Not sure if nature as an opinion. Whatever it is, it is finite and fixed for good in the realm of classical physics, pretty much as a “statue-equation”. In the classical physical world we observe directly and of which evolution is part, there simply is not the capacity to acquire shapes or states as is inherently possible for particles at the quantum level. Thus evolution is severely restricted, not to mention mere odds and confronting the constant counter current of entropy itself.
Even an unlimited adaptability, or one greater than the number of tries needed to obtain a survivable subsequent specie, the species set is finite, even considering advanced species from another world or time.
There is not an infinite number of species possible through evolution, but, rather, it is much more likely that the course of evolution is following a specific equation within which a certain number of types of species will occure or would occure in various set scenarios. It is a limited opinion governed by a differential chaotic equation.
Within that limitation of evolution, man can intervene by designing proteines or randomly producing proteine and selecting them and testing them for viability.
To think that nature has all the answers an opinions, that it is some kind of infallible parent that got us there through random processes, is attributing a characteristic that is not natural to nature, it is to nearly deify nature.
The other question is one of the “draggons”. Some sorts of specie that is super adaptable and very aggressively conceived, one above all others in adaptability simply does not exist.
Why is it the turtle of the Gallapagos adapt a long nexk to reach tree leaves on one island that are much higher perched than on another island, and yet have not been trying to, say, grow wings instead?
The idea of the intermediary state and current stability of adaptation vs. stabilty of ecosystem is intriguing, as if evolution occured within specific limits. In any case a fixed formula governs the energies of a specie “chooses” to expand given a challenging environment in order to adapt to survive. Yet environments evolve too and change at different speeds.
When comes to the production of antibodies, an animal constantly reinvest parts of its energies into producing a variety of possible genes to defend against future pathogens, and this independently of the pathogenic challenge out there. It does not seem that such energies is also devoted to all the environments beyond the immediate ones with which the specie interacts. Why? Why not?
In any case, “draggons” do not occur naturaly to rule the world, or at least not yet. It would take the imagination of man to essentialy reshape the nature for the better, for stronger and more intelligent species.
And whether nature has had its opinion until now, man, being a superimposed being, will have its say through genetics design, and hopefully intelligent ones, it is inevitable. The genie is out of the bottle and evolution by itself is not alone anymore to “evolve” the world.
That is much more important and relevant than the dispute as to how evolution operates. In some ways we might do classical gene distribution testings in random fashion letting nature/chance do its work, and in others where such inefficient thermodynamic expense is not viable, the design will be done directly.
It's a quantum world from top to bottom. The "classical world" is just our experience of the quantum world in aggregate. That was the point I was making with the importance of Quantum Uncertainty as the foundation of "normal matter" that we experience as classical objects.
In the case of biology, the life processes and of course the genetic code are founded directly on the behavior of atoms and molecules, which can only be meaningfully described by QM.