Right, it can still work, as other commentors also show with their interpretation. However, I'd say that this is only so because we put in the effort to "patch"

Right, it can still work, as other commentors also show with their interpretation. However, I'd say that this is only so because we put in the effort to "patch" the metaphor into something the author didn't really say. Also even then a lot of those comments still miss why I take issue with the "evolutionary dead end" implication, which is that it is presented as evolutionary survivors somehow being inherently better compared to what went extinct. Evolutionary dead ends do exist, but in reality extinction often comes down to (un)lucky circumstances. > But maybe that's just a quibble. Heh, maybe, but the quibble is valid. Quibbling over such details is practically how paleonerds show affection, right?