My statements were juvenile or evasive, they were very much to the point--that your author is projecting onto Darwin's work something which is not actually there. Nor did i indulge in argumentum ad hominem
--both Roswell and i have told you more than once that the concepts you wish to discuss are not relevant to Darwin's work. An argumentum ad hominem
is a fallacy of irrelevance, one in which i would attack my interlocutor rather than addressing the question. As i've already pointed out, i answered the question, you just didn't care for the answer. There was also nothing defensive about what i wrote--there is nothing which i need defend.
Roswell has asked if you might reframe your question. I consider that to be eminently reasonable. You might put that question in terms of the author of your original passage's extrapolation of ideas from Darwin's work, since morality is not actually any part of Darwin's work.