ^ Desmond 1989, pp. 31–32, fn 18
  3. ^ Voltaire (1759). Candide. Cramer et al.
  4. ^ Sober 1993, chpt. 2
  5. ^ Darwin 1872, p. 397: "Rudimentary, Atrophied, and Aborted Organs"
  6. ^ Bowler, Peter J. (1989) [1983]. Evolution: The History of an Idea (Revised ed.). University of California Press. p. 86. ISBN 978-0-520-06386-0.
  7. ^ See, for example, the discussion in Bowler 2003, pp. 86–95: "Whatever the true nature of Lamarck's theory, it was his mechanism of adaptation that caught the attention of later naturalists." (p. 90)
  8. ^ Provine 1986
  9. ^ Ford 1975
  10. ^ a b Orr, H. Allen (February 2005). "The genetic theory of adaptation: a brief history". Nature Reviews Genetics. 6 (2): 119–127. doi:10.1038/nrg1523. PMID 15716908. S2CID 17772950.
  11. ^ Huxley 1942, p. 449
  12. ^ Mayr 1982, p. 483: "Adaptation... could no longer be considered a static condition, a product of a creative past, and became instead a continuing dynamic process."
  13. ^ Price 1980
  14. ^ Daintith, John; Martin, Elizabeth A., eds. (2010) [First published 1984 as Concise Science Dictionary]. "adaptation". A Dictionary of Science. Oxford Paperback Reference (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 13. ISBN 978-0-19-956146-9. LCCN 2010287468. OCLC 444383696. Any change in the structure or functioning of successive generations of a population that makes it better suited to its environment.
  15. ^ Bowler 2003, p. 10
  16. ^ Patterson 1999, p. 1
  17. ^ Williams 1966, p. 5: "Evolutionary adaptation is a phenomenon of pervasive importance in biology."
  18. ^ Mayr 1963
  19. ^ Mayr 1982, pp. 562–566
  20. ^ Salzburger, Walter; Mack, Tanja; Verheyen, Erik; Meyer, Axel (21 February 2005). "Out of Tanganyika: Genesis, explosive speciation, key-innovations and phylogeography of the haplochromine cichlid fishes". BMC Evolutionary Biology. 5 (17): 17. doi:10.1186/1471-2148-5-17. PMC 554777. PMID 15723698.
  21. ^ Kornfield, Irv; Smith, Peter F. (November 2000). "African Cichlid Fishes: Model Systems for Evolutionary Biology". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 31: 163–196. doi:10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.163.
  22. ^ Stebbins 1950, chs. 8 and 9
  23. ^ Margulis & Fester 1991
  24. ^ Hutchinson 1965. The niche is the central concept in evolutionary ecology; see especially part II: "The niche: an abstractly inhabited hypervolume." (pp. 26–78)
  25. ^ a b Dobzhansky 1968, pp. 1–34
  26. ^ Wang, G (2014). "Chapter 5.6—Zero Order Adaptivity". Analysis of Complex Diseases: A Mathematical Perspective. Taylor Francis. p. 69. ISBN 978-1-4665-7223-2. Archived from the original on 30 June 2024. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  27. ^ Sejian, V.; Gaughan, J.; Baumgard, L.; Prasad, C., eds. (2015). Climate Change Impact on Livestock: Adaptation and Mitigation. Springer. p. 515. ISBN 978-81-322-2265-1. Archived from the original on 24 July 2020. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  28. ^ Dobzhansky 1970, pp. 4–6, 79–82
  29. ^ Dobzhansky, Theodosius (March 1956). "Genetics of Natural Populations. XXV. Genetic Changes in Populations of Drosophila pseudoobscura and Drosophila persimilis in Some Localities in California". Evolution. 10 (1): 82–92. doi:10.2307/2406099. JSTOR 2406099.
  30. ^ Rymer, Tasmin; Pillay, Neville; Schradin, Carsten (2013). "Extinction or Survival? Behavioral Flexibility in Response to Environmental Change in the African Striped Mouse Rhabdomys". Sustainability. 5 (1): 163–186. doi:10.3390/su5010163.
