" has existed on all continents. And because it is a general name, it should reflect general details rather than anything specific. This is basically why the term prehistoric religion is not used, because it is too general.   
Oh yeah and origin of religion is very precise.  I'm still waiting for a better title.  
yes origin of religion is not precise, this is why I changed the name to ""Evolutionary theories on the origin of religion"". However if evolution is accepted as fact, then teleological arguments on the origin of religion cannot be considered scientific, in which case the evolutionary theories on the origin of religion and ""origin of religion"" are the same.   
First of all I have told you a thousand times already that actual evolutionary theories on the origin of religion are like those of Boyer, Wolpert and Dawkins and they are miles away from what you have been writing about.  Also the logic you present above is simply not correct at all.  The fact that human physiology is a product of biological evolution does not mean that the origin of religion can be explained through evolutionary mechanisms or as a product of biological evolution.  Perhaps without the evolution of certain cognitive capacities human practices like religion would not be possible, but the origin of religion itself may be entirely ""social"" or ""cultural"" given a certain state of cognitive evolution.  If that were the case then theories of religion's origin would not be evolutionary theories at all, yet they would be equally ""scientific"" and clearly non-religious in nature.  That is to say biological evolution itself is not necessarily causal of religion, even if it may be necessary to create a certain precondition (e.g. a capacity for symbolic thought) for religious belief.  

content dispute
We have a content dispute that is mainly between myself and you. Dbachmann occasionaly gets involved switching between sides. But essentially this is between me and you. This is why we are not making progress, because we do not have any editors who are willing to dedicate the time and effort to work on this this. Consequently you are taking advantage of this lack of editors and you are using an old AFD as your leverage, because you can run to any admin, who only know the rules and know little about content. This is unfair and unacademic and is very political. Dbachmann knows very well that the articles I created are valid. He has admitted that he agrees in principal with the ideas I have presented, but simply disagrees with me because he dislikes my demeanor User_talk:Dbachmann#origin_of_religion. I had worked on the article ""Origin of language"" using the same approach. Before I started working on the origin of language, the topic was approached from a psychological or sociological perspective filled with archaic fringe and opinionated theories. I proceeded to add the evolutionary perspective to the article, after which Dbachmann reviewed the article with some refactoring he upgraded the article to B-class. I used the same approach on the origin of religion only to be met with some of the worst hostility to knowledge. As I often mention, you had even disputed the out of Africa hypothesis, or that grave goods are considered evidence of a belief in the afterlife . Here you are seen to be making up your own theories. So I do feel justified to doubt the credibility of some of your assertions and also some of the other editors. I have always asked admins and a lot of other editors to assist in dispute resolution, but many seem content with pushing buttons and chasing after vandals and boosting their egos by blocking people, they have no interest in content. So I propose to go for dispute resolution, if you think you have a case, you should opt for it. If you are afraid and want to continue using the archaic AFD as your silver bullet, then this dispute will needlessly continue. Of course the result will be blocks of which I am the top candidate, but what a waste that would be. Who would be there to provide education on grave goods.   
You've not described a content dispute but simply congratulated yourself, dismissed the behavioral policing of admins, and fabricated behavior on my part.  I have not and do not dispute the fact that homo sapiens originated in Africa from where mass dispersal took place sometime between 55,000 and 60,000