Is evolution efficient as its designs?

Is evolution efficient as its designs?

(OP) or better yet, does it tend toward efficient designs?

If it means it will be better at generating offspring, yes. Otherwise no.

Evolution can only tend towards to the local optimum instead of a global optimum. These means that there will likely never evolve an organism with wheels despite wheels being more efficient than limbs

sometimes yes, sometimes no.

there is a vein (or artery or nerve) that starts at the head, goes AAALLLL the way down to the stomach around and back up to where it started.

it pretty important, too. I forgot its name though, maybe someone better versed in human anatomy could refresh my memory?

I think you're thinking of the vagus nerve.

does "efficient" even mean anything with respect to evolution? how could evolution be efficient if it doesn't have a task?

well i mean are the phenotypes themselves efficient? so like how many other ways could you arrange any phenotype - in a less complex but biologically plausible way - without changing the behaviour or morphology of the rest of the organism/organism as a whole.

The only mechanism is evolution is death. Everything evolves without direction, or along lines of entropy, or for any "reason". There may be local reasons you assign, but they cannot even be correlated with survival when there are so many reasons things die.

Species are here and look like they do because the trillions of others in their past are not here.

It is pure sophistry to say that the bird has a long bill so that it can get nectar from the deep flower, without also saying the deep flower also evolved and had a role, or that the shallow flowers and the shallow billed birds died out because of a disease in either the bird, so the flower couldn't pollinate, or the flower, so the bird starved, leaving shallow long billed birds and deep flowers.

The fossil record holds the smallest fraction of the variety of species that have ever lived. Your stories of specialization as cause and effect are just another lie in the way you tell your stories.

Everything changes; most things die. What is here, is; What is not, isn't.

There is no design or reason for survival; only reasons for death, most of which have nothing to do with whether you had a specific trait or not. It is incredibly myopic to think so.

wow, pretty heavy! i just said design because its easy to say but see for a better description of what i meant without implying teleology. i was just wondering if there are reasons for which evolution might tend to less complex phenotypes. they dont have to be teleological but can be explanations that appeal to physics or selection. the original motive of the question was because i was wondering if - if i were comparing possible two biologically plausible arrangements for a phenotype, would complexity be a reason in one choice being more likely than the other and if so, would that to an extent conflate the penalties for complexity when comparing models of these phenotypes.