You've provided a candidate definition for morality, against which can be stated many others, including "he who dies with the most toys, wins." Your definition says nothing, however, beyond the idea that morality is defined by success -- a good working definition of utilitarianism.
So, it is wrong to suggest that evolution selects against morality.
Not precisely. It is certainly wrong to suggest that evolution selects against cooperation. You're the one equating cooperation with morality. However, cooperation is not an evolutionary absolute, either. And at any rate, if cooperation=morality, Gengis Khan, Atilla the Hun, or Nazi Germany were highly moral groups of folks.
Cooperation in a group is a non-zero sum game, similar to the prisoner's dilemma.
Not even remotely true, as a quick glance around you will show. If cooperation were truly zero-sum, we'd still be shivering in caves rather than conversing via FR.
I feel as though I am repeating myself, since I have made the same point again and again in these thread.
While I haven't encountered these claims from you before, I highly doubt that they'd be any more convincing the 30th time around.
It gets rather tedious to have to refute the same silly ideas about evolution, again and again.
Perhaps it's because you haven't refuted the point being made.....
Morality is a form of cooperation, but it evolved to help individual groups of humans. It can be applied between groups of humans, but that is not required.
For example, codebreaker believes that only creationists are going to heaven. In fact, he revels in his fantasy of Gould burning in hell. Yet, he would be horrified by the idea of himself burning in hell, with his skin blistering and flesh melting for all time. He can do this because he only applies his morality to his group of people, the creationists. Anything is ok for anyone else. This is exactly what Genghis or Hitler did. Morality, in humans, only seems to apply to the group that you are in.
Is this good, or just? No. It is just true.