Evolution-inLimited model?

[John M <***>]

List-friends who know a lot about ModRel, I have a
question asking for remarks. 
On another list upon phantasms of utopistic physicists
and their philosophical nightmares i wrote among
others (saving the back-and-forth):
----------
...
"Speaking about "us" and our (open to evolution) 
>DNA<: brings up the thought that "we" are also models
cut and limited by program potentials of our DNA - not
free to 'nature as a total'. That makes us really a
'species' and cuts our evolution to 'within' the
species' boundaries. We do not grow gears and wings to
fly. Or gills. Or magnetic resonance receptors. 
(This is a new idea in my views and I thank you (NN)
profusely for triggering that up in me. I have to
think about it. We are not so open either to every
(possible? or even impossible) effect to respond.
Which makes me doubt about the correctness when I
opposed the validity of AI's claim to represent
limitless(?) human thinking. 
[Maybe I have to reconsider AI (and also AL?) as the
way to imitate the 'model human'??? even 'bio-life'???
The last par is absolutely unchecked, a new idea and a
new view. I am not ready to argue it in any ways.]
> ...
-------------------------------
The remark to AI and AL referred to their imitation
IMO of the 'so far discovered' knowledge of mind and
world, as contrasted to our (human?) and life's -
natural model - in infinity. I assigned the alleged
'Eliza' computer-experiment's unlimited 'openness' to
limited to its (her?) design conditioning in accepting
certain information - not beyond - . Then it may be
open to unlimitedly handle just those. 

Our mind (whatever we identify it by) is not limited
to DNA or other restrictions. Our bodily evolution IS.
What kind of a 'unit' are we? Are the mind-body
separatists right? eternal soul? frail body? it
negates briefly a total worldview!

I am working on a position concerning "what are WE" as
a limited unlimited 'attractor' or 'model', the self
in a mental the body in a matterly aspect, with much
more interreltaions than acknowledged by the
reductionist sciences - yet functioning in observation
of certain restrictions. How the 'network' human
selects its close or remote connections. The above
question is highly disturbing in my adjusting to RR's
modeling relation. 
(Or to whatever I guess to know about it).

John M