Morality

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can attempt your insults as much as you want. It just shows some weakness. Rather, try to speak like a gentleman with substance. Of course this will fall in deaf ears because it is obvious that a lot of people seem to be seeking some kind of mechanism to make them feel superior. Some thrive on insults.

The hypocrisy is making my eyes bleed.

I have to say though, it's been some time since I met a person who was this proficient at passive aggressive trolling. So kudos, I guess.

Suppose we decide that human moral thinking is governed by dedicated mechanisms that evolved through Darwinian selection

Not "decide". Rather: "conclude".

, the conclusion is that all human action, even what is helpful and what is deemed morally virtuous, is selfish.

Ultimately, yes. Selfish in the sense that the ultimate goal, as always in evolution, is the propagation of ones genes.

Or is that an absolutely erroneous conclusion? Dawkins assessed that even after discovery of genetics, with the selfish gene, we are born selfish.

Ultimately, yes. Selfish in the sense that the ultimate goal (of every organism) is the propagation of ones genes. Note that this does not mean that people, for example, will by default be selfish concerning, for example, money. It just means that people will do whatever they think they have to do in order to be successful at reproducing and propagating their genes.

This might thus mean that a person might have to act in a way that is opposite to what we commonly understand as "selfish", if that is the behavior that attracts females and gives someone more chances of producing off spring.

In that scenario, the unselfish behavior would have the selfish goal of producing off spring.

See?

Michael Ghiselin said “Scratch an altruist, and watch a hypocrite bleed". Its contradiction of what you started to say. Think about it. Lets say a man is looking for his wife saying he wants to help her reduce her pain, is he driven purely by his mating and reproductive instincts? Can this be proven by a study? Collections of individuals seeking their own self-interest is the yardstick, is it? Thats Darwinian ethics.

Either you are not understanding or you're being deliberatly short sighted.

There's no such thing as "darwinian ethics". There is a darwinian explanation for why humans have such a thing as ethics / empathy / morality.

Evolution shapes not only physiology, but also psychology and behavior. With the ultimate goal being successful in producing off spring. In humans, one of the (many) traits that helps accomplish that goal, is the ability of bonding. The impulse of protecting "your own". Your children, your wife, ... all the way to your fellow citizens. Because them being safe, creates an environment in which you are more easily able to propagate your genes.

Does that mean you only bond with people for selfish reasons? No.
Does that mean that once you have kids, you don't care about your wife anymore? No.
Does that mean that if you are infertile, you aren't interested in a wife or are unable to bond with people? No.

The impulse, and ability, of bonding is there regardless.
In fact, there's a psychological urge to do so. We are social creatures, after all.

And you have not read and responded to the OP. Consider the darwinian bee's, and tell me if there is any foundation for what you are saying and then making it the proposition of evolutionary ethics?

I already told you that the bee hive comparison is invalid.
Humans and bees are different organisms with vastly different social structures.
Why would you expect the same behavior?