I am aware of this. It is pretty much impossible to reply to everyone, because I'm getting so many replies, and I also have other things to do. I do try to respond as much as possible.
I find this difficult to explain well, but bear with me. Right and wrong are not directly correlated to whether it strengthens the species, or even to survival. Suppose there is a gene that makes me feel that killing is wrong (I don't think such a simplistic gene exists, but suppose it does). That gene survives and gets promoted through the generations, because the people having that gene aren't killing other people (who likely also have that gene). Because of this, eventually the population as a whole agrees that killing is wrong. There might be situations where killing is beneficial, but this does not change the feeling that it is wrong. The idea is that morality is based on that feeling, caused by that gene, not on any rational assesment of what action is beneficial. It is only indirectly based on whether something is beneficial to survival.
Now, suppose that we evolved such that everyone in the population felt that war over oil is good, then it would not be wrong. But as far as I know there is no selection mechanism for such a gene, so until then it remains wrong.