where do the wide range of human emotions fit into evolution?

Where do the wide range of human emotions fit into darwins evolution theory? What does me loving you have to do with my survival, or the survival of my species?

Well if you want to talk love, love has to do with emotional bonding. If a mum loves her kid, it is more likely to survive... therefore pass on her genes. If a person loves their mate, then they are more likely to stay with their mate and offspring, therefore ensure survival of their offspring (and passing on of their genes). Uhm love is the simplest one to understand of all human emotions as to why it has survived?

good answer

Humans are social animals. I would think the benefit of love in such a species would be self evident.

Emotions are physiological responses. They evolved over time because of repeated encounters with a particular problem or situation. Ty gave an example with the emotion of love with family bonding so that families could provide for themselves and produce offspring. Another is fear, which most likely evolved out of the survival instinct at a time when our ancestors were part of the food chain. The emotional response you have to a scary movie is embedded in your genes; your ancestors were worried about saber-toothed tigers and other predators.

What about anger, or depression, or humor? These can all be measured by scanning your brain, making them all physiological as well. And they all evolved as a result of certain things in the environment happening to ancient humans over and over again, and the necessary human response to survive that situation.

Humor's another interesting one, because it's so complicated. What determines whether something is funny or not, and why would we develop the need for humor? We enjoy humor, it's positively reinforceable...maybe it developed out of need for humans to bond in social situations. Animals typically form groups and use a variety of behaviors to bond and set up hiearchy. Perhaps humor evolved as a way for humans to do the same. It may have been developed during mating: one thing humans universally look for in a mate is a good sense of humor. The things that happen to us physiologically when we laugh could be the conditioned response to what ancient humans did over and over again to attract or impress or bond with each other.

The point is, emotions can be understood within the process of evolution and natural selection.

mjax- don't you tire of always being correct.

I agree with the evolutionists above. I don' think that Christians or those of other faiths have anything to fear from the scientific awareness of the way things have been created. For me, it is essential to know that I was created by God. The science of evolution shows me how that happened. Fascinating, and I have to tell you I seldom praise God more than the times I see His amazing hand in the slow evolution of life. I just find it wonderful.

There's still an unknown element, with both evolution & intelligent design, regarding the human brain. Since there is still a large percentage of our brains we do not use...

...yet... or should I say, 'anymore'? Hmmm...

It's a myth that we don't use our entire brain. We do, just not all simultaneously. There's no wasted gray matter in our skulls.

Excellent answers, everyone.

Just to add to mjax's excellent (as usual) analysis regarding the development of humor. Most animals do play at times, and that may be like laughter to them. The fact that humans have language enables us to engage in verbal and visual "play".

Bottom line, there is nothing inherrent in any emotions that humans feel that would preclude evolutionary theory.

"Most animals do play at times, and that may be like laughter to them."

I read an article a while ago describing experiments that have shown dogs not only have a sense of humor, they actually try to get their human masters to laugh. And dogs know when we're enjoying something they've done for our amusement. Of course, dog lovers already know about this emotional connection...I just thought it was interesting that studies have proven humor is not unique to humans.

***It's a myth that we don't use our entire brain. We do, just not all simultaneously. There's no wasted gray matter in our skulls.***

Whoops... I forgot to say 'consciously'

Bob Diamond - "Being from earth as you are and using as little of your brain as you do, your life has pretty much been devoted to dealing with fear."
Daniel Miller - "It has?"
Bob Diamond - "Everybody on earth deals with fear. That's what 'little brains' do."
Daniel Miller - "What are 'little brains'?"
Bob Diamond - "That's what we call you folks behind your back."

Bob Diamond: For example, I use forty-eight percent of my brain. Do you know how much you use?
Daniel Miller: Forty... seven?
Bob Diamond: [laughs] Three

okay...we get it...we are little brains...

sorry guys, it just seemed to fit. What can I say, I like "Defending Your Life".

captainassassin: "simultaneously" applies too. If 100% of your neurons were firing, you wouldn't be smart, you'd be in the middle of a siezure. :P

...or you'd spontaneously combust.

And I wasn't saying it DOESN'T apply. I was merely pondering the varying range (percentage) of brain activity in people today.

Regarding 'Intelligent Design' ...we were all made from a single prototype, with supposedly no variations or changes over the years. Then why the variance in brain activity? Shouldn't our brains function in exactly the same manner?

Regarding 'Evolution' ...humans have evolved to their current state, over a number of years. Why is the variance of brain activity, greater than the variance of the physical composition(s) of the actual brain(s)?

*sigh*

Geez... all this over a typo. I need to proof-read gooder nex tyme.

Coincidently, Darwin answers that question himself in a book entitled, "The Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals." I found it to be an interesting read. But, I found that his comparisons of certain instinctive physiological gestures as they relate to emotions between animals and humas are oversimplified. For example, facial muscles essentially serve to facilitate emotional expressions, observing that apes have the same facial muscles as humans and use them in many non-verbal cues. Thus suggesting that facial expressions are instinctive and are a direct result of the emotion. A lot of research would suggest the opposite. For example, when facial muscles used when smilling were activated, it would stimulate a rise in serotonin levels or create a sense of happiness. COMPLICATED. The answer is, that there might not be an answer.
P.S. As a biologist I can't ommit a huge error in a statement made by ty. Natural selection primarily acts on the INDIVIDUAL not the species as in the case with cancerous cells in an individual. Love can possibly provide a favorable environment for offspring (fitness) but can also prove to be a hinderance, because it leads to many more emotions (anger, fear, jeolousy, anxiety, etc...) An individual can benefit the survival of a species, but not always. ie. cattle (which form a sort of "social network" that overgraze an area leading to the death of the entire herd. But I know what you mean.