Well, as a serious side-note, when I go through Cecil’s mail, there’re very often requests to explain human or animal behaviors in terms of evolutionary advantage… sometimes, even when it’s silly (since evolutionary advantage only has impact up through child-bearing and possibly rearing years.) I think it’s this deep-seated belief that all behaviors are explainable.
If this is addressed to me, all I’m saying is the primary difference between modern humans and cavemen, if any, is that modern human men have a lot less testosterone, on average, than early homo sapiens did, and that that genetic, evolutionary adaptation provided an advantage. Men with less testosterone formed larger societies that were less ‘clan-based’ and took over the world.
Dominant traits don’t take over an entire population if the mutation does not either help nor hinder. There are just as many blond genes as brunette genes out there, but the blond only gets manifested when both genes are blond. Blonds aren’t dying out.
So it is rational to ask, if a trait seems near universal (like morning sickness), is there an evolutionary benefit? You don’t need to posit that evolution had a purpse, only that when evolution happened upon morning sickness some benefit was conferred.
I’m just a simple caveman. Your modern ways frighten and confuse me. When I watch the spirit box with the blinking lights, I think “Are those little people trapped in the box?” I don’t know, because I’m a caveman - that’s the way I think.
Not anymore.
Perhaps, but what if you find no particular benefit?
These people seem to ask this question as if every trait must have some specific and identifiable benefit in order to be a valid or understandable part of the evolutionary process.
That’s absolutely true. To an extent. 
Unfortunately, the advent of genomic science means that over the next few years, we’re going to be seeing the news publish a lot of poorly written stories saying that “science has discovered the gene responsible for…” a wide variety of behaviors. In fact, that’s kind of what my lab does. Having lots of genomes available online means mapping all sorts of phenotypes to different genotypes is taking off in a huge way. I’m planning a project looking at genetic determinants of fruit fly larval behavior, for example, and the power of the systems involved is rather breathtaking. If people in general don’t develop a more sophisticated understanding of biology and genetics, the problem is just going to get worse.
Third or fourth or fifth this. Unsurprisingly enough, sociobiology fans pick and choose more than religious fundamentalists.
OP: you know why penis shaped bananas are so popular right?
cause they’re freaken good. How could you dislike them?
I assume Kirk Cameron’s in on that one?
What’s the evolutionary advantage of jumping on the bandwagon? 
No,
Thats what happened to the Neanderthals. Though they did eventually become reasonably successful in insurance business…
:dubious:
Well, of course it worked. If cavemen thread-starters hadn’t attracted mates and passed on their thread-starting genes, we wouldn’t have anyone to start threads, now.
How do you know that early Homo sapiens had higher testosterone levels? We can’t go back and measure it.
This is an example of what the OP was complaining about. We don’t know whether over the last 70,000 years humans have evolved higher testosterone, lower testosterone, or stayed the same. Maybe we’ve evolved lower testosterone, and your story about how that would decrease intra-group friction seems to make sense. But can you point to any scientific research that supports your theory?
Instead, you theorized that modern humans are less violent to each other than cavemen, so you think it stands to reason that we must have lower testosterone than they did. Maybe your theory is right, maybe it’s wrong, but we can’t test it, so it isn’t a scientific theory.
On unfogged, this mindset gets mocked a fair amount, usually with reference to things happening “back on the veldt”. Further reading:
I’m pretty sure the default answer to these sort of questions would be: because there was no evolutionary disadvantage to the trait. Unless morning sickness kills you before you get a chance to bear and raise your child mother nature couldn’t give a shit how miserable you feel.
Conversely, were touching one’s face to frequently result in deadly infections that kill off anybody who does it before they reach sexual maturity, then I have no doubt it would be selected out.
FWIW, I wouldn’t be surprised if continued genomic research reveals a lot more biological determinism than many of us would like to believe. I expect them to be general trends, though, rather than discrete lines drawn in the sand.
Hey, it happens to all cavemen at a certain age… 
bup–no, that wasn’t directed at you. even sven said that we had evolved a complicated culture as opposed to other cultures, which to me begged the question: what other cultures, since we all evolved from cavemen?
Let’s look at something very basic- food aversion. Most people have some food they simply can’t make themselves eat. Since eating is one of our most basic traits and essential to survival, it should be a piece of cake to find the biological basis for food aversions.
Except it’s not.
First off, every culture has different food aversions. Americans are uncomfortable around slimy foods. Japanese slurp them down with a smile. Every culture has some meat they don’t accept (well, maybe not China 
), be it pork or beef or dog or heads or innards. Some cultures rigidly enforce food taboos. Others just rely on our own “natural” feelings of disgust. Some cultures have food taboos that seem deeply counter-evolutionary, like vegetarianism. Most cultures have food taboos that make a lot of sense in their environment (like, “don’t eat purple plants” in areas where there are poisonous purple plants.) There are even a few cultures that embrace what seems like the ultimate taboo- cannibalism.
And then, to make it worse, within a culture we have deep individual differences. We’ve had threads here where nearly every food- from bananas to onions to even water- have been identified by someone as being completely disgusting. The fact is that a room full of people can rarely agree on what to put on a pizza. We all have such varied food aversions.
Now, there are some universal facts that probably do have an evolutionary basis. We seek nutrition- especially proteins, fats and sugars. As far as I know, no culture eats snot or excrement (though some use it as cooking fuel). We all tend to feel a repulsion to food that has made us vomit in the past. These things probably do have caveman origins.
But why did I order fried noodles for dinner tonight? You’ll get a far better explanation by looking at my culture, and then at me as an individual than you will by trying to make up some caveman connection.
That’s already happening, and that’s why it’s popping up all over the board. (I’m not criticizing people for asking questions about this, I’m just tired of the cliched answer.) Over the last few years I’ve seen stories about the gay gene and the faith gene, but also stories about how genes can explain political preferences, for example. I’m not surprised that the press and people at large misunderstand science, and I’m no scientist myself. But I’d like to see better here.
When we’re all in a big group, the T-rex we’re hunting thinks we’re a giant predator.
I agree, but there are still some evolutionary reasons behind it. The carbs give you energy, the meat makes you feel satisfied, and the grease has a great mouth feel. Those are evolved tastes, and fairly universal.
And recent excavations have shown that in caves dating back 70,000 years, among the stone tools were containers labelled Wong’s Golden Palace.