The argument from morality

Good evening!
Evolutionists claim that there is no evidence that since morality is evolutionary, a creature that had a gene that allowed it to function socially by being moral survived.
And the argument against them is that the evidence is not from the feeling of morality, but from the fact that we demand ourselves to behave morally, and the demand can only be fulfilled by God who commands us and gives validity to morality (and it cannot be answered that we decide to behave this way because of the evolutionary conscience that was inflicted on us, because there are those who prefer and enjoy not being moral, and only because of the divine demand do they choose this way).
And my question is: 1- Why can choosing to do so because of a divine command and authority not also be an evolutionary conditioning of fear (after all, according to them, religion is also a survival conditioning)?
2- Is this based specifically on morality according to Kant, meaning that if morality is relativistic, then one can reject it and say that the decision to listen to the divine command is also an evolutionary condition, and precisely for Kant, morality is based on an intellectual choice that does not necessarily correspond with feeling?
And if I am right in this distinction, then it is even more difficult for me to understand why a value decision based on choice (by virtue of divine authority) should not reject the fact that it is an evolutionary condition that man prefers the impulse to submit to God (which, of course, according to their theory, does not exist)? Is there a distinction here between need and value, and so perhaps value would also be defined by them as a need with a different experience?
3- I find it especially difficult that evolutionists can reject and say that even the desire to choose a divine commandment rather than a moral impulse is an evolutionary process, since a person has different genes – one gene that evolved and pushes to be moral on an experiential level, as well as another gene that pushes to be moral in the sense of doing so because of God's will (which is an evolutionary fiction), but is this not true morality?
And if we argue that the mere fact that there is a choice between them proves it, then does all the evidence come from choice and not from morality (for which they have other remedies)?
I am of course aware that the process is blind, that is, those who had genes that could survive were the ones who survived, and my entire description is to illustrate. That is, evolutionists will say that it will still be clear that the one who had the gene that survives more (either the one with instinctive experiential morality or the one with intellectual selective morality) is the one who will survive.
Thank you very much!