[Junior]

Adaptation to surroundings is done within a population, not within an individual. The population adapts to the environment because individuals within that population evince qualities that make them capable of surviving in that environment. Those members of the population without those qualities have reduced abilities to propogate. Mutations occur constantly within these populations -- perhaps millions of mutations a generation. Some give the organism the ability to better adapt to the situation, some have no affect on this adaptation, and some are patently bad. The mutation and selection are the mechanisms. The adaptation is the evolution.

If you can't get even the simple stuff right, there is no hope of discussing more difficult matters with you.

[Havoc]

Adaptation to surroundings is done in the individual and in the population. There are built in responses to conditions. When it gets really hot, My cat sheds. When it gets really cold he doesn't. So the system has built in response to environment. Genetics makes up the change in the larger poplulation when those with traits allowing them survive in a given environment pass there genes on from one generation to the next allowing the dominant surviving trait to control the poplulation. The trait existed in the gene pool to begin with. Death of those not strong enough to survive determines what traits survive; but, this isn't persay a change in an animal species. It is merely a dominance of one or a group of that species' traits in a given area.
This is built in and doen't denote "evolution" or a change in the species. It merely reflects a dominance of a group of traits in the overall pool available to the animal in this population.

Natural selection is something I have no argument with. But expression of traits within a gene pool is not evolution. It does show the flexability of diversity and specificity provided for in the genetic code. And that is worth noting as a remarkable feature; but, one that is shared across life systems.