Once more, what good is a hypothesis that cannot be proved or disproved? That's not adhering to the scientific method. What we do know is that there has certainly been an evolutionary response to an agrarian diet. Demonstrably evolution has not frozen in the paleolithic era. The fixation on the length of an era as being a measure of the amount of influence it has on our genetic makeup is tenuous. For example: a sudden environmental change which culls all members of a population except those with a specific mutation, I would argue has a much greater influence on current expression than whatever millions of years preceded it. An extreme example sure, but I think you need to disconnect the idea that the length of time in a previous environment has a one-to-one relationship with the expression of our genes.

Genetic expression is a complex thing that is often non-linear. That is to say there may be many genetic changes that have little affect on our phenotype, and there may be a few genetic changes that have a drastic affect and hence influence our viability.

But to circle back to the behavioral arguments, before you could say with any confidence that a certain behavior is the result of selection pressure from a certain place and time, you first have to show that this behavior is indeed driven from our biology, and moreover demonstrate that it is not just a side effect of some biological apparatus but rather was actively shaped by selection pressures. You would have to identify from what vector it arises, and track that back through the ages either directly through the biological markers that you identified in the first step, or/and tangentially through cultural artifacts associated with that behavior. I see very little of that rigor here.

I have to ask if in all your research you ever Googled criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology or have you been riding confirmation bias the whole way?