Two points. First, I have to say in passing that it is a strange evolutionary theory indeed that proposes that a species is only susceptible to selection pressures in one critical period of its history, as most of the EP theorists contend about homo sapiens sapiens. Species are continually undergoing natural selection; it is happening in homo s. as we speak. (The "outdated" selection pressures have been replaced by existing selection pressures, as is the case for every other existing species!)
Second, the notion that behavior is guided by abstract moral principles is far from universal in human societies. How can moral desires and actions be the "foundation and glue" of human survival when some societies do not consider abstract moral judgments to be a basis for action? They survive just fine--until they come into contact with "civilizations" replete with abstract moral principles! (I suspect this gets back to different assumptions about what the word "morality" means. Just to be explicit about my position, I think Nietzsche's analysis in Genealogy of Morals is dead on.)
Miles