Absolutely. Take falling asleep alone. In a modern home, a small child is well protected from a sudden cold snap, a snake or a predator. For more than 99 percent of human history, however, the only safe sleeping place for a very young child was close to the warm body of a capable adult. Sleeping away from the group could be dangerous.
Children therefore developed a powerful resistance to separation at night. That old alarm can still sound today, even behind triple-glazed windows. A baby has no way of knowing that no saber-toothed cat is circling the hallway.
The same logic at the table
Parents often expect young children to be enthusiastic about vegetables because vegetables are healthy. Yet many babies who readily accept a wide range of foods become much more suspicious during toddlerhood.
From an evolutionary point of view, the timing makes sense. A baby living in a caregiver’s immediate reach had a very safe food environment: an adult controlled what reached the child’s mouth. Once mobile and weaned, that child could encounter berries, leaves and roots without constant supervision.
In that world, indiscriminate enthusiasm would have been a poor survival strategy. An unfamiliar berry might be nutritious — or poisonous. Bitter flavors deserved particular caution because many plant toxins are bitter. The once-open window of taste therefore narrowed, with familiar, bland and sweet foods receiving a warmer welcome.
Mismatch is an explanation, not an excuse
Modern supermarkets are reliably free of deadly berries, but children still carry an old safety program. Understanding that mismatch does not mean parents must serve only beige food or share a bed in every circumstance. It means the child’s behavior is not senseless or deliberately difficult.
Once we can see the logic, we can respond more calmly and work with development rather than treating the child as defective. The companion question, Are children naturally “bad” eaters?, looks at how children eventually expand their tastes.