Read about Lamarkism and Lysenkoism. Read why they were wrong.

You are travelling the same path, blindly, when others have already placed torches to light the way.

There are so many areas where you're demonstrably wrong that it's almost futile trying to chip away at your misinformation.

Let's try a few points though:-

Are you aware of the way that evolutionary lineage can be detailed by random mutation of "junk DNA" - that's the accumulation of neutral mutations, even in a static population. The Ceolocanth of today has different DNA from that of the Carboniferous era, even if it is physically almost identical. Functional DNA is preserved by interaction with the environment, (or the species changes by evolution). Non-functional DNA undergoes a random walk through time, allowing us to measure the rate of random mutation.

Your focus on physiological adaptation and paralleling that to the first steps of evolution is a dangerous misconception. Sure, if we work out, we get stronger muscles and bones, and our circulation improves, but our children and our children's children will still have the same range of ability to pump iron. Only if you select breeding stock from winners of Mr Universe competitions will there be selective evolution and the ultimate descendants will be predisposed to muscularity. Lamark and Lysenko were wrong. Lysenko had to cheat, in the end.

As for energy efficiency, sure, bull moose that grow antlers more efficiently are preferred, but the FACT that they have antlers is a crazy outcome of sexual selection. Tom's TOucan has an efficient light weight beak, amplified to super size, largely for sexual display purposes.

Evolution and sex are intimately linked. If you don't "get" one you probably don't "get" the other.