Could you explain the difference between “adaptation”, in the sense you mean, and “evolution” in a way that doesn’t reduce to the difference between kinematical law and dynamical law?
By kinematical law I mean, for example, Ptolemaic description of epicycles vs, for example dynamical laws of motion that explain the kinematic paths with Newtonian orbital mechanics.
PS: This distinction is also behind the current fallacy dominating the fields not only of machine learning but of social science’s reliance on statistics to infer causation – and it is why I continually try to get people to stop thinking of Solomonoff Induction’s importance as being primarily in artificial intelligence. It is really a model selection law that revolutionizes science and could free the social sciences from captivity to pseudoscientific disputes over “causation vs correlation”.
Adaption is change in a species to aid it in the environment it finds itself. So we have blacks in Africa and pale whites in the northern parts of the world (norther Swedes, Norwegians eg.).
Evolution would be the emergence of a specifically different species from a previous one. So, for instance, dogs are dogs, despite a wide variety of appearance caused by breeding for certain characteristics. Humans too show a variety of characteristics. So Mediteranians seem to have a significant increase in thalassemia, technically. a genetic blood defect but in point of fact a defense mechanism against malaria.
The fossil record is full of organisms but it shows no EVOLUTIONARY evidence. Another thing it fails to show is evidence of failures, which Evolutionary Theory absolutely requires. And there ought to be a plethora of it.
Furthermore there is the whole issue of data. DNA is a very complex coding system, but any such system needs definite data input in order to create a new creature. While there is evidence of new creation, there is no evidence whence such information came from. The laws, codes (DNA) merely describe the characteristics - they do NOT consist of input. So I would ask from. when comes the data necessary to make - corn (never mind cats, humans, fish, dolphins, etc).
I wish I had something intelligent to say to this because I think it’s a really important subject, but I don’t feel like I really do. The only thing I can think of is that I’m a surprised that some people on the right are going along with the idea that property is bad.
I tend to think of these things like an accountant, which means, for example, that if all property were to be nationalized, there would be one balance sheet with one entity holding the equity… perhaps it would be called “the people’s equity.” We all wouldn’t have our own balance sheets anymore.