@EOM:
meanmrmustard - I understand that video concept and ofcoarse the smarter fish survive and pass on those genes, etc. Now let's say within that same video, they had sharks as well.
What WOULD make sense are that the fastest, quickest, and smartest fish would escape and those are the ones that by many generations would improve and get away.
Why would that make any more sense than the fish on the other end of the spectrum (the really slow ones) gaining an advantage by slowing down and simply blending into the surroundings (rocks and the like) as camouflage ?
See my inline comments marked in [brackets, bold, and italics], and then some further comments below it:
What would NOT make sense is that let's say the sharks absolutely hated jellyfish and suddenly [What do you mean by "suddenly". Even evolutionists wouldn't use such a word here] out of those same fish, [what do you mean "same fish" - remember individuals never evolve, ever] some developed the ability to look like those exact jellyfish that the sharks hate, according many people here, that could happen and they can't find anything to question how that makes sense. [I dont' think that is true. There have been examples given, some hypothetical, some real] Whereas how would they get the ability to look like something the predator doesn't like? Or camouflage, how did and WHY did camoflauge develop/evolve?
How would they get the ability to look like any surroundings? In the previous comment I was hinting that you were focusing in on the fast fish, as if they are "better", but they may not be. You seem to be stuck with a "i-can't-see-the-entire-series-of-steps-in-my-mind-therefore-it-must-not-be-able-to-occur" mentality. It is somewhat like the "irreducibly complex" fallacy.
If there is no thought process involved, what could cause the ability to look identical to your surroundings to evolve, what would trigger it?
There is no specific trigger. Just populations with traits, some better suited the the current environment than others.
What chemical response could possibly cause that?
It is not a chemical process, it is an inter-generational process involving populations.
And aside from the thought or idea of camouflage and hiding or blending in, where did the idea of copying and looking like surroundings get introduced?
Nobody comes up with the idea. It is not a thinking process.
Does not evolution teach that each thing evolved served a purpose and reason in response to environment and the loss due to no longer needing it?
No. That might be where you are hung up. There are simply: a) populations with variation, b) ununiform reproduction (some pass on, some don't, some pass on a little, some a lot), and c) the population shifts over time. These structures don't come about for a "purpose" per-se. The traits are magnified (selected upon) or not. The effect is what looks like purpose, but it is not.
MMM
