The bleeding obvious...
Yes, there is something bleeding obvious here, but it's the stupidity of Reg readers' comments, mostly.
First of all, it's bleeding obvious you guys didn't read the original research, and sure did not even read the "original press release" about the research, which was further butchered by the Register. For example, I saw this reported in another popular, but more respectful, news organization, and they bothered to keep the bit about having 171 Brits and 37 Chinese, supposedly to try controlling for cultural influence. Nothing like that in El Reg's report. And you guys (with one laudable exception) just jump up and down like rabid monkeys yelling at something you haven't even seen... Now I admit I haven't read it either, because I'm home and can't only access the journal from the university tomorrow. So I can't say whether the study is any good or not. Current Biology is a pretty respectable journal though.
Second, it's bleeding obvious you have your own selves in too high of a regard, but are just deluded in that respect. You think you can judge what is valuable research and what is not; what does not demand studies because it is "obvious and stupid" and what is worthy of investigation. Fortunately for humanity, you are not in control of the process. Isn't it obvious that space and time are fixed and unchangeable? Who would someone be stupid enough to even imagine, let alone study whether time can change speed, right? It's so obvious it can't... It was once obvious that the Earth was flat too... Still looks flat to me when I look out of the window. We usually can not know what some "useless" piece of research will bring in the future. Maybe nothing but pure knowledge, which is pretty good by itself, methinks. Or maybe something interesting and unexpected. We just can't tell, and that's why academic freedom is so important.
That said, I do agree it's hard to see how they got away with using only 208 subjects. Maybe this is just a "letter" or "report", some preliminary research published to get the funding agencies attention so they can get the real thing done whenever (if) they finally get money for it (if you know the academic world and its modus operandi, you know what I'm talking about), but obviously the popular media loves this type of story and everything gets blown out of proportion. Partly the scientists fault, I think, but anyway.
Lastly, I do take everything "evolutionary psychology" with not a grain, but a kilo of salt. I have some confidence in their speculations when they are based on animal behaviour studies though, since animals have so few cultural phenomena, when they do have any, among other things.
"as the women are not trying to attract each other, but MEN."
Er... didn't you know that, in the past, women were the ones collecting fruits and the like while the men where out hunting and killing neighbors? It's still like that in many "primitive" societies. So, if women were more attracted to those colors they would be more apt to see the ripe fruit they are supposed to collect to feed the band. OK, not the best speculation ever but not as horrid as some I've seen before...