The question almost answers itself, really. Look back at that passage - in all those examples, who is being deceived? Are those examples of intra-species deception, or inter-species deception?
They're all examples of inter-species deception, of course. The firefly doesn't seek to deceive his own, but others, from outside the community. When faced with the "other" from outside the community, and survival is at stake, then deception is very much an appropriate and adaptive strategy. But when directed against one's own, and the members of one's own community or species, then it is dysfunctional if widely practiced.
Who you are deceiving, and why, does make some difference, I think you must agree. After all, you said almost as much, by noting that these were deceptions of "opponents" ;)
But I don't think that this changes the basic thrust of my argument that when such practices become widespread, it is dysfunctional. Even among chimps, deception of one's mates is limited to specific circumstances like this, and done occasionally, not as a matter of course. When it becomes the norm, and deception is constant and present in most or all aspects of daily interaction, then society breaks down, and the group suffers, along with all the individuals in it.
I still say that by definition, an evolutionary process cannot be dysfuntional. But even if it were in some sense, the basic thrust of my argument is still that we don't regard what chimpanzees do as morally wrong, even if they were to wipe their entire species out deceiving one anaother. If Eichmann was just as much a product of evolution as chimpanzees, then he was no more wrong than they in deceiving those he regarded as his opponnents. My point is that a culturaly normative moral system that evolves and changes relative to cultures does not give an adequate accounting of what we both viscerally perceive as the hideously and murderously cruel, despicable, immoral acts of Adolph Eichmann.
Cordially,