Actually, you can't tell what "evolution" is going to do, nor can anyone else. "Evolution" as it's called, is random mutation of DNA in a constantly changing environment. Since no one can predict precisely how any environment will change (our most super supercomputer can't predict the events in a cubic centimeter of air with any degree of certainty) then neither you nor any team of intellectual dilettantes with a supercomputer can predict the environment in which any suitably large population of DNA driven creatures will need to survive. In a hundred or a thousand years selfishness (and I have read everything Rand wrote so don't get me started on your definition) may well be the ultimate survival trait. For the next five minutes after that. For 250 million years, the hardiest DNA belonged to dinosaurs. Then, in the blink of an eye, which is to say somewhere between 1,000 and 10,000 years in the global scale, their DNA was suddenly next to worthless unless you were a turtle, a crocodile, an alligator, a toad or a skink. Mammals and birds are now in favor and have been for well less than half the dinosaurs' span. I, personally (and, really, what other choice do I have?), believe the next superiority in evolution will be raccoons. But, when mammals have lost their environmental advantage, it will probably be the cephalopods' world. Fish always seem to win out, global desert or ice age notwithstanding, since 90% of the worlds' species are located in the ocean anyway. Kind of gives you the idea that the original move to dry land was a bit of a lark and is still being laughed at by those who have been around for over 300 million years, like the shark and the amoeba.
