Maybe this is worth it or not. But the entire question can not be discussed until you guys come to terms with human reality. That our origins most likely evolved from the violent animal kingdom.
The animal kingdom isn't very violent.
Predators are violent to their prey, but don't take needless risks.
Competition for mates can be violent, but more often is performative rather than injurious.
In both cases, avoiding the risk of injury to oneself is of far greater importance than the inflicting of injury on the other.
The guiding principle for violent interactions between animals is to live to fight another day.
There's not much point in getting a meal, if you sustain an injury that will become septic and kill you in a week or two; And while predation is obviously both common and violent, it's very rare
within a species.
Even when competing to mate, a single opportunity taken at the cost of your life is usually a worse strategy than many missed opportunities that allow for future attempts - the exception being in animals such as spiders and insects, for whom a single copulation can result in hundreds or even thousands of offspring, and so is (from a genetic perspective) worth dying for.
Humans are much more likely to die in violent within-species encounters than other animals, not because we are more inclined to initiate violent encounters, but because we are far more effective at killing now than we were in our recent evolutionary history.
We back down too little and too late, because we evolved in and for a world where our enemies could inflict bruises, but live in one where they can inflict gunshot or knife wounds.
These observations suggest tbat we should see a slow decline in violence, as we adapt to our new, more deadly, environment. And indeed, that is what we can see - violence has been declining (albeit slowly) for the last few thousand years. It is unlikely that much of that decline is evolutionary, though; Cultural norms, rules and expectations change
much faster than gene-pools.
That is the fact that really strikes to the heart of your overarching concept that "what we evolved to do" is somehow a force we should not attempt to overcome. The very thing that makes humans so successful is our ability to overcome our base instincts.
The appeal to nature is not only a fallacy; It is an abdication of our humanity. Even if it were true (it's not) that humans evolved to be misogynistic, to be monogamous, to hate other men's children, and to vote Republican, then we would still have not just the ability, but the duty, to use our intellect to override those impulses.
But to clarify: I don’t think there is any evidential justification for the claim that evolution has wired us to not care about other children, and the fact that adoption is so widespread is evidence against the claim. But adoption is not because of evolution, either.
