This title is a joke, of course, a play on the questions evolutionists ask about every aspect of human (and non-human) behavior. For example, it has been asked: "Does religion have evolutionary value?" For if it doesn't, then why would it continue to exist?
In a worldview where survival is seen as the only reason any human trait would continue to exist, there is an attempt to explain how such traits contribute to this survival. Sometimes this explanation becomes very convoluted because the author is convinced there is an evolutionary explanation for everything and they bend their explanation to fit this preconception, even if it is a poor fit, indeed!
Telling a story as to how any given human trait can enhance survivability is generally not difficult even if it may be convoluted. For example, those who say homosexuality is genetically based would have to tell a very convoluted story how it helps the person who holds it to pass on their genes to the next generation. Indeed, such a trait should quickly pass out of the human gene pool if what evolutionists believe is true.
Personally, I feel no need to explain why human and cultural traits exist in terms of their evolutionary value. I don't think that something has to enhance the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce for it to continue to exist in humans or in human societies. Certainly, if the trait makes survival to reproductive age unlikely, then the trait would be expected to die out. But apart from that limit, there is no reason why an individual or social trait can't continue to exist without having any direct or indirect effect on the ability of the individual holding it to survive and reproduce. In other words, for a human, animal or plant trait to continue to exist doesn't necessarily mean it has survival (evolutionary) value! Instead, it may enhance the quality of life, which is the only important reason for being alive, anyway!