>>9856238it has to do with how evolution works and what it "finds" the most "convenient." the process of taking an already dissolved substance and precipitating it out might have taken more calories, and your body decided it was easier to piss something out than to develop a new metabolic procedure and temperature regulation and all that
when i was taught genetics, biochem, and all that jazz, one of the recurring mantras i was told was
>evolution is a tinkerer, not an inventorand what that means is evolution isn't a master architect of the whole thing, it's the culmination of random beneficial mutations, slight increments over time. and that's why if you look at the body or some other creature and think "why does it do X and not Y which is more efficient?" the answer is either
>it's not as easy to do Y as it would appearlike in the case of it taking a metabolic process to precipitate, which would require a complicated series of genes for the enzymes and proteins all involved with that process
or
>the random mutation just happened to cause X instead of Ya lot of people like to ask about our excretory functions because they seem inconvenient and they wonder why evolution didn't accomplish it better (another recurring idea in those fields is to believe evolution is "infallible" in that things occupy a biological niche and do what they are supposed to do in a way that nothing else can usurp in that niche), you aren't the first i've seen ask that. but it's just that the random mutations that would lead to how it currently functions were far more likely than developing a more complicated set of organs to do it in a more unified way. as far as evolution is concerned, the problem of waste is reasonably solved, it's at a stable point - a local maximum of efficiency