  31. ^ Gross, Richard (2012). Psychology: The Science of Mind and Behaviour (6th ed.). Hodder. p. 335. ISBN 978-1-4441-6436-7. Archived from the original on 30 June 2024. Retrieved 31 March 2018.
  32. ^ Price, Trevor D.; Qvarnström, Anna; Irwin, Darren E. (July 2003). "The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution". Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 270 (1523): 1433–1440. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2372. PMC 1691402. PMID 12965006.
  33. ^ Price, Trevor D. (June 2006). "Phenotypic plasticity, sexual selection and the evolution of colour patterns". The Journal of Experimental Biology. 209 (12): 2368–2376. doi:10.1242/jeb.02183. PMID 16731813.
  34. ^ Maynard Smith 1993, p. 33
  35. ^ Moore, Lorna G.; Regensteiner, Judith G. (October 1983). "Adaptation to High Altitude". Annual Review of Anthropology. 12: 285–304. doi:10.1146/annurev.an.12.100183.001441.
  36. ^ a b Endler 1986, pp. 33–51
  37. ^ Sober 1984, p. 210
  38. ^ Futuyma 1986, p. 552
  39. ^ Fisher 1930, p. 25
  40. ^ de Villemereuil, P.; Gaggiotti, O. E.; Mouterde, M.; Till-Bottraud, I (21 October 2015). "Common garden experiments in the genomic era: new perspectives and opportunities". Heredity. 116 (3): 249–254. doi:10.1038/hdy.2015.93. PMC 4806574. PMID 26486610.
  41. ^ Wright 1932, pp. 356–366
  42. ^ Eldredge 1995, p. 33
  43. ^ Eldredge 1985, p. 136: "Of glaciers and beetles"
  44. ^ Eldredge 1995, p. 64
  45. ^ Hogan, C. Michael (12 October 2010). "Mutation". In Monosson, Emily (ed.). Encyclopedia of Earth. Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the Environment. OCLC 72808636. Archived from the original on 24 September 2015. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
  46. ^ Lamichhaney, Sangeed; Berglund, Jonas (19 February 2015). "Evolution of Darwin's finches and their beaks revealed by genome sequencing". Nature. 518 (7539): 371–375. Bibcode:2015Natur.518..371L. doi:10.1038/nature14181. PMID 25686609. S2CID 4462253.
  47. ^ Nachman, Michael W.; Hoekstra, Hopi E.; D'Agostino, Susan L. (29 April 2003). "The genetic basis of adaptive melanism in pocket mice". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 100 (9): 5268–5273. Bibcode:2003PNAS..100.5268N. doi:10.1073/pnas.0431157100. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 154334. PMID 12704245.
  48. ^ Hoekstra, Hopi E.; Hirschmann, Rachel J.; Bundey, Richard A.; Insel, Paul A.; Crossland, Janet P. (7 July 2006). "A Single Amino Acid Mutation Contributes to Adaptive Beach Mouse Color Pattern". Science. 313 (5783): 101–104. Bibcode:2006Sci...313..101H. doi:10.1126/science.1126121. PMID 16825572. S2CID 33376626. Archived from the original on 30 June 2024. Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  49. ^ Brower, Lincoln P.; Glazier, Susan C. (4 April 1975). "Localization of Heart Poisons in the Monarch Butterfly". Science. 188 (4183): 19–25. Bibcode:1975Sci...188...19B. doi:10.1126/science.188.4183.19. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 17760150. S2CID 44509809.
  50. ^ Agrawal, Anurag (7 March 2017). Monarchs and Milkweed. Princeton University Press. doi:10.1515/9781400884766. ISBN 978-1-4008-8476-6.
  51. ^ Reichstein, T.; von Euw, J.; Parsons, J. A.; Rothschild, Miriam (30 August 1968). "Heart Poisons in the Monarch Butterfly". Science. 161 (3844): 861–866. Bibcode:1968Sci...161..861R. doi:10.1126/science.161.3844.861. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 4875496.
  52. ^ Holzinger, F.; Frick, C.; Wink, M. (21 December 1992). "Molecular basis for the insensitivity of the Monarch (Danaus plexippus) to cardiac glycosides". FEBS Letters. 314 (3): 477–480. Bibcode:1992FEBSL.314..477H. doi:10.1016/0014-5793(92)81530-y. ISSN 0014-5793. PMID 1334851. S2CID 7427771.
  53. ^ Karageorgi, Marianthi; Groen, Simon C.; Sumbul, Fidan; et al. (2 October 2019). "Genome editing retraces the evolution of toxin resistance in the monarch butterfly". Nature. 574 (7778): 409–412. doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1610-8. ISSN 0028-0836. PMC 7039281. PMID 31578524.
  54. ^ Dobler, S.; Dalla, S.; Wagschal, V.; Agrawal, A. A. (23 July 2012). "Community-wide convergent evolution in insect adaptation to toxic cardenolides by substitutions in the Na,K-ATPase". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 109 (32): 13040–13045. doi:10.1073/pnas.1202111109. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 3420205. PMID 22826239.
  55. ^ Groen, Simon C.; Whiteman, Noah K. (November 2021). "Convergent evolution of cardiac-glycoside resistance in predators and parasites of milkweed herbivores". Current Biology. 31 (22): R1465–R1466. Bibcode:2021CBio...31R1465G. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.10.025. ISSN 0960-9822. PMC 8892682. PMID 34813747. S2CID 244485686.
  56. ^ Losos, Jonathan B. (7 August 2018). Improbable destinies: fate, chance, and the future of evolution. Penguin. ISBN 978-0-525-53413-6. OCLC 1024108339. Archived from the original on 30 June 2024. Retrieved 18 December 2021.
  57. ^ Mayr 1982, pp. 481–483: This sequence tells how Darwin's ideas on adaptation developed as he came to appreciate it as "a continuing dynamic process."
  58. ^ Sterelny & Griffiths 1999, p. 217
  59. ^ Freeman & Herron 2007, p. 364
  60. ^ Rabajante, J.; et al. (2016). "Host-parasite Red Queen dynamics with phase-locked rare genotypes". Science Advances. 2 (3): e1501548. Bibcode:2016SciA....2E1548R. doi:10.1126/sciadv.1501548. PMC 4783124. PMID 26973878.
  61. ^ Gogarten, J. Peter; Doolittle, W. Ford (1 December 2002). "Prokaryotic Evolution in Light of Gene Transfer". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 19 (12): 2226–2238. doi:10.1093/oxfordjournals.molbev.a004046. PMID 12446813.
  62. ^ de la Cruz, Fernando; Davies, Julian (1 March 2000). "Horizontal gene transfer and the origin of species: lessons from bacteria". Trends in Microbiology. 8 (3): 128–133. doi:10.1016/s0966-842x(00)01703-0. PMID 10707066.
  63. ^ Hartwell, Leland; Goldberg, Michael; Fischer, Janice; Hood, Lee; Aquardo, Charles; Bejcek, Bruce (2015). Genetics: From Genes to Genomes (5th ed.). New York City: McGraw- Hill Education. pp. 475–479. ISBN 978-0-07-352531-0.
  64. ^ Futuyma, D. J.; M. Slatkin, eds. (1983). Coevolution. Sinauer Associates. pp. whole book. ISBN 978-0-87893-228-3.
  65. ^ Thompson, J. N. (1994). The Coevolutionary Process. University of Chicago Press. pp. whole book. ISBN 978-0-226-79759-5.
  66. ^ Carpenter & Ford 1933
  67. ^ Wickler 1968
  68. ^ Moon 1976
  69. ^ Ruxton, Sherratt & Speed 2004
  70. ^ Mallet, James (November 2001). "The speciation revolution" (PDF). Journal of Evolutionary Biology. 14 (6): 887–888. doi:10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00342.x. S2CID 36627140. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 28 December 2010.
