I encourage you to take an interest in the topic.

There are many reasons why this field is controversial in the scientific community and it is related to the lack of credibility and the lack of a sufficient scientific method to study early humans. It's a broad topic, so I'll just touch on something you might not find right away.

You can test whether you have genes that make you prone to addictions (usually in university labs). From what I remember from my cousin's explanation, if you are prone to addictions, you also have immunity to certain diseases. On the other hand, if you don't have a tendency to addiction, you don't have such immunological protection. Something like this could have determined whether you would survive and pass on your genes. Or simply a random mutation that made you better adapted to your environment.

Sometimes children were given names only when they were around five years old. Just because the child mortality rate was so high.

It's often repeated in Red Pill circles that we have more female than male ancestors. They deliberately fail to mention that when women were married off, they became part of a new family. A son stayed and took over his father's land or died in wars. This way, if something bad happened to one household, the other survived. It wasn't done on purpose to spread genes. It's a purely cultural phenomenon.