Ok, I think I can square these ideas. You are pointing out that "adaptation" and "evolution" are largely about changes in genetics among a population. Regardl

Ok, I think I can square these ideas. You are pointing out that "adaptation" and "evolution" are largely about changes in genetics among a population. Regardless of how that change came to be, it is expected that the change could be seen in the genetics. From there, it is the idea that the plasticity being looked at here is not something you would be able to identify at the genetic level, as they all have that genetic code, as it were. I think that makes a bit more sense, and I can sympathize with the shortening of "not genetic changes" to "not adaptation" for a title. For the experiments I would need to know if something was adaptation or not, my point is that I didn't think adaptation was something that had a driving mechanism in the genetics. Would be like looking for adaptation reasons on why some blood types are more common than others. At large, the answer is just that any blood type that confers disadvantage is expected to go away. Any that confer advantage would be expected to get prioritized. And this advantage will be as influenced by the environment as it is by anything else. Again, it all goes back to my understanding of the moths. In a world where the color of the moth doesn't matter, you'd expect a rough mix of colors. In the world where blending in with soot was important, the dominant color became black. When that went away, the dominant color flipped back. At all times, it was basic genetics that determined what color moth reproduction made. It was major changes in the environment that determined which one had more representation in the populations genetics.