Archimedes Plutonium schreef
No, this is a flaw in Darwin Evolution theory. Your above is another
example of "postdiction" of Darwin Evolution. This particular flaw is that
of "generalist" versus "specialist" and that when a plant or animal becomes
too specialist faces the quick road to extinction. If you look at the record
of species gone extinct it is replete with specialists, seldom any
generalist.

+ + +
The keyword here is "too specialist".
Species can go extinct when they become "too generalist" also
+ + +

[...] So no plant or animal would make a choice of going to be specialized
from that of generalized.

+ + +
Lots of them do, for very good reasons. Specialists outcompete generalists,
as long as their specialty applies. This leads to increased chances of
survival.
+ + +

So, Darwin Evolution is again a flawed theory which works okay in
large part but is flawed and frayed at all margins. It is an algorithm, a
rule of thumb.

+ + +
As algorithms are something entirely different from rules of thumb, you may
want to choose which you mean?
+ + +

The true theory

+ + +
This is a contradiction in terms. Something either is true (seen from a
religious perspective) or a theory (a scientific law). A "true theory" is a
falsehood.
+ + +

that replaces Darwin Evolution is what John Bell, the physicist called
Superdeterminism. For you cannot have a world where both Darwin Evolution
and Superdeterminism co-exist.

+ + +
Allright, as I cannot have it, maybe you should have it?
PvR