Yeah he contradicted himself by calling it both a human invention and a product of evolution.

I think he means (and correct me if I'm wrong Puppyroach) that good and evil are concepts that humans have come to understand - albeit in different ways - by the process of our evolution. This separates us from other species. The reptilian brain will have one of 3 reactions to a stimulus; say a hand entering the cage of a pet Iguana:

-Is it a threat? If so I will attack it.

-Is it food? If so I will eat it.

-Is it a mate? If so I will attempt to mate with it.

The reptilian brain has no concept of morality, as it is missing the outer layers of the brain that humans have. Meanwhile the human brain tries to anthropomorphize the Iguana by imposing human traits and emotion on the reptile based on how it responds. (Ex: "He bit me! He must really hate me."). The reason we have concept in morality while reptiles don't shows that good and evil, as moral concepts, did not exist on Earth until we evolved to the point where we could perceive them. At least this is my analysis of what Puppyroach said. Hope that helps!

Anyhow, the way you described our struggles between instinct and morality is very Freudian - the id vs the superego, as mediated by the ego. Is there a concept of overall evil that every single human alive can agree on? It's hard to say. I think we can both agree that a young boy raised in a labour camp in North Korea would have very different views of morality than that of a young boy raised in a nuclear family in suburban Denmark, for example. Could it be argued that both boys were born the same, but the boy in North Korea learned through his upbringing to block out his superego (in Freudian terms) to rely more on his instinctual urges (id) to survive? Could be. Now you see why it is so hard to measure a neutral human moral compass, because when in history have every human being been raised under the same circumstances?

Anyhow I digress. Bottom line, I think you misunderstood him when you assumed he said good and evil did not exist.

"For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so...righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad" (2 Nephi 2:11). The purpose of this mortal life is to obtain a physical body and be tested to see if we will do the will of our Heavenly Father. By choosing to do His will we can progress and become more like Him. In order for this to happen we must have agency, the ability to choose good or evil. If He did not allow evil then we would not know the good and in turn not be able to exercise faith in Him.

I don't honestly notice religious people are any more "moral" than a non-religious person.

If Christians *really* believed everything that was in the Bible they'd be welcoming immigrants from Mexico and giving them all their belongings, but obviously they don't do that and are hostile to them. They're only Christian when it's convenient to them or they get to look down upon others (which I take it is a major perk of being religious).

The world was a more savage place when religion held more power in the past, today even though of course we still have terrible things happening in a historical context, we've never had more peace, and this is largely due to the rise of secularism and rational scientific thought in the West IMO. 

That's an interesting way of looking at it, as the idea of conformity is likely a product of the need to stick together - but I do have a few objections/exceptions I would like to point out:

a) Humans were a nomadic species before we domesticated crops, and settled down in settlements around our agriculture. We were never sedentary prior to that; moving from place to place as hunter/gatherers. We would not have populated the whole of the Earth if we were not a nomadic species. I think what you mean is that we are not a "lone wolf" species, as we were nomadic in groups and not solitary.

b) I'd argue that it was within these first few settlements that our "morality" and "rules" were born. It could be argued that prior, as a nomadic species, there were not that many social mores that the various hunter/gatherer groups relied on. For example, it's not like every male alive had a sexual partner in order to pass on his genes, or that every human being was treated with morality. The most evolutionarily advanced male (aka the strongest, most dominant) likely copulated the most for the good of the future species. The sick and the weak were likely outcast or left behind - "survival of the fittest". Maybe that sick dude obeyed the rules to the outmost, but he was still biologically shafted and outcast as a result. Furthermoe, at that point in our history, the male who killed another male would most likely establish his dominance over the group - not be outcast. So to summarize, there is an "immoral" fight for dominance that would occur within these groups, as well as leaving behind the incapable - which could be considered immoral.

c) You are right that the fear of being outcast or to be negatively branded socially is one of themost effective punishments in most egalatarian societies. Once we as a species got to the point of sedentism (and even before that), the human who is socially shunned and/or kicked from the group is the one whom receives the smallest share, or is royally fucked for being on their own. Nobody wants that.

I think the "universal morality" you are getting at is the "good of the species/group" mentality as opposed to the "good of myself". Good point. Alas, that type of moral mentality has been largely abandoned in a capitalist society as opposed to a collectivist one.

Maybe God has his own perception of being good that doesnt really cope with ours.

I think the key word is "almost". There are societies, times in our history where slavery, rape, even cannibalism has been accepted in one form or another.

The allied forces were not justified according to most germans I would assume, and had they (the nazis) won we would have seen a different society today where other things would have been acceptable. Does that mean we should ignore what we find right or wrong? Of course not. It is part of our development as a species and has been the recipe for our success in our evolutionary path.

And i often here the argument that if there is no fundamental "right" or "wrong", then why should we care? That would be like if I came in contact with a group of people who claim some earth spirit is the one that gives our lungs air and when I explain that it is actually a biochemical process and nothing spiritual, they decide to stop breathing because "what´s the point if it is only biology". They can still believe in a spirit even though it is a biological explanation behind it.

Just because this concept of morality, as complex as it is, is a human invention, doesn´t mean we should stop using it. It has proven to be an enormous asset to our development so the only logical answer is to continue with the constant discussion of what we find right or wrong for the better of society.

Yes maybe "nomadic" wasn't the correct term, what I meant was if you were an asshole who couldn't get along with anyone your odds of survival likely plummeted in the past as humans are relatively a weak species from a physical POV, a lion vs a human one on one isn't exactly a match up that would last long. 

Our need to work together is likely very much instrinsic to our survival as a species, if our ancestors did not do that, we would have quickly have been eaten alive (literally) by the wilderness around us. Cooperation, cohabitation, the ability to form friendships and work together is paramount to our survival. 

In the past if you were "outcast" from your peer group, that was probably pretty much a death sentence. Not ironically a lot of our racism may extend from this too, as if you were a tribe/group you likely did not want to welcome an "outsider", that outsider could be a murderer/rapist that would offset the balance of your group so unfortunately in a way this may also be where distrust of others who aren't similar to us comes from. 

Likely in the past if you were outcast from your group, your chances of being integrated into a different group were low. If you're alone in the wild you're pretty much dead.

It makes perfect sense that human beings have a strong compulsion to fit within common societal "norms" (ie: don't fucking kill or rape one another for starters) which predates any organized religion. 

 This would be impossible according to christianity atleast, or the fruit that adam and eve ate from the tree of knowledge to be able to distinguish good from bad would have been without effect.

Because god doesn't exist. It is just an invention people made up because of fear to death and things that have no explanation.

Also it is very useful to keep people under control with fear. You know: "if you don't behave you will go to hell and blah blah blah".

And yet, today, we see greed and rampant exploitation of poor people on behalf of those in power all over the world.  I think it is somewhat over-simplistic to say that we have evolved with a moral code in our genome and that morality is purely based on the natural mechanisms of this world.  Yes, sometimes there are natural mechanisms in place to limit grave injustices but there also times when behaving immorally really does come without natural consequences (in fact, sometimes it gives people tremendous power).  For example, I can think of no evolutionary reasons why a person shouldn't keep slaves or cheat or steal to get ahead in life:  often times these types of people are never caught or brought to justice for their crimes.  Nevertheless, these activities are still intrinsically wrong.  This is the limitation of a purely materialistic view of morality:  a final judgment gives context to actions that are intrinsically heinous but are allowed to exist due to injustices of this world.