nature produces the optimal animals for survival, and its not limited to the current form the animal is in. (I'll get to that later). think of this as a machine

nature produces the optimal animals for survival, and its not limited to the current form the animal is in. (I'll get to that later). think of this as a machine learning problem, you want to have regularization penalties from over-fitting the environment, because it will inevitably change. the author makes some absurd comments. "There doesn't seem to be any fundamental reason why an animal couldn't evolve which makes steel, for example. It would get its raw material like we do, from iron ore." how does the author expect our bodies to produce heat in the thousands of degrees to burn out the impurities in iron and infuse carbon in its super heated state? i dont buy their argument that our bodies can make anything just because its building stuff at the molecular level. humans survived a lot of extinction level events, a lot of global famine. even if we could do the former, we might have gone extinct if we had extraordinary dietary requirements of iron. and what ever animal we evolved from would have also had to deal with that, and they experienced even larger extinction level events. i was thinking about why the dinosaurs had such small brains. other animals and reptiles living today existed in the same period, and they had larger brains, so I thought the dinosaur brains were small by design, why? i think because being big was adventitious, and being egg layers, only so much air can travel through a membrane. some eggs were as large as 2 feet long, probably not a lot of air getting into the whole system, so a hulking brain is a waste. even if they had small eggs, they needed the ability to evolve / or activate genes to grow big when allowed to do so.