The fact is that the author of article you cite makes a claim without any evidence to show how ‘moral ethics’ can evovle- He does nothign to show that the universal moral code isn’t still inplace despite cultural subjective itnerpretations of hte objective code- so no- the IRC article is not ‘nullified’- not by a logn shot
But how can you show a universal moral code without reference to humans? That's what I thought was the weakness of the article--it assumes the separate existence of an objective moral code, but of course there's no way to demonstrate that any more than the existence of an evolved moral code. In either case, the only real evidence is human behavior.
It would be nice to see religious claims held to the same standard.