[jmye]

> Yes, and to get there we use immunity that is activated on demand. Clearly that was better from evolutionary perspective than preactivation or always-on.

I don't think you understand evolution. Neither needs to be "better" for anything other than survival to reproduction. Evolution isn't min-maxing in a video game.

[ivan_gammel]

I don’t think you understand it, if you cannot connect the dots. And of course “survival for reproduction” is oversimplification of what’s actually happening. Chances for survival to reproduce of some individuals are greatly influenced by survival of their relatives in the same group. The traits that help whole group to survive will win in natural selection, including those that extend survival beyond what’s necessary to reproduce to what’s beneficial for the group.

[jmye]

> I don’t think you understand it, if you cannot connect the dots.

This doesn't mean anything.

> Chances for survival to reproduce of some individuals are greatly influenced by survival of their relatives in the same group. The traits that help whole group to survive will win in natural selection, including those that extend survival beyond what’s necessary to reproduce to what’s beneficial for the group.

Which, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with whether current traits are optimized for perfection, or simply sufficient for continued reproduction. Again, evolution isn't min-maxing your video game character. I'm not clear why you have such strident opinions on something you don't understand very well.

[ivan_gammel]

If you think that repeating the same sentence twice would make it a better argument, maybe you should think again. Saying “it’s not X”, when nobody claimed X is quite strange way to prove anything.

[jmye]

I suppose "repeatedly" complaining about how someone says you're wrong is easier than admitting you had no idea what you were talking about in the first place. Seems like a suboptimal life strategy, though.