I certainly don't make any assumptions about what people do or don't know. I wrote "It seems that you don't understand the evolution theory." I based that on what you wrote: "But for many, especially those in positions of great power and the ability to dominate others, take a different approach - which is the Darwinian survival of the fittest - that the fittest take whatever they are able to, because it so suits their motives and desires." You were talking on a different approach, the survial of the fittest, and that such an approach includes taking what you desire. To me that's a bit misleading but what you write now is more to the point:Don't make assumptions about what people do or don't know.
Sure, survival of the fittest is about successfully passing along your genes - but along with that, individually, as part of a species collectively doing so, is the individual ability to find prey and also avoid becoming it. Those that get eaten, don't do so well with their breeding plans.
You ignored what I wrote about the definition of "morality". How do you define "morality"?Not to mention, my focus was, in a purely natural world, there is NO morality - it's not even a question. Even in the animal kingdom today, there is no morality.