Hi 3DSOC
It seems to me that a species would devote a lot of energy over a multitude of generations to develop organs capable of detecting light - while competing species may be growing larger over the same period of time. This seems to place the first species at a disadvantage to the second and would therefore be at risk of extinction.
You seem to think that evolution involves creatures 'thinking' about what new adaptations they need and then growing them using the requisite energy.
However, evolution is very far from this. There is no thought and no direction. Random mutations (which happens all the time in all organisms) are selected by the environment (it's not even the environment 'thinking' either) for good effects that enhance the animals chance of getting to reproduction age - that's all that matters in evolution - will the animal reproduce and pass on its genes or not.
Example; The ancestor of the giraffe with necks more like that of other grazing herbivores would have raised their heads to chew on leaves of shrubs and small trees such as acacias. If a mutation occurred that gives an animal a slightly longer neck then that animal can reach leaves others can't - that's the environmental advantage that allows it to get to adulthood where others may starve. The environment favours the adaptation and no planning is involved. In this way successive mutations build and the neck increases over time to what we have today.
Why aren't giraffe necks 200 feet tall then to get the tops of the trees? I'm sure you can work this one out. Adaptations come at physiological costs - a neck that tall couldn't be supported by the rest of the body and would lead to predators taking them easier.
You also appear to have a fixation on 'stronger/bigger' for some reason. Do you know which life-form has been around the longest? Bacteria.
Which constitute the greatest number on the planet today? Bacteria - by several orders of magnitude.
Which life-form can adapt fastest to adverse changes in environment and so survive to a high degree? Bacteria.
On a multi-cellular life basis the insects are far far more successful than any other animal and certainly more so than others many times their size.
Size and strength are very poor indicators of biological success and evolutionary adaptation.
I strongly recommend that you read some biology text books before carrying on with this subject.....a good one would be Richard Dawkins "Climbing Mount Improbable" where Dawkins introduces the reader to how adaptations build and why Darwin's theory holds so much power.
™ Version 4.2
