I'll say this for you, Skado-- you copy and paste with the best.

Notice how Skado clammed up the minute rational people chimed in?

This is shit for idiots.

Is it just me, or does OP have the biggest, hardest, ragingest boner for this topic?

Yet more Wikipedia questionable research I see @skado.
Religious belief grew from the IGNORANCE in the very and still somewhat primitive minds of humans who could NOT explain where the sun went at night, what caused thunder and lightning, why a huge beast killed Mr. Ug before their spears made it drop dead and not Mr, Grug who was standing next to him, etc, etc.
Then along comes the 'shyster' of the tribe or clan, sees his/her opporuntity to get the 'easy life' and the BIG Pretence and Scam starts rolling.

This fits here

I recently watched a documentary on the ancient Maya civilizations (Nova). I thought that it was strange that even while isolated from Europe, Africa and Asia, they developed a religion that seems remarkably similar to the "western world". They even believed that their rulers were deities, much like the Egyptians. The civilizations collapsed, or transitioned, much like a lot do. The working class got tired of getting nothing back for their hard work and pretty much decided to do it their own way. The deity kings were no longer worth working for.

Appeared early, yes. Evolved early?

Sexual behavior appeared earlier.

Scientists might generally agree but religion evolved out of fear. Fear of the unknown and fear itself bubbling up about "what happens to me."

LOVE THE RESEARCH . SCIENTISTS GENERALLY AGREE because of natural selection within themselves too. Their job depends upon academic agreement. Thank Darwin.

Religion did not evolve because of genetics but because possibly because of power grabbing and control of information.

There is no direct connection recognized by mainstream science, between genetically evolved traits and almost any aspect of modern religion. The genetic factors which favour religion are merely precursors, which may cause religion to happen.

As you say. "There are two schools of thought. One is that religion itself evolved due to natural selection and is an adaptation, in which case religion conferred some sort of evolutionary advantage. The other is that religious beliefs and behaviors, such as the concept of a protogod, may have emerged as by-products of other adaptive traits without initially being selected for because of their own benefits." It is a serious fault to quote two schools of thought, and then choose only the first largely discredited and minority one, and treat that as if it were the mainstream, which is exactly the opposite of the truth.

Genetic evolution is unable to eliminate the cost deficits of religion, simply because religion is a recently developed cultural phenomenon which has not had anything like enough time to register as a factor in natural selection. Because culture, when once the initial factors favouring its development are in place, develops far faster than genetic evolution can take place. The argument fails to see the great distance at which all modern religion exists, from early primitive religion whose existence may have overlapped ( though its of doubtful significance ) with the evolutionary time scale. Anyone who does not understand that is so far from understanding science at a most basic level, that they could hardly qualify to speak on scientific issues at all, there is a lot of bad pseudo science out there.

The genetic factors which led to the development of culture, and its benefits, have nothing to do with religion specifically, and religion is not a in any way a synonym for all of human culture. Nor is it a synonym for social solidarity, though it may be one cultural factor in achieving such on some occasions, yet it is it is becoming increasingly divorced from mainstream culture, and may have long since become a divisive factor in modern times, ( last ten thousand years or so. ) having exactly the opposite effect into the future.

To see religion as an evolved trait is to seriously misunderstand evolution, at a basic level. A thing not unknown even among scientist involved in the field. And certainly not the among fringe sciences, like anthropology on the edges of biology. Since evolutionary theory can be difficult and is often counter-intuitive for the human mind, and not all scientists in related fields are given a good grounding in evolutionary theory.

Human culture is almost completely flexible, and can easily be reinvented in many forms to fill our evolved needs. Most of us have many evolved traits which cause cultural phenomena, we like sensory overload for example, as long as we feel moderately safe. So we make cars which go very fast and drive them above the speed limits, but we do not have to drive fast cars, we could ride roller-coasters, go skydiving or skying, for the same thrill, fast cars are not an inevitable part of human culture. And nor is religion, as long as the evolved needs it fulfills can be met by other mean such as education, philosophy, law and science, which they easily can, it is redundant.

I think the innate need to “belong to the tribe” is the basis for it. That need probably evolved from the “safety in numbers” principle.

TLDRA! What peer reviewed evidence do you have? Don't tell me to look it up myself. You make the claim, back it up with evidence.

Religions are started by prophets as cults. Prophet dies and if his/ her teachings continue, it becomes a religion. A doctrine is developed around the teachings. As it continues rituals to mimic the prophet are developed which both shows devotion plus reinforces belief. This is imparted to the next generation through formal instruction aka indoctrination. Religion is identified with culture. A like minded group.
People find comfort in groups, in people with the same belief as them. Groups can be beneficial and mostly are but to become part of a group, you suppress your individuality to belong and conform.

Religion evolved as early as charismatic leaders did, the head of a group. If their bullshit was profound and they were admired, perhaps a religion developed on their passing. But once religions are well established, it is harder for new prophets to make inroads unless via force and coercion eg trade superior technology IF they convert and if not, kill them (Abrahamic religions anyway)