[csense]

...There is a difference between explaining the existence of certain accepted moral standards in humans as a result of evolution in primates and claiming that the theory of evolution directly implies that certain actions are morally acceptable or unacceptable.

Well, that's one of the problems, since it introduces nature as the arbiter. It is pure folly to think that the implications are not there.

[Dimensio]

Well, that's one of the problems, since it introduces nature as the arbiter

It does not. Scientific theories explain what occurs in the natural universe. They cannot determine if what occurs is moral or immoral. Such an evaluation must be made by a method other than science.

It is pure folly to think that the implications are not there.

Then please explain the moral implications of the theory of evolution, with justifications explaining how the theory defines certain actions as "good" or "evil".