I mentioned the Borg, but I also mentioned the Thing and Body Snatchers. I never meant a species EXACTLY like the Borg. The Thing is interesting because it is possible that the creature operates as a collective, but then again maybe not. The Thing seems to be aware which other beings are things, but without internal knowledge of the inner workings of the Thing I could never be sure if they aren't communicating in some telepathic manner. Individual cells operate frantically in danger. All alliances seem to be broken in the event of personal danger. A real team player would take one for the team.
The body snatchers are the similar. They exhibit both collective and individual behaviors. A body snatcher replicant has absorbed the memories of it's forebeing. It also has memories from eons of time, but I don't know to what extant Body Snatchers exchange information. Maybe they just tell each other what they know and are honest with each other. Or maybe there is some sort of system like bacterial conjugation. It's never explained, because that would be boring in a narrative.
The Thing is also interesting because it takes place in an isolated place and is rather small scale, but it's events could lead to epic catastrophe. I enjoyed the Thing prequel as fan service, but I desire to see a Thing sequel that expands that story like Alien and Aliens.
---------------------------------------------
As far as Isaac goes. We refer to the Kaylons as a species, but if anything species is a construct in relation to androids. Really their species is android. Product line would be better terminology. But these are mirroring concepts in semantics. Something starts off from a root and branches in diverging directions. Species works best in this context because it is shorthand for "sentient being from this place"
I'd like to see Isaac encounter an AI from another planet. How do the Kaylon react to androids from another planet?

The Kaylon are like people who stay in their small home town and never leave and then Isaac goes off and moves to the big city and then he's like one of city folk now. He lives in the city for a while and gets real liberal, but then he comes back to visit and his old mates are a bunch of whiny losers who don't have much going for them and try to bring him down. But like androids.

I'm also not confusing the concepts of evolution and personal growth. Evolution is change over time. Including personal growth. Not exclusively natural selection. I'm not looking at this subject from a wholly materialistic standpoint. A person could evolve into a different being outside of natural selection. If you could upload your consciousness somewhere you'd have the same transcendence as an android. You wouldn't be human still. Transcendence is a different path of evolution. You could also genetically manipulate yourself into a transhuman. That isn't to say in these paths you wouldn't retain features from your past human self. But you really can't do that. so...
--------------------------------------------
Also, you can't say Isaac didn't develop any attachment to the multiphasic people in Mad Idolotry. Just because it wasn't in exposition didn't mean it didn't happen. He could still mention someone he fancied from that time period in a later episode. The people in the orville aren't any more special than the multiphasic people, but they only have 45 minutes to present a plotline.
---------------------------------------------
"This leads to why the seeding idea is so bad."
"The season finale and Identity was amazing because didn't come out of nowhere, it was teased throughout both seasons and many episodes had setup Kelly for it. Her talk with Gordon in lasting impressions was a massive part of that. It's why the Orville is so good, it weaves small threads into a tapestry. It is consistent with itself, organic in it's story, characters interacts as you would expect if they were real people nor arbitrary skilled at everything nor flawless or have a fig leaf "flaw"."
Setup IS seeding. You denounce one semantic idea and exalt another. They're the same thing. You want to setup a bunch of trees in your back yard? You plant seeds. You let them grow and then you have trees in your back yard.
---------------------------------------------
"Why would you need to create a new species to represent an cultural aspect of an existing in universe alien?"
Allegory. You hit on issues in culture through allegory. They're not real. You could even explore topics in a more thorough manner through an alien avatar. It allows you to explore the extremes of an idea. People have limitations. Why did Stan Lee and Marvel create mutants? Why doesn't he just create a comic book about race relations? Why does Aesop's fables use animals? Why did the Bele have a problem with the Lokai? These are things that get explored in sci-fi shows through fictional species. Ironically, using aliens is a less alienating way to explore a subject than using people.
---------------------------------------------
As far as using existing scifi tropes: I'm just interested in how they explore them. I'm interested in their execution. I play this game called Star Fluxx that precedes the Orville. It has every recurring trope broken down into a playable card.
http://www.wunderland.com/WhatsNewPics/2011/StarFluxxCharacterCollage.jpghttps://d8mkdcmng3.imgix.net/9607/card-games-party-and-family-star-fluxx-1-raw-.jpg?auto=format&bg=0FFF&fit=fill&h=600&q=100&w=600&s=491249bfc36747132d467d42758da717https://www.looneylabs.com/lists/star-fluxx-card-listI enjoy the deconstruction the Orville writers have been doing just as much as the episode plotlines. Using existing plot ideas doesn't make someone a hack. Using them poorly does. The writers of the Orville aren't doing much new. What they are doing is tossing existing plotline salads in an interesting way.