Text 1: Evolutionary theorist Dr. Lisa Moore explains adaptationism. "Natural selection optimizes organisms for their environments," Moore writes. "Traits exist because they enhanced ancestors' fitness. We can infer function from form."
Text 2: Paleontologist Dr. Paul Park emphasizes historical contingency. "Many traits are byproducts of other adaptations or developmental constraints," Park observes. "Not everything is an adaptation. Some features persist through chance or structural necessity."
How does Park's perspective complicate Moore's adaptationist methodology?
By denying natural selection occurs
By suggesting not all traits have adaptive explanations
By claiming organisms don't have traits
By arguing fitness cannot be measured
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Moore infers function from form—if a trait exists, it was selected. Park notes traits might be "byproducts" or "chance." Not every trait requires adaptive explanation.
- Evidence: Park: "Not everything is an adaptation."
- Reasoning: Alternative explanations limit functional inference.
- Conclusion: Park limits the scope of adaptationist reasoning.
Choice A is incorrect because Park accepts selection occurs. Choice C is incorrect because Park studies traits. Choice D is incorrect because fitness isn't disputed.