  71. ^ Jacob, François (10 June 1977). "Evolution and Tinkering". Science. 196 (4295): 1161–1166. Bibcode:1977Sci...196.1161J. doi:10.1126/science.860134. PMID 860134. S2CID 29756896.
  72. ^ Medawar 1960
  73. ^ Mayr 1982, p. 589
  74. ^ Gould, Stephen Jay (June 1974). "The Origin and Function of 'Bizarre' Structures: Antler Size and Skull Size in the 'Irish Elk,' Megaloceros giganteus". Evolution. 28 (2): 191–220. doi:10.2307/2407322. JSTOR 2407322. PMID 28563271.
  75. ^ Garcia, J. E.; Rohr, D.; Dyer, A. G. (2013). "Trade-off between camouflage and sexual dimorphism revealed by UV digital imaging: the case of Australian Mallee dragons (Ctenophorus fordi)". Journal of Experimental Biology. 216 (22): 4290–4298. doi:10.1242/jeb.094045. PMID 23997198.
  76. ^ Tarkhnishvili, David N. (1994). "Interdependences between Populational, Developmental and Morphological Features of the Caucasian salamander, Mertensiella caucasica" (PDF). Mertensiella. 4: 315–325. Archived from the original (PDF) on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 18 August 2015.
  77. ^ Darwin 1871, p. 256
  78. ^ The case was treated by Fisher 1930, pp. 134–139
  79. ^ Cronin 1991
  80. ^ Rosenberg, Karen R. (1992). "The evolution of modern human childbirth". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 35 (Supplement S15): 89–124. doi:10.1002/ajpa.1330350605.
  81. ^ Friedlander, Nancy J.; Jordan, David K. (October–December 1994). "Obstetric implications of Neanderthal robusticity and bone density". Human Evolution. 9 (4): 331–342. doi:10.1007/BF02435519. S2CID 86590348.
  82. ^ Miller 2007
  83. ^ Williams 2010, p. 29
  84. ^ Altwegg, Robert E.; Simmons, Res (September 2010). "Necks-for-sex or competing browsers? A critique of ideas on the evolution of giraffe". Journal of Zoology. 282 (1): 6–12. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.2010.00711.x.
  85. ^ Huxley 1942, p. 417
  86. ^ Huskins, C. Leonard (1930). "The origin of Spartina Townsendii". Genetica. 12 (6): 531–538. doi:10.1007/BF01487665. S2CID 30321360.
  87. ^ Lamoreux, Wilfred F.; Hutt, Frederick B. (15 February 1939). "Breed differences in resistance to a deficiency in vitamin B1 in the fowl". Journal of Agricultural Research. 58 (4): 307–316. Archived from the original on 23 February 2016. Retrieved 20 August 2015.
  88. ^ Dobzhansky 1981
  89. ^ King, R. C.; et al. (2006). A Dictionary of Genetics (7th ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 129. ISBN 978-0-19-530761-0. Dominance [refers] to alleles that fully manifest their phenotype when present in the heterozygous ... state.
  90. ^ Luria, S. E.; Delbrück, M. (1943). "Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance". Genetics. 28 (6): 491–511. doi:10.1093/genetics/28.6.491. PMC 1209226. PMID 17247100. Archived from the original on 30 June 2024. Retrieved 19 December 2019.
  91. ^ Allin & Hopson 1992, pp. 587–614
  92. ^ Panchen 1992, chpt. 4, "Homology and the evidence for evolution"
  93. ^ Gould, Stephen Jay; Vrba, Elizabeth S. (Winter 1982). "Exaptation–A Missing Term in the Science of Form". Paleobiology. 8 (1): 4–15. Bibcode:1982Pbio....8....4G. doi:10.1017/S0094837300004310. JSTOR 2400563. S2CID 86436132.
