I didn't say that he's refusing to believe the result. Rather, I found it amusing that he did not reassess his prior beliefs in light of new evidence. He continued to assume that collaborative/mutualistic behavior decreases fitness, even while noticing that many animals engage in it. He saw this as puzzling, when it may simply mean that this type of behavior doesn't actually decrease fitness.
Not sure what you meant by eludidate btw.
(Also: please make fun of my typos some more. That absolutely benefits the discussion.)
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.
If it is found throughout all of nature, shouldn't it be expected rather than surprising?
I'm sorry? The quote seems pretty clear to me: Melamed is expressing that the result is surprising. He is clearly not refusing to believe it.
The ability to eludidate ones priors and explain their conflicts with data is, in fact, probably the most critical single component of "reassessing ones views".
I don't understand your comment at all, honestly.