I find this an interesting line of argument, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to eventually find out that the current model is missing a lot of important "sec

I find this an interesting line of argument, and I wouldn't be at all surprised to eventually find out that the current model is missing a lot of important "second-order" effects that contribute to the convergence towards good designs for life. I would be particularly interested to see if epigenetics play a larger role than we previously thought, because this would provide for a feedback mechanism. However, I wouldn't discount the importance of _sexual_ fitness being a part of the natural selection picture. In some sense, you have not just nature judging your genes, but an intelligent creature that can make judgments about all sorts of traits that are not critical for survival. Just by being very picky, we all contribute extreme selective pressure. I would also imagine there is somewhat of a runaway effects in this regard. If you confer a slightly crappy gene to your offspring, that will, on average, cause them to find a mate with slightly crappier genes themselves. Go a few generations down that road, and you might finally terminate. Just some food for thought. Obviously your central point that you would need some statistical backing to buy what I've written is well taken.