I wrote the following phrase in my scientific text:
X is ubiquitous in life of Y. On some occasions X might be detrimental, resulting, for example, in so so phenomena. But is it plausible that a function that takes 50% of organism resources would have only negative effects? The answer is likely "no" because such a function would have likely not survived the evolution.
But I was suggested that there a bug in my logic because if an adaptation is neutral and has no effect on reproductive fitness, it can be preserved. Would you agree with this critique? If so, how should I rephrase so that it become more correct?