Evolution cannot account for morality

[Pat Mustard]

In the light of his age Chinggis was very moral.  He would spare cities that surrendered, honourable opponents and give those nations he defeated a wide power of self government afterwards.  Meanwhile, in Europe we had Caedite Eos.

The human animal has evolved very little since Genghis Khan's time. 

If morality, on the other hand, has changed -- if he was moral in the light of his own time, but not according to ours -- then it may complicate the idea that morality is in any way related to Darwin-style evolution.

I have no doubt that behavior is affected by our physical nature, and that our physical nature has evolved. But if very different types of morality are compatible with physical types at the same stage of evolution, then the relationship seems far from simple or predictable. "Evolution favors morality" may be too simple, if animals at the  same stage of evolution can have very different moralities.

If it wasn't clear that you were an idiot before now, the above dispels all doubt. What you said on evolution and morality amounts to not even wrong.