  94. ^ Baron, M.G.; Norman, D.B.; Barrett, P.M. (2017). "A new hypothesis of dinosaur relationships and early dinosaur evolution" (PDF). Nature. 543 (7646): 501–506. Bibcode:2017Natur.543..501B. doi:10.1038/nature21700. PMID 28332513. S2CID 205254710. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 April 2021. Retrieved 11 February 2019.
  95. ^ Dimond, C. C.; Cabin, R. J.; Brooks, J. S. (2011). "Feathers, Dinosaurs, and Behavioral Cues: Defining the Visual Display Hypothesis for the Adaptive Function of Feathers in Non-Avian Theropods". BIOS. 82 (3): 58–63. doi:10.1893/011.082.0302. S2CID 98221211.
  96. ^ Sumida, S. S.; C. A. Brochu (2000). "Phylogenetic Context for the Origin of Feathers". American Zoologist. 40 (4): 485–503. doi:10.1093/icb/40.4.486.
  97. ^ Odling-Smee, John; Laland, Kevin. "Niche Construction and Evolution". University of St Andrews. Archived from the original on 8 August 2019. Retrieved 17 October 2019.
  98. ^ Wagner, Günter P., Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation. Princeton University Press. 2014. Chapter 1: The Intellectual Challenge of Morphological Evolution: A Case for Variational Structuralism. Page 7
  99. ^ Barrett et al. 1987. Charles Darwin was the first to put forward such ideas.
  100. ^ Van Valen, Leigh (July 1973). "A New Evolutionary Law" (PDF). Evolutionary Theory. 1: 1–30. Archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2014. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  101. ^ Koh, Lian Pin; Dunn, Robert R.; Sodhi, Navjot S.; et al. (September 2004). "Species Coextinctions and the Biodiversity Crisis". Science. 305 (5690): 1632–1634. Bibcode:2004Sci...305.1632K. doi:10.1126/science.1101101. PMID 15361627. S2CID 30713492.
  102. ^ Darwin 1872, pp. 57–58. Darwin in tells the story of "a web of complex relations" involving heartsease (Viola tricolor), red clover (Trifolium pratense), bumblebees, mice and cats.
  103. ^ a b Bernstein, H., Byerly, H.C., Hopf, F.A., Michod, R.E., and Vemulapalli, G.K. (1983) The Darwinian dynamic. Q. Rev. Biol. 58(2), 185–207. doi:10.1086/413216. JSTOR 2828805. S2CID 83956410
  104. ^ a b Michod, R. E. 1999. Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. ISBN 978-0-691-02699-2. LCCN 98-4166. OCLC 38948118
  105. ^ Caro, TM (1986). "The functions of stotting in Thomson's gazelles: Some tests of the predictions". Animal Behaviour. 34 (3): 663–684. doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80052-5. S2CID 53155678.
  106. ^ "Teleological Notions in Biology". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 18 May 2003. Archived from the original on 13 March 2020. Retrieved 28 July 2016.
  107. ^ Sober 1993, pp. 85–86
  108. ^ Williams 1966, pp. 8–10
  109. ^ Nagel, Ernest (May 1977). "Goal-Directed Processes in Biology". The Journal of Philosophy. 74 (5): 261–279. doi:10.2307/2025745. JSTOR 2025745. Teleology Revisisted: The Dewy Lectures 1977 (first lecture)
  110. ^ Nagel, Ernest (May 1977). "Functional Explanations in Biology". The Journal of Philosophy. 74 (5): 280–301. doi:10.2307/2025746. JSTOR 2025746. Teleology Revisisted: The Dewy Lectures 1977 (second lecture)
  111. ^ Pittendrigh 1958
  112. ^ Mayr 1965, pp. 33–50
  113. ^ Mayr 1988, ch. 3, "The Multiple Meanings of Teleological"
  114. ^ Williams 1966, "The Scientific Study of Adaptation"
  115. ^ Monod 1971
  116. ^ Hull 1982
  117. ^ Mayr, Ernst W. (1992). "The idea of teleology" Journal of the History of Ideas, 53, 117–135.

Sources

[edit]