> My argument isn't about if it's advantageous or not. I don't know if you're being fair to yourself. It's probably advantageous to have simple heuristics for

> My argument isn't about if it's advantageous or not. I don't know if you're being fair to yourself. It's probably advantageous to have simple heuristics for determining if you should care for something, if that something will turn out to be your offspring 98% of the time. What possible pressure would there be to push that to 100%? It would be possible for DNA to do better with some sort of signalling. Select for kids that inherit a smell, for example. But to develop that you'd have to start with a bunch of false negatives, and a bunch of deceptive smells would develop to start giving you false positives again.