[ QUOTE ]
My point is that the ability to love is not a specific gene(s). The underlying architecture of the brain is what develops, love could be just a capacity we've gained along the way from a brain that developed via other selection mechanisms.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the underlying architechure of the brain develops, so does the genes. But that is really besides the point, there is no need to bring genes into the picture at all, but even if you do, it will not change the discussion at all. Genes are just the mechanics of heritage. As the previous poster so well stated, the theory of evolution precedes any theories of genes.

Ofcourse an adaption builds on previously made mechanism. Evolution is a almost exclusively a 'step by step' effect. I think almost everyone who knows anything about evolution knows that. An adaption is developed, with this adaption comes the possibility of a new adaption. If this new adaption makes the being more apt to survive and pass on his genes, then this adaption will have a larger likelyhood of survival than one who don't. It isn't any worse than that.

Humans are a social creature, everybody who thinks about it for two seconds will intuitively know that feeling love increases the chance of relationship, which in turn increases the chance of offspring, which in turn increases the chance of passing on your genes, which in turn increases the chance of offspring with the capacity to love.

And the 'strong&harsh' argument doesn't hold up. Our species are and were weaker than similar species that existed in our dawn, and we survived those species. Not by muscle, but most likely by social traits, the development of language and complex communication. Social adaptions are probably what has been most adament in securing the place our species has in nature, love may very well be one of the most important of those traits.