Encyclopedia of Evolutionary Psychological Science

Living Edition
| Editors: Todd K. Shackelford, Viviana A. Weekes-Shackelford

Adaptations: Product of Evolution

  • Pierrick BourratEmail author
Living reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-16999-6_2106-1

Definition

Structure or behavior of an individual that is the long-term outcome of the process of natural selection.

Introduction

The word adaptation has a vernacular and two technical senses. In a vernacular sense, an individual’s adaptation is simply the adjustment of this individual to new conditions. For instance, when the temperature at the place you are located increases sufficiently, you start sweating. Your temperature adjusts or adapts to this new temperature. This is an adaptation in the vernacular sense, which is different from what evolutionary biologists and psychologists are referring to when they use the word “adaptation,” although a link between the vernacular and the technical senses exists. An adaptation, for an evolutionary scientist, is both a structure (for instance, an organ) or a behavior which is the outcome of the process of natural selection, and the evolutionary process by which such a structure was produced. Thus, one technical meaning of the term...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Bourrat, P. (2015). Origins and evolution of religion from a Darwinian point of view: Synthesis of different theories. In T. Heams, P. Huneman, G. Lecointre, & M. Silberstein (Eds.), Handbook of evolutionary thinking in the sciences. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Boyer, P. (2001). Religion explained: The human instincts that fashion gods, spirits and ancestors. London: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  3. Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species by means of natural selection. London: J. Murray.Google Scholar
  4. Dawkins, R. (1986). The blind watchmaker. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. Godfrey-Smith, P. (2009). Darwinian populations and natural selection. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of san Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 205, 581–598.Google Scholar
  7. Kwiatkowski, D. P. (2005). How malaria has affected the human genome and what human genetics can teach us about malaria. American Journal of Human Genetics, 77, 171–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lewontin, R. C. (1970). The units of selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 1, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nilsson, D.-E., & Pelger, S. (1994). A pessimistic estimate of the time required for an eye to evolve. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 256, 53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyMacquarie UniversityNorth RydeAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Philosophy & Charles Perkins CentreThe University of SydneyCamperdownAustralia

Section editors and affiliations

  • Karin Machluf
    • 1
  1. 1.Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA