[stcredzero]

Outside of religious communities humans don't have intense social penalties either. So this then is rather limited application of evo bio.

From a historical/global perspective, this is a bit of a "HUH!?" Religion of some form has played a major role in the majority of human lives for most of recorded history. Also, even when religion is absent, there are almost always some form of societal norms around sexual behavior. (Though, arguably less restrictive ones.)

The reason bonobo was presented was to illustrate the limitations of application of evolutionary biology. At some point it's use feels like darwinphilia.

I don't see any limitations highlighted. Please cite an example. I only see more data increasing the complexity of the discussion, but the products of natural selection are complex by nature. How is your above statement distinguishable from name calling and silencing-tactic FUD?

[cyphunk]

a) I wasn't speaking from a historical perspective but rather about the present. b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing our tails over.

[stcredzero]

a) I wasn't speaking from a historical perspective but rather about the present.

This is another huge "huh!?" as the data for evolutionary biology is fundamentally historical. (Another piece of data which you seem to lack, is that we've documented evolutionary changes in large mammals in only a couple hundred years.)

b) the limitation and example cited is the bonobo one we keep chasing our tails over.

You keep calling it a "limitation" but keep failing to explain how that is a valid label. What is this, the 3rd time I've asked now? This pattern is starting to look like FUD and dishonest labelling to me.