Answer:
Perfect” is a subjective valuation, applied by comparing one thing to another (more valued) thing. Evolution does not do this. It is a blind algorithm which better fits an organism’s downstream lineage to the environment. One could argue an organism is more “perfectly fit” to the environment, but one cannot ague it’s more perfect than another organism in another environment.
This is the same answer to complexity. Evolution does not inherently push complexity. Complexity is often a defacto result of evolution, simply (again) as an action of the algorithm (I.e. genes often duplicate, which would be a definition of “increased complexity:” Rarely would evolution specifically push for a duplicate gene to “disappear” if it is no longer beneficial. This would be ruled more by chaos theory AKA random chance than an evolutionary force.
As an example, alligators are pretty ideally suited to surviving and producing offspring in their environments - which is why they haven’t changed much in 85 million years. However, one theory of human evolution is apes were driven from the safety of trees, to the relatively more dangerous savannah - which forced a commensurate evolution. This evolution happened to be a more upright stance and larger brains (which we humans often define as both more complex and more “perfect” since we - as smart, upright walking primates - see it as “better.”) But the needed savannah survival gap could just as easily have been filled in by phenotypical changes other than uprightness and intelligence.
Explanation:
pag mali itama nalang po
