That is not supporting your story (or some parts of it) with evidence. That’s just pointing to a list of mostly irrelevant propositions of dubious certainty (it’s Psychology, after all - protoscience, if not pseudoscience) and hoping some of them will fit.
And they do not seem to.
For example, let’s look at the very first of your claims:
And the strongest claim of such kind in the link (which, by the way, was not provided by you) seems to be “morality has a genetic component”. That is not anywhere close to your claim.
Not to mention that your fairy tales are self-contradicting. For example:
Now, of course, one self-contradiction is on the surface: if the evolutionary advantage of acting morally is quite as great, as you made it sound, how comes that this pesky “reptilian portion” hasn’t been “fixed”? After all, it is not as if genes responsible for it can’t have mutations any more.
But it is even more interesting to compare this with your views concerning morality itself.
If it is the “reptilian portion” that is responsible for evil, and it is the “civilised portion” that is responsible for good, how should moral decisions look like? “Reptilian portion” is supposed to be mostly responsible for reflexes, instincts and the like, while “civilised portion” is supposed to be responsible for reasoning. In such case morally good decisions would be a result of reasoning, while morally evil decisions would be a result of impulsive, instinctive behaviour.
Now, does your view fit that? Let’s see:
Nope. As we can see, you keep praising instinct, emotion, reflex, while belittling reason.
You do not really take your own position seriously.
Of course, given your praise for instinct and emotion and lack of respect for reason, it is not very surprising that it is so easy to find ways in which your position is self-contradicting.