Again, the target here is to be able to articulate the ontological basis of individual human worth.
If God doesn’t exist.
That may be your metaphysical target but it doesn't fit with the topic of the posted article.
The article lists a bunch of man-created concepts and without any rationale implies that humans who were the result of an evolutionary process couldn't have reasoned them out.
Not only is the article drivel, but your demand is self-serving drivel - suggesting that you interlocutor defeat you on ground you have chosen - as if it is any ground at all.
We could instead demand that you conclusively argue your thesis, that liberty or freedom cannot be an evolved social value. And in fact, since it is your thesis, it is, as is the custom in these things, your duty to advance an argument in its defense.
Of course you start off by muddying the waters with an irrelevant semantic argument over the difference between freedom and liberty.
In sum you are on the way to winning a nobel for logical fallacies, starting with question begging, then victimizing yourself with circular reasoning, and then distracting us with a semantic fallacy, and then declaring a QED after relying on the negation of a false negation of your thesis.
Quite a knot you tied yourself up in here.