[RandomThoughts3]

That’s not the point. Evolutionary pressure doesn’t care if something is or isn’t useful per see. It’s all situational anyway.

To simplify a lot, either you have offsprings and your genes spread or you don’t and they don’t. Evolution is not a purposeful process towards fitness. It’s a reification of the results of the way genes are passed, how they and the environment affect individual characteristics and how an individual fitness to their current environment impacts their chance to mate.

[b112]

That's not accurate at all. Evolution does care if something is useful, if it aids in reproduction. Learning how to fight, protect, run, hunt, tricks, all of these (such as ambushes, hiding, etc) helps both prey and predator survive in the wild.

Play hones reflexes. Its entire purpose is to train young animals on tactics, and on how to use their body, and on their local environment.

Put another way, if you aren't trained to use your body, you're more likely to die. The same goes with not learning tactics. Or what the local environment is like.

If you don't know what a tree is, if you don't know what a hole in the ground is, what a hill is, how well grass hides you or not, you are at a major disadvantage, if you're hunting, OR if you're hunted!

There can be other mechanisms to learn things, but play is one of them, and having children teach each other, lets the adult protect, and gather food to feed. It also ensures that youth is trained up on the current environment, not one that the parent recalls from youth.

[RandomThoughts3]

> Evolution does care if something is useful, if it aids in reproduction.

Evolution is an abstraction subsuming other mechanisms. It doesn’t care about usefulness. That’s a finalist bias. Individuals reproduce or they don’t.

The rest of your post is pure conjecture. You can’t work backward saying: this thing is useful therefore it’s evolved. That doesn’t make sense especially for complex behaviour.