Should laws go through a Darwinian vetting process?

It seems that if there's a law in the books, someone, somewhere, has attempted whatever action the said law prohibits. A quick way to test this is to realize there is no law against spontaneously jumping unassisted 100 meters without a permit, no law against being invisible, etc.

These "laws" are mypoic at best, if we are truly concerned about the progeny of our species. To think laws are created "in good intention for most of society" is naive at best.

Should we vet our laws using a more biological approach? Ideally, this would be done scientifically, without the citizen's knowledge (as to avoid inherent mental bias). Perhaps genetic developments could allow for tests at birth, to ensure the "blankest" of slates. For example, if x% of people in a certain country/locality/etc are genetically predisposed towards a certain action, it should be, by evolutionary law, legal, regardless of how "immoral" or "dangerous" is it.

The argument is that, for homo sapiens to have evolved to where we are, our innate desires/actions must have a genetic benefit (or otherwise, it would've been weeded out by natural selection).

It's sad that humanity today seems pacified by the daily grind, and don't ponder over these moral / philosophical judgements on a daily basis. Perhaps, as Steve Hawking recently said, humanity will really end in 100 years. Quite frankly, I really wouldn't mind, if we continue supressing our evolutionary spirit by living in a society of servitude and slavery masquerading as "freedom".

This really isn't meant to be some thoughtful epiphany. I tend to question society, and just write my (sometimes juvenile) thoughts here.

Take care.