Will all of these and other interesting traits be lost because they are not selected for anymore, todays survival depends on making money to feed yourself and if you have bad gens you can get healthcare and pass on your bad gens to the next generation and the good gens have the same amount of chance of being passed on as the bad ones.
To paraphrase Hamlet, "No mutation is either good or bad, but the environment makes it so. " Of course that is not strictly true, there are embryonic lethal mutations which will never be passed on, but those aren't being ameliorated by modern medicine any way so are not particularly relevant to your question.
Your assumptions of what makes a 'good' or a 'bad' gene are highly subjective. What you describe are rather interesting traits as you yourself put it, there is no reason to think that they are also selectively beneficial traits.
We can easily think up just so scenarios where they would be beneficial, but so what?
Why has only one life form attained a higher brain and speech - the most powerful tools a life form can possess? This says a life form [species] follows its own kind, and is not fundamentally impacted by evolution but the directive program transmitted by the host parents.
In what way does it say that? As far as I can see it is a complete non sequitur. Unless you choose to completely ignore reality you can't escape the fact that the genetic 'program' passed from parents to offspring is modified and therefore susceptible to change and a suitable substrate for evolution.
I'd also question your criteria for saying that speech and a complex brain are the most powerful tools a life form can possess. It seems very anthropocentric, essentially saying 'What we do best must be the most important things, because we are the most important things". Going by most biological criteria for success, population size, rate of growth and adaptability many bacterial species, nematodes and probably some insect ones have us beat.
When will you guys get to the part what role a host tranmittance to the offspring plays - remember that teeny weeny factor!?
Maybe when you can coherently explain just what the hell you are talking about? Those of us in touch with reality know what it is that is transmitted between parents and offspring, it is principally genetic material in the form of DNA along with a few proteins and some organelles.
We also know that this genetic material is subject to changes and that such changes can have effects on morphology, cognition, speech, behaviour and a host of other factors.
Just putting your fingers in your ears and going 'La, la, la! Nothing changes' doesn't make it true.
Wow, well done IAJ, you have transcended your usual level of incomprehensible gibberish to reach new heights of impenetrable jibber-jabber.
What you seem to be saying is that you don't have a clue about genetics and presumably, since you have been on this board for more than 4 years, you don't care to learn about it either since it is one of the most frequently discussed topics in the science forums.
I say this genetic configuration is better described as a code of a directive program, which contains all the data required in determining the offspring, to the extent it leaves no margin of play for any other factors as impacting.
Well, again, reality disagrees with you. There are a number of environmental factors from temperature to pH to the presence of particular vitamins or other chemicals that can affect an organism's development and its eventual phenotype, so in fact the margins of play you declare cannot exist do exist.
These environmental effects are distinct from the changes in the heritable material. Changes in the genetic material are what are termed mutations. There are multiple causes for such mutations, some environmental and some simply due to imperfections in the replication process when DNA is copied during meiosis or mitosis.