[PatrickHenry]

I assume you would agree that those individuals which don't survive long enough to breed, regardless of the reason, will have their genes culled from the species. You don't have to look for any further complexities. That alone is the mechanism which determines the individuals nature deems fit to carry on the species. If some of them have a favorable mutation, fine. It stays in the gene pool, at least for this round. Now repeat. Repeat again. Etc. That's pretty much the whole game.

[DannyTN]

"If some of them have a favorable mutation, fine. It stays in the gene pool, at least for this round. Now repeat. Repeat again."

Yes, but aren't most mutation's negative? Look at the number of genetic diseases in humans. Now look at the number of postive mutations in humans that we have identified.

It seems to me that the overwhelming majority of mutations are negative. Many of those will be culled from the gene pool before they can reproduce. But not all of them. Many of the negative mutations will reproduce. Repeat...repeat again....repeat again.

Negative mutations are spreading through the gene pool. Without significant environmental pressure, it seems like the natural course for any species would be to decline over time.

Thus I'm formulating a new principle, that says any species that becomes dominant shall begin to degrade in the absence of sufficient survival pressure. Let's see I need a name for this principle. "The Peter Principle" - no been used already for something similar. "The Principle of Natural Degradation of Dominant Lifeforms" - too long. "De-Evolution" - No, coined before me and is bigger in scope than this principle.

"Dominance Paradox" - Hey I kind of like that. Any lifeform that becomes dominant enough that minor negative mutations are not immediately culled out of the gene pool will begin to degrade. Discovered here today by DannyTN.

Let the Pee-er mocking of new ideas begin!