Wouldn't the commonality of singing and dancing be much more likely the result of it being a social behavior, and social behaviors increasing the odds of reproducing? This is true even today - dance clubs are still one of the best ways to meet women as a man.

If you're only after sex this is true.

Evolution IS only after sex.

I would argue it's after reproduction, successful reproduction that also has successful reproduction even.

Why do grandparents love their grandchildren? Something noble about human nature and love? Or is it evolutionary advantageous?

From my own observations, the relationship retriggers the parenting motivations / dopamine. With the added benefit that you can put the darn thing down at the end of the day and walk away.

From my own observations, the relationship triggers nothing like parenting. There's no feeling of parental obligation, outside of love for that child. So, tell me, why would that evolve in people?

Because old cave-people aren't as good at hunting and gathering, and can be better used as child-care cavepeople.

And survival, and the survival of offspring. Why does menopause exist if evolution is only after sex?

To stop those old, damaged eggs from generating more springs? Perhaps the cell quality decreases as time passes by, and it's better to set those men free to get new ladies, with new eggs.

Why on earth would it be evolutionary beneficial -- if evolution is only after sex -- for a creature to forgo passing on her direct genes in favor of letting another creature pass on hers?

9/11 showed that after great death comes great live.

We like to flatter ourselves that human flesh is super tasty and drives predators into a feeding frenzy. Why should it be?

It's not necessarily tasty, but it isn't super fast, we're not venomous, poisonous, spiky, or armored, we can't smell very well, our claws and teeth are relatively ineffective, our young are pretty defenseless for several years and we only have a few of them...we need all the inventiveness and precautions we can come up with to not be the easiest meal in the forest. Predators don't really care about tastiness, they just need to feed.

...just soft and pink.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/58/64/15/586415bb9...

With all this in mind we still made it to the top of the food chain(not using the scientific term). What we lack in physical prowess we more than make up for in intelligence and our ability to use tools.

Not just intelligence but also endurance when traveling long distances.

Basically intelligence + long distance running = ability to track prey.

I don't believe that it is a matter of being "super tasty", but rather, one of not wanting to inform predators of an easy to access food supply.

This sounds a lot like why horse mares will eat the placenta from their foals after giving birth. Foals are born able to run, but they're nowhere near as strong as a mature horse.

I was under the impression they ate it because of all the vital nutrients that the placenta had, but I dont think anyone had conclusive evidence except in an evolutionary biology hand-wavy way.

If that were the case we should expect health problems from horses that go too long between pregnancies, yes? Otherwise the nutrients are not "vital."

Whence do you suppose the nutrients in a placenta originate?

Actually everything in this thread is a just-so story. It's pretty silly to pick out one specific rare behavior as even relevant to evolutionary fitness. How would any of this be tested?

I dunno, if you have been gestating a foal, you might be a little undernourished at the end of the process, so a placenta's worth of nutrients might then be "vital."

Well that all depends on what kinds of sauces you have at your disposal.