Kant was not even wrong about this and everything else. He did nothing but to crystalize his own confusion and pass it on to later generations. He failed to notice, for example, that it is not necessary that space have three dimensions, that those dimensions be unbounded, nor that the geometry be Euclidean. And in asking whether the concept is prior to experience, he failed to notice that the question is ambiguous until you specify whose experience you are talking about. Am I criticizing Kant for not knowing about evolution? Not exactly. I am criticizing him for trying to answer questions he was completely unequipped to answer. Questions which he knew he was unequipped to answer. But he just couldn't resist trying. Like almost all philosophy, from the time of the Greeks until today, Kant's thinking was counterproductive - it did more harm than good. And the reason for the failure is easy enough to see for anyone who looks closely. Philosophers try to accomplish tasks that they and their tools are completely inadequate to accomplish. They are like blind artists who seek to execute ice sculpture armed with sledgehammers. If philosophers limited themselves to generating and clarifying questions, they might do some good. If they also venture into listing some conceivable answers to those questions, they perhaps do little harm. But they are never content with that. They attempt to answer their own questions. Using a methodology which is completely incapable of answering questions. Even worse, sometimes they succeed in convincing each other that they have succeeded. And when they do, they congratulate each other and strike a question from their lists. And at that point they do real harm.

I thought Kant's position was the concept of space is necessarily prior to experience, not just that currently-existing life-forms have it prior to experience. So it would seem that it would not validate Kant to find one example of a life-form that happens to have space hard-coded before it has experiences.