Episode 3. Adaptation

Darwinism lacks a coherent theory of adaptation. There cannot be a coherent theory of evolution without a coherent theory of adaptation, which is why Darwinism cannot be a coherent theory of evolution. Here is why.

[@brianclark3503]

Descent with modification (Darwin's mechanism) and adaptation to changing local environments, has nothing to do with aptitude. Because natural history programming routinely gets the adaptation bit wrong, doesn't detract from Darwin's theory. Darwinism is not, as well, the theory Darwin put forth. It is the consequent "ism" that arose after Darwin proposed his Theory of Natural Selection using descent with modification as its operative mechanism. Mendel's seminal work on genetics languished in obscurity, sadly, throughout the remainder of the 19th Century.
Organisms with excellent aptitudes to exploit an environment can and often do go extinct when their environment changes. It's why there are no dinosaurs about any more. There have been no large organisms that successfully exploited their environment better than dinosaurs. They filled every ecological niche on the planet for at least 165 to 175 million years. Bacteria are the absolute champions of the natural world. They've existed since the earliest time that life arose on the planet about 3 billion years ago. They exhibit the capacity to change and exploit environments that is unparalleled in the history of life on earth.
Ad-aptation is a scurrilous bit of word play. Moreover, in the whole of the "Origin of Species" only once is the root of evolution, evolve, used. It's in the final paragraph of the book. I tried to find a source that allowed for adapt and apt as synonyms. They're not. There's a disingenuous conflation of meaning going on here. Even adaption and adaptation differ in their meaning but are more likely to be confused with each other than aptitude and adaptation.