You've said a lot of words that no doubt sound important and meaningful to you, but that don't actually convey any relevant information. It's actually kind of amusing to watch you spin in your emotions and try to come up with a logical-sounding framework for them. I'm not sure that you are enough in your cognitive mind around this to be able to follow, but let me try to lay this out for you anyhow.

If so called evolutionary psychology is predicated on certain premises, for example, that all women throughout time are looking for a mate who is a good provider, and I then demonstrate that our ancient ancestors had no such thing nor even a concept of such a thing as a provider, so that women could hardly be motivated by it (other than in a relatively recent context), it shows that their premise is bunk - ergo, the whole philosophy is bunk because it's formulated around erroneous premises. QED

As already noted in the OP, the "method" of evolutionary psychology is to look at the past 5 or 6 thousand years and one particular type of Western social organization and to generalize it to all of human history and all cultures. And this method is demonstrably problematic because for 97% of the time we lived with vastly different social and cultural systems - which I then gave ample examples of from experts who study these things.

You don't like the implications of what I'm saying, so you are casting around for ways to negate it, but it's toothless and impotent and even a little bit comical. I’m sorry that my story hurt your feelings…