Appealing the Naturalistic Fallacy

Thank you, I will explain my intention.
First, the example of cats was only an example, and according to Chazal's article, if it were not for the Torah, we would learn modesty from cats.
The question is a question of principle, not about a specific case.
Wikipedia cites a number of arguments that are plagued by the naturalistic fallacy. He gave one example:

A. Those who support the theory of evolution argue that the most adapted creatures survive (consistent).
B. The poor of the city will not survive the winter if we do not provide them with help (consistent).
Therefore:
C. It is advisable not to help the poor (consistent).

The fallacy says that it is impossible to deduce the appropriate from the appropriate, but if I assume that creation (except for the act of man who has a choice) is not only existent but also appropriate, then it is to deduce appropriate from appropriate.

I'm well aware of the naturalistic fallacy. No need for demonstrations for that. I haven't seen a question here yet.

My question is, according to your perception, is the nature of the world present or also appropriate? And if you believe it is also appropriate, do you disagree with this fallacy?

The nature of the world is the most appropriate possible. And within this framework there are different groups with different characteristics. When you want to learn something from the nature of the world, you have to decide whether to learn from cats or dogs. Therefore, this has no bearing on our ability to learn from the world. And certainly none of this is in any way related to the naturalistic fallacy. If I thought that it was possible to learn from cats, I would construct the following argument: Cats are modest (and there is no other animal that is not modest). The world is properly structured. Therefore, it is appropriate to be modest. This is not a failed argument but strictly valid, since the second assumption is not factual but rather a bridge between facts and norms.

The questioner assumes that there is a hidden assumption that it is appropriate to maintain certain things, but that is the fallacy itself - where does this assumption come from?!

Fallacy does not deal with the premises but with the derivation of the conclusion from the premises.

Thank you very much for the insightful insights.
I will bring up again the argument presented in Wikipedia as a naturalistic fallacy (proper is found) and I would like to know in your opinion whether this argument is ultimately valid since you also assume that the nature of the world is found.
A. Those who support the theory of evolution claim that the most adapted creatures survive (found). (My addition and this is what is found)
B. The poor of the city will not survive the winter if we do not provide them with help (found).
Therefore:
C. It is not found to be better to help the poor (proper).

I don't understand where all this is going. This formulation is problematic and very flawed. But it can be refined into a valid argument. It's self-evident. What is there to discuss here?!
A. The adapted survive.
B. The survivors deserve to survive and those who don't don't.
C. The poor don't survive.
Conclusion: It's not worth worrying about their survival.
And even that's not accurate, because collective survival can be defined (meaning that survival by helping others is also fine. By the way, it's also evolutionarily correct).
The chatter is exhausted in my opinion.