Domestic animals <i>are</i> more successful right now than the humans breeding them if we count the total mass of organisms sharing similar genes; which IMO simply demonstrates the absurdity of much of our thinking about evolution in terms of winners and losers. (Another example - if you look at &quot;evolutionary success&quot; as the prevalence of patterns in general and not necessarily genes, then simple molecules like H2O are infinitely more successful&#x2F;prevalent in terms of their total mass than any kind of a living organism, which means that the best way to win the evolution game is not to play. If we think of evolution as a game where winning equals maximizing the number of times a pattern appears in the physical space, then it ought to be one of the stupidest and most pointless games ever.)