Fish And Evolution

I do not disagree with much of the idea that creatures that happen to be more suited to survival in their environment are more likely to survive to reproduce and so pass along their genes, causing the species to improve over time. The only real purpose in this evolutionary theory is to survive long enough to pass along the genes by being suited to the environment. One of the best ways for any species, whether predator or prey, is to develop camoflage in order to better hide in their sorroundings.

Creatures that dwell on land make extensive use of camoflage. Tigers and zebras have stripes to better hide in long grass, birds of prey can soar without flapping their wings to hide in the glare of the sun, the chameleon can actually change color (colour) to blend in with any sorroundings. The development of such camoflage fits perfectly with the idea of evolution because it increases the chances of survival.

But what about those species that do just the opposite and seem to advertise their presence to potential predators? Many small fish that inhabit shallow waters have those silvery scales that brilliantly reflect the sunlight. I find that this makes no evolutionary sense whatsoever. Why would a species evolve that seems to be trying to advertise it's presence to birds and other predators? This is not the case with only one species but with hundreds of species representing countless fish all over the world.

There can be no better camoflage than invisibility, whether for predator or prey. Living things in water, unlike those on land, have had the evolutionary opportunity to become invisible. Water absorbs light from the sun but it absorbs the longer wavelengths first and shorter wavelenghts last. This is why deep water appears blue and sometimes green, those colors (colours) with longer wavelengths are the ones that can pass through enough distance in water to be refracted back to the surface again.

Have you ever noticed that in photos taken underwater, you never see anything red below about 9 meters (30 feet) depth? This is because red light is so rapidly absorbed by the water. There is no red light below that depth. This means that if a fish were red and stayed below a sufficient depth, it would be essentially invisible.

According to evolutionary theory, the seas should be full of red fish rather than fish with brightly reflecting scales that seem to say to predators "Is it lunchtime yet? Here I am, catch me". Yet, I cannot think of even one fish species that is predominantly red.

Doesn't this seem to be a serious contradiction to what evolution is supposed to be all about? Attaining red colour (color) should be an evolutionarily simple matter for a species of fish. But suppose that God created the environment and all of the creatures in it. There would only be a certain fixed number of bioatoms on earth of which all living things would have to be composed. Predators would be necessary to ensure that enough of these bioatoms remained in circulation. If a form of life was too free of predators and was able to reproduce quickly, it could gain too much monopoly over the existing bioatoms and squeeze out the existence of other forms of life. God did not want this to happen and that is why the environment is as it is.