The several senses of the term "adaptation" have something in common --the idea of compensation for change:

short-term adaptations are behavioral or physiological, longer- term adaptations may be developmental (environmentally induced changes in anatomy, physiology, or behavior), and the longest-term adaptations are genetic (more-or-less "programmed" changes in anatomy, physiology, or behavior; more- programmed=relatively "closed," i.e. not susceptible to environmental influences; less programmed=relatively "open," i.e. susceptible to environmental influences.)

The above was stolen shamelessly from somewhere on the internet.

So, let me ask this: Why are there only two camps? Have humans so limited their thinking that they accept

1) Evolution must 'be' the answer because we can't accept the alternative of creationism

2) Creationism must 'be' the answer because we can't accept the alternative of evolution

Why are we not looking for third alternatives, or fourth, etc? A very intelligent individual said above that evolution is sooo slow we can't 'see' it. Let me ask: Sharks. They have remained unchanged for hundreds of thousands of years. Why haven't they further evolved?

If questions of this type seem unfair, allow me to posit that they are no more unfair than saying it's evolution or creationism. Neither have proof to support them, IMO, and that then should force us to start looking elsewhere for answers.

I am not meaning to be argumentative. Simply, I think both 'sides' of the above argument have tunnel vision.