Mostly gibberish - and you don't know what an argument from nature fallacy means (FFS why don't you look these things up to avoid making an arse of yourself?)
There is actually no viable alternative hypothesis from the idea that moral codes evolved from our instincts as social animals (just search for "morality in animals" for more).
.
I'm glad you actually have cottoned on to my arguments. Mere moaning though does not counter my point that people pushing ''evolved morality'' like yourself are cherrypicking examples from nature which seem to fit or explain a morality in an exercise of Disneyesque anthropomorphism.
But what torpedoes your grand theory is that when it comes to people, Morality becomes not an objective characteristic shaped by Darwinian process but to quote Gordon '' A Movable feast'' . It becomes irreal, it becomes moral zeitgeist, it becomes relative, Good and bad memes, it becomes kissing cousins with aesthetics etc.etc.etc.
Evolved morality is therefore in direct contradiction to the moral philosophy of many who propose it.
No viable alternative you say.
That is just intellectual totalitarian triumphalism which ignores the appearance of novelty in evolution and emergence.
And of course the combined moral philosophy you are peddling suffers from being wooly.
