"If moral reasoning were genetic, then you wouldn't have people losing or changing religions, and there'd be no such thing as social movements."
This might be true if genes completely determined morality, but I don't think anyone is saying that, as you allude to in your first paragraph. The fact that exercise can affect strength doesn't mean that genes don't play a very large part in the range of strength a species can have. The main thing I was objecting to in your initial comment was the idea that it's so obvious that genes and evolution have nothing to do with morality that even someone with no training (a layperson) can see that[1]. That is to say, you seemed to be advocating pure nurture, yourself.
[1] Not to mention the existence of lots of popsci books and essays on precisely the subject of morality being strongly affected by our evolutionary history.
This might be true if genes completely determined morality, but I don't think anyone is saying that, as you allude to in your first paragraph. The fact that exercise can affect strength doesn't mean that genes don't play a very large part in the range of strength a species can have. The main thing I was objecting to in your initial comment was the idea that it's so obvious that genes and evolution have nothing to do with morality that even someone with no training (a layperson) can see that[1]. That is to say, you seemed to be advocating pure nurture, yourself.
[1] Not to mention the existence of lots of popsci books and essays on precisely the subject of morality being strongly affected by our evolutionary history.