2) Evolution does not typically permit that every species exists as group. They start through singular, individuated mutations.

3) I agree that most of us know murder that is wrong apart from the Word – I never implied the opposite, and I think you’re importing this into my argument. We know it intuitively and instinctively.

We know what is right and wrong because of how we have been created. It is the Imago Dei within us, in built into our very being.

This is the “somewhere else” I refer to. My only argument is that Evolution does not arrive us at the kind of morality humanity actually entertains. An evolved morality looks very different than the kind of morality we are used, and justifies actions that are at odds with what every rational person over the span of recorded human history would condemn.

It leads us down a much darker and more sinister path.

Do you really believe that, prior to the ten commandments, no one had any idea that theft or murder was wrong?

All I’m saying is that one who looks to Evolution as a platform on which to build morality cannot say that the thief is wrong for being a thief.

Our morality comes from somewhere else… more on this to come.

This does not in anyway show that the thief is acting incorrectly!

Evolutionarily, the group’s aversion to the thief’s act is justified in no more or less a way than the thief’s action itself is justified.

It’s true that most people respect the needs of the group they are in but this “group care” does not preclude or make wrong the act of one seeking his own best interests at the expense of others; if it did, evolution wouldn’t work! According to evolution he is justified (which is what I’m arguing) though his surrounding society might disagree.

The only arbiter of right and wrong in an evolutionary ethic is ultimately advancement, survival, and propagation — the “group” cannot even come to be without this principle and is dependent on it.