>there are plenty of animals that are only parasitic for a specific time and will later live outside any host getting nutrients in a “normal” way
Off course there is plenty of any thing in biology, I was describing every single parasite I know of or read about.
You can remove that requirement from the list if you want.
>I sure hope you don’t mean manipulation in a sci-fi brain controll way,
That would be ridiculous. I meant 'manipulate' as in "cause something to happen for your own benefit" which is an extremely boring way of saying that the parasite has all the agency, the host body is not cooperating with it. Unlike a baby, which the host body is bending over backward to host and nurture, the parasite is 'making its own living'.
>how the hell knowledge even come into the picture
Did you just mis-quote me on that? Because I remember quite clearly that this isn't my actual 4th point, it was a philosophical remark that I said could be a 4th point, my actual 4th point was
>>the host(s) don't host the parasite willingly or deliberately, and usually fight a constant arms race of anti-parasite adaptations followed by counter adaptations from the parasite.
Do you have problems with that as a necessary requirement for parasitism?
>So I really have no idea where you got these ridiculous made-up requirements
3 out of 4 of them are true when you take the time to interpret them as I meant them, and the 4th isn't exactly wrong either. I'm curious as to your definition of "made up".
>Oxford’s dictionary
Dictionary definitions are frequently less accurate than domain specific definitions.
>an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species
>this is absolutely true of human babies
Uhm... human babies are another species?
>the female body is not made for bearing children.
The entirety of this statement truth value rests on a semantic game played on 'made'. You define 'made' as necessarily requiring an intelligent design, whereas I define it simply as whatever happens when a process produce behaviourally-consistent artifacts. The vast majority of planets revolve around stars, therefore planets can be said to be 'made' to orbit stars. The vast majority of female bodies are well-equipped to carry babies, therefore female bodies can be said to be 'made' to carry babies.
When I say 'made', I don't necessarily imply a 'purpose' or a 'designer', I'm simply pointing out the sheer consistency of a form to its function, the female body is as suitable to carrying children as a planet is suitable to orbiting stars.
>Rh disease (where the mother’s body literally attacks the fetus)
Well, every program has its bugs :). How common is Rh disease? How many healthy babies are born for every baby attacked by Rh? Your own immune system turns mad sometimes and start killing you from the inside, does that imply that your immune system is not a machine with killing threats as the main purpose?
>good enough
This is underselling it. It's not hit or miss with a 50-50 or 70-30 %, the things you describe are extraordinarily rare, rarer than computer bugs and manufacturing defects in human-made machines.