This photoset should be required reading for every citizen.
One of the things I find to be a common misunderstanding is that people think “Adapt to survive” means life forms mutate in ways to suit their environment, when it’s really more like mutations happen and the life form adapts to accommodate it. If they find a more efficient way to live with the mutation or it allows them to spread and flourish in previously uninhabitable territory, it kicks of a process of divergent evolution. If the mutation is too harmful and impedes them too heavily before they can adapt to it, it dies out.
Mutated life forms are often reproductively unappealing to the original population! But in nature some amount of inbreeding is fairly common, and a mutation that might be recessive will become more common in an isolated population. With divergent evolution you often see a population split into groups that change until they do not wish to mate with each other and continue to change until the cannot viably mate with each other. And by then they’re different species. Like with birds, often a group of song birds will not be friendly towards song birds that sing a different tune, even if they’re the same species. One flock of birds gets separated and after a while they begin to sing slightly different songs. the two flocks will no longer socialize with each other, any genetic quirks unique to either of the two flocks will remain within that flock. Over a few generations one flock may have ended up with bigger beaks and the other flock may have loner legs, the standards for a desirable mate in each flock will have changed.
That’s also an oversimplification of the process, but you know, I feel like I see a lot of creationists get hung up on the idea that an animal would be like “it’s cold here, better evolve some blubber into my kids”, when it’s really more like “oh no I ended up with this weird blubber gene, well I guess at least it means I can hunt in colder territory and get food no one else can”