> You don't think it's appropriate for a scientist to be puzzled by a result? Definitely. However, there didn't seem to be an attempt to also question his exis

> You don't think it's appropriate for a scientist to be puzzled by a result? Definitely. However, there didn't seem to be an attempt to also question his existing theory regarding evolutionary fitness. Again, the results are only puzzling if you assume collaboration decreases fitness, but that assumption should always be open to reassessment. > please make fun of my typos some more No need for sarcasm, my comment was not intended to be snarky. The word could have been 'elude', 'elucidate' or smth else. I will go for 'elucidate' since it fits best in the context.