If we assume that evolutionary processes are entirely responsible for our understanding of morality, how then are we justified in telling someone else that murder is wrong. Note, I used the word wrong. Not, undesireable, but wrong.
If I am a serial killer and rapist as a result of my genetic configuration, on what basis can I be told that I am wrong for doing what my genes command me do to?
Is it not conducive to propagation of the species? No, it's very conducive as a stronger male would be fertilizing many females with that stronger genetic code, producing more dominate males to snuff out the inferior code of those too weak to assert their authority over females.
Has society deemed it is not conducive to the propagation of the species? Yes, but on what basis? Why should that stop the serial rapist? He is only reprimanded if he gets caught. He is only wrong because his genetic code has not infiltrated the gene pool pervasively, yet. It is merely an example of the statistical majority lording their genetic predisposition on the statistical minority. That's not wrong, that's just unlucky. If he kills and rapes enough, then his genetic predisposition will be in the majority. Would it still be wrong then to rape?
That's the answer I want to know. If the majority of males were predisposed serial rapists, would it be wrong to rape?
One would argue that it would be, because it would violate the maxim that the fittest are the ones deemed to survive, and a society of rapists could not survive. Ok, let's assume that.
Why is survival desireable? Nature said so? Are we then, again, saying that an intelligent bright-line rule has developed from non-intelligence?
That's a pretty amazing, unproven, and faith-based statement.