Evolutionary explanation of morality self-refuting?

[FallentoReason]

Now, let's go a step further and look at the example you provided. "Can X equal non-X"? Suppose, in reality, X can equal non-X. If this is possible in reality, then something can and cannot be itself at the same time. A statement can be true and false at the same time.

Einstein would disagree any day. What about his theory of relativity? Let me give you an example where event X and non-X are simultaneously true (sorry if you're already familiar enough with the theory, but just to make sure we stay on the same page). An observer is standing at a train station. A train passes in front of him and at the exact moment when the middle of the train is in front of him, bolts of lightning hit both the back and the front of the train. The observer sees that they struck at the same time because they are at an equal distance from each other and the observer is not moving. At this very instant, there was another observer on the train. Because of their velocity, they observe that the bolt at the front occured first, because they and the light source moved towards each other, as opposed to the bolt at the back having to catch up to the observer. Einstein's theory tells us they are both correct in their observations as to which one happened first. Therefore, the truth becomes relative.
This ties in with the red apple:

The way it "registers" in one's brain is irrelevant. The attribute of being red is intrinsic to the apple and is determined by the wavelength of light it reflects. Regardless of how it registers or if it registers, the apple would remain red.

If and when something like that perception registers, we give it a descriptive tag identifying that intrinsic property. That tag is objective in nature because it depends upon the object of perception rather than us. It doesn't matter if in our internal model this tag corresponds to different things as long as externally it corresponds to the same thing.

I'd have to say yes and no. Yes, I agree that we can identify something by using empirical evidence. No, the way it registers in our brain i.e. how we percieve it is actually not irrelevant, as the theory of relativity shows us. There are definitely conditions that could be in play that we're not aware of that change what we are percieving.

2. If you cannot know the truth, then all statements of knowledge you make are false.

3. This includes the statement of knowledge that "You cannot know the truth".

4. Therefore, that position is essentially self-refuting and the only option you are left with is "you can know the truth".

So what is truth? Is it true for me to say that the sun hasn't imploded, given that my observation of it right now is light from the past, which has taken 8 minutes to reach me? For all I know it has but I haven't observed it yet. According to your argument I do know truth. This is impossible in the case of the sun imploding though. Ok, for the sake of argument let's fast forward to the last minute of the sun's life. Aaaand... it just imploded. This has become fact, yet the apparent truth is that it's still there, because I have yet to observe the implosion which I will observe after 8 minutes. Where does that leave me with knowing the truth?

I think we've gone on a tangent to the OP and now the discussion has shifted to what is true outside of our cognitive faculties.. But I guess this is because I'm sort of trying to make sense of the problem at hand.