So the male will adapt more to what the female wants than merely so it can survive - the best examples of those are the Irish elk which bred itself into extinction (possibly) because the female elk selected for the males with the biggest antlers and so the males couldn't hold it's head up and thus perished without reproducing. But it's only a theory because a lot of mega fauna died off.
Another better example is the peacock. Male birds that have this massive tail for displaying and thus impressing females. The theory is that this massive tail of feathers makes it more difficult for the male bird to survive because it can't move out of the way of predators quickly. The trivial idea is that peahen with their small female bird brains are only selecting for the prettiest tail. I disagree. What the female bird sees when she sees this impressive tail is that this bird is still alive, he has to be cleverer than the average peacock to evade those predators, he has to be agile and strong and still be able to fly enough to evade predators despite this bird's impressive tail.
Perhaps this is not precisely what is going on inside the mind of the peahen, but it is a symphysis in nature. It wasn't on the mind of the male bird to grow it's tail either, it just knows it must survive.
So often we are doing stuff that perpetuates our species without ever being aware that this is what we are doing such as pair bonding in our society - did you marry to have kids knowing it's primary focus was to perpetuate the species?
So I called this entry DNA - because I think there is way more encoded into our DNA than merely the information encoded down the chromosomes. In my opinion, the chromosomes form something probably more like a hologram. That the information package is read across the chromosomes as well as down and potentially more ways than that. And seeing the resultant organism is something more like seeing the hologram rather than merely chemical markers.
This is my primary reason for being skeptical about GMO products. We are only at the very beginning of understanding DNA yet there are people who feel willing to tinker with this? As a scientist I say tinker, but not at the expense of our environment because we do NOT know what we are doing. Tinker in labs but be sure not to let those experiments into the environment.
The big problem with corporate science is that it is in such a hurry to make a fortune without considering consequences of it's experiment, and then corporations are quick to protect their cash cows even at the expense of our human existence with buying politicians and rigging laws.
What is good to know is that if an organism's DNA is broken the organism usually will not survive gestation and cooking destroys DNA however what happens when the organism 'kinda' works but not really? Are you willing to eat that?