https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0RjlR9JsS8
This is a male bear fighting a mother bear because he wants to kill her cubs so that he can breed her and make her raise his kids instead because like many species she goes into heat if her children die prematurely and she will let that bear mate with her
Does a similar sexual instinct exist in humans

Imagine walking in the country side and you come across a beautiful young women with two children and she tries to fend you off but you beat her up or push her to the side and chuck both her children off a cliff then you turn around to her and embrace her and instantly put your baby inside her
Her body would already start accepting reality as soon as sees her kids have gone and she'd accept your seed.

Do you understand this?
Does this stir your imagination?

stepfathers do have a tendency to become total psychos towards their wife's children, humans are also very tribalistic in general

Creation of a loving, benevolent and holy god btw

>>17827532
I imagine in certain places and periods of history, being a stepfather was a very lucky position, unlike the reputation it has now.

You could have some kids of your own with the woman , and you could also have kids with the woman's daughter or daughters as well.
In many times you'd be safe because the mother and daughters wouldn't be want to tell anyone anyway for the shame it would bring on the family and prevent them from getting married.

I imagine becoming a step father to a mother with a daughter or daughters was an attractive prospect

I bet even today someone could do a study and find that single mothers with a daughter find it easier to get remarried than single mothers with a son.

>>17827524 (OP)
No, because we are Tribal animals

We already take care of each other despite the fact that no one shares our genetic information
Taking care of an orphan doesn't sound great, evolutionarily speaking, but in terms of community, it is going to be an added free labor in the future
Not to mention that it is not like the mother is not going to have your child

>>17827524 (OP)
>does a similiar thing exist in humans
for the most part no, even if you ignore the fact human males tend to actually invest some time in helping raising the kids compared to bears, human reporductions cycles don't work in the same way either

>>17827549
Romans would straight up adopt sons to bolster their family, sometimes adopting adult men. The Chinese also. Apparently imperial bureaucracies are less fickle about blood relation than feudal systems.

>>17827925
true, the dynamic is a little different with social animals

>>17827524 (OP)
Her brothers/father/cousin's would probably cut your balls off, break all of your limbs, and bash your skull in.

Slaughtering the enemy to the man and boy is very manifestly a human tendency, FFS chimpanzees do it, so you know it's not that calculated.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War
>The last remaining Kahama male, the young Sniff, survived for over a year. For some time it seemed as if he might escape into a new community or be welcomed back to the Kasakelas, but this did not occur. Sniff, too, was killed by the Kasakela war band. Of the females from Kahama, one was killed, two went missing, and three were beaten and kidnapped by the Kasakela males
If you don't want to credit the many ancient sources attesting to this (including the Bible), genetic studies indicate that in prehistory for every man who reproduced, over a dozen women did. This simply cannot be sustained long enough to leave an indelible genetic impression without periodic killing of males specifically.

>>17827925
>despite the fact that no one shares our genetic information

Tribes were made up of related individuals who would be more closely related in comparison to non-tribe members.

In a similar way racial/ethnic groups are made up of individuals who are closely related in comparison to people outside of their racial/ethnic group.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1020815420693
>The coefficient of kinship between two diploid organisms describes their overall genetic similarity to each other relative to some base population. For example, kinship between parent and offspring of 1/4 describes gene sharing in excess of random sharing in a random mating population. In a subdivided population the statistic F st describes gene sharing within subdivisions in the same way. Since F st among human populations on a world scale is reliably 10 to 15%, kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings. The widespread assertion that this is small and insignificant should be reexamined.

>Taking care of an orphan doesn't sound great, evolutionarily speaking, but in terms of community, it is going to be an added free labor in the future
That would depend on the specifics like the degree of scarcity and time until that child is an asset to the group. Plus there's a free-rider like problem, where each family in the tribe has an incentive to look after their own kid and not look after the foreign orphan because that means more food for their own kids and someone else can pick up the slack of feeding the foreign orphan.
Sometimes orphans would be taken in , sometimes they'd be turned away.

but overall you're right that humans didn't evolve to be like bears or lions.