[ QUOTE ]
no, its a scientific theory not maths.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is nothing scientific about this theory. It doesn't even pass a basic nonsense test.

"We are evolved to love because that increases the survival chances of our genes."

let's make some similar statements shall we?

"10% of our population are evolved to be homosexuals because that increases the survival chances of our genes"

"We are evolved to love walks on the beach, because the increases the survival chances of our genes"

"We are evolved to have be angry and aggressive, because that increases the survival chances of our genes"
+
"We are evolved to be peaceful and friendly, because that increases the survival chances of our genes"

OK, I went a bit overboard, but my point is that not every trait we have (especially psychological ones) is present because it increases (or has increased) the survival chances of our genes. Changes in brain size and the development of a frontal lobe can create a capacity for complex thought and emotion attachment, which in turns makes things like love possible. This increase in brain size may well have happened for other reasons not related to love or its benefits, and now the underlying capacity is present.

Same as we didn't evolve a math IQ because doing equations increased the survival chances of our genes. Og Sklansky who lived 100,000 years and founded Sklanskyanity (the first religion) did nothing more than simple arithmetic. There was no selection pressure for those that could do math. But spatial analysis skills and language skills were likely important, so an underlying architecture developed that could later be used for other things.

I hope that makes some kind of sense.