Since this post here is mine, I'm going to chime in and well here come the downvotes.

The comparison between something like human evolution, and ethics is really hard to make because the values of ethics change per culture. They are not objective.

Where as much of the data and story to human evolution is objective or has real world unchanging values.

Yes I'm at fault for over simplifying the issue, but what do you expect when ethnics is philisophy? I'm not a philisophier, I'm a scientist.

I've spent the past 6+ years studying how we went from small little apes to upright tribal hunters, and the ecology of the earth during these time frames.

I think I have some right to at least say to people what I see studying these peoples, as their views and moral behaviors changed over time, and complain about the blatant lying and stupidity being perpetuated by delusionals who ignore my entire field of study because "boohoo animals get hurt." Veganism is so popular these days in the advancing first world that their echo chamber of ideas floods out into the lesser educated of peoples and religious people are making it harder and harder for human evolution to be taught properly.

You have to at least agree that to some degree it is far worse to see people straight up science deny and argue against science, than it is for someone to overgeneralize. But then again You guys are philosophers and might disagree.

So yeah, I'm chalking it up to opinion, because the major value I learned was important when concerning human morality was empathy. And looking at all these posts about ethics, I'm having a hard time seeing where empathy played a role.