Why is it called "evolution theory" instead of "Adaptation

because it doesn't deal with the adaptions of individuals but the evolution of large groups

>>2760281
But from what I understood the group doesn't "evolve" it simply adapts to the current environment.

I found this informative.

evolution (n.) Look up evolution at Dictionary.com
1620s, "an opening of what was rolled up," from Latin evolutionem (nominative evolutio) "unrolling (of a book)," noun of action from past participle stem of evolvere "to unroll" (see evolve).

Used in medicine, mathematics, and general writing in various senses including "growth to maturity and development of an individual living thing" (1660s). Modern use in biology, of species, first attested 1832 in works of Scottish geologist Charles Lyell. Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification, in part because evolution already had been used in the discarded 18c. homunculus theory of embryological development (first proposed under this name by Bonnet, 1762) and in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.

>>2760279
Because the theory of evolution is about the "advancement" of one species to another. Part of it is this idea that progress is always forward. It's more than just adaptation. That's just a part of it. Adaptation causes evolution, ya know?

>>2760328
How is it advancing though? It's just adapting to the current situation.

>>2760328
Don't birds theoretically come from Dinosaurs? How are they an "evolution" instead of simply an adaptation? I'm just asking not saying I'm right.

>>2760293
It would be Lamarckism to say that the group adapts. The gene frequencies of the group's descendants change over time. There no better way to say this other than evolution.

>>2760297
>Charles Darwin used the word in print once only, in the closing paragraph of "The Origin of Species" (1859), and preferred descent with modification,,, in part because it carried a sense of "progress" not present in Darwin's idea. But Victorian belief in progress prevailed (and the advantages of brevity), and Herbert Spencer and other biologists after Darwin popularized evolution.
People didn't even read my post to the end. It's called evolution because brits liked the idea of progress.

>>2760348
So dinosaurs evolved into birds?

>>2760353
Yes though it wasn't a straight journey from T-Rex to Chicken. This is why cladograms are useful

>>2760377
I always try to be sarcastic and it fails. What I mean is it doesn't sound like it's an evolution going from dinosaur to birds.

>>2760328
>progress is always forward
not what it says at all, did you just make that up? Survivability doesn't have a "forward"...some animals specialized as they evolved and some animals became less specialized.

>>2760395
Its Therapods to Birds....archeopterix etc...

>>2760334
>>2760344

Well, like I said, I don't know why they called it evolution. Maybe because as >>2760297 says, it's like a "unrolling" or branching out of one species into others.

Is evolution really moving forward? What I was trying to say, is that's kind of the connotation of the word today. There haven't been any monumental disasters in recent history that set us back to a level of sophistication our ancestors found themselves at. So human sciety evolves (mooves forward). I guess really that was a tangent.

The real difference is that natural factors lead to adaptation, leads to evolution. At some point the difference in selected traits is so great as to render individuals incompatable.

>>2760334
Its not about adapting at all you fucking morons

>>2760423
It's going forward in the sense that time goes forward, really. Nothing else inherently implied.

>>2760652
It literally is you fucking retard. The one who can't survive in the current environment dies and the one who can thrives.

Because adaptation implies that there is an individual coping with it's environment OP.

Which is wrong. What happens is that a population has genetic variation, and some or almost all of the population dies in a specific environment. The part of the group that manages to reproduce before it dies, is the part of the group that pushes it's genetic information into the future.

So, you can imagine that humans carry all the genetic information of all the previous generations that survived and reproduced, which is why are the way we are.

>>2760688
So evolution is basically the equivalent of a plinko machine?

File: 1366909440916.jpg (238KB, 737x338px) Image search: [Google]

238KB, 737x338px

>>2760691
Well, that's one way of looking at it.

Another way is like pic related.