Of course there are things that we can learn from looking at our ancestors when we consider the evolutionary pressures in play, but what we cannot do is pigeonhole 200,000 years of humanity into a neat box conveniently discarding cultural differences as well as major shifts in social, political, and structural arenas over several hundred thousand years.

If you had wanted to make a coherent and useful comment what you should have probably said is something like, "Yes, the examples you gave which come primarily from pop EP really are reductive and not all that scientifically useful, but I do believe that more nuanced looks at how our ancestors traits influence aspects of modern life can be a meaningful contribution to better understanding aspects of modern humanity." Then you could have given some examples. Instead you charged in belligerently and essentially told me that I had no clue what I was talking about. That's not a very effective strategy for having a productive or meaningful discussion and it doesn't bring anything to the table. It also makes you appear like someone who is in complete cognitive dissonance.

I tend to see a difference between what terms itself as evolutionary psychology and evolutionary biology. Perhaps that is a somewhat artificial distinction, but for me that's the dividing line between meaningful information gathering based on what went on before for us as humans and concluding that we essentially have Stone Age brains in modern skulls and that all human impulses are tidy and alike.

I do recognize that it can be difficult to communicate in relay writing with someone you don't know all that well, but I would encourage you to in the future spend more time considering how you can contribute to the conversation with concrete, meaningful, useful additions to what the author has said, rather than jumping on their premise as flawed without much specificity. I believe that would make things more interesting and more enjoyable all around.

Cheers!