[AntiGuv]

I've already responded to your 'concerns' above. Repeating your falsehood doesn't make you any less wrong, just more stubbornly wrong.

PS. The only genetic "superiority" from the standpoint of evolution is fitness to survive and propagate. Our aesthetic value-judgments are of no consequence whatsoever in that regard..

[furball4paws]

Do you have a link to the questions of evolving "up", "higher", "lower". Gould used to persuasively argue that there is not up or down. A trilobite was highly evolved and successful. It is not a lower form (evolutionary speaking) that a human. Both are/were ideally suited for their respective environments and points in history.

[Southack]

"The only genetic "superiority" from the standpoint of evolution is fitness to survive and propagate. Our aesthetic value-judgments are of no consequence whatsoever in that regard.."

Then you misunderstood my point, which *wasn't* aesthetic; it was caloric.

It takes *more* energy, with more risk, to make genetic copies of DNA that include completely unused code.

Ergo, an organism that was identical in every way except that had less unused genetic code than its (outwardly appearing) twin would have an energy advantage; Natural Selection should therefore favor it.

[Southack]

"I've already responded to your 'concerns' above. Repeating your falsehood doesn't make you any less wrong, just more stubbornly wrong."

I repeated a falsehood?! Please, quote me so that I may have the chance to correct my error(s), if any.