that page is both accurate and informative.

That page is an example of reversed stupidity. timtyler's early statement that "kin selection and group selection are equivalent" should have tipped you off to him not making that particular mistake.

You're kidding, right? That page is a joke - and not in a good way.

I disagree. It seems to me that your position is the joke, and that page is both accurate and informative.

No, it's uninformed, out of date and incorrect. It's one of the more embarassing pages on the wiki.

You are claiming, with a straight face, (unless you're a particularly subtle troll, I suppose,) that group selection occurs in nature, and is not a trivially-wrong explanation for human morality.

So, that is what the modern scientific consensus on group selection says. It has kin selection and group selection making the same predctions. It's been known since the 1970s that there was massive overlap between the concepts. In the last decade, most of the scientists in these fields have publicly recognised that the quest to find which is a superset of the other has petered out - and now we have:

I think most evolutionists now agree that kin and group selection are the same thing.

• Peter Richerson, 2012

There is widespread agreement that group selection and kin selection — the post-1960s orthodoxy that identifies shared interests with shared genes — are formally equivalent.

• Marek Kohn, 2008

It is remarkable that kin selection has been widely accepted and group selection widely disparaged when, for simple genetic models, they are actually equivalent mathematically.

• Michael Wade

Inclusive fitness theory, summarised in Hamilton’s rule, is a dominant explanation for the evolution of social behaviour. A parallel thread of evolutionary theory holds that selection between groups is also a candidate explanation for social evolution. The mathematical equivalence of these two approaches has long been known.

• James Marshall

Kin selection explains phenomena such as human lactation. Group selection explains it too (it makes the same predictions). Kin selection largely explains parental care and nepotism - which have a moral dimension. QED.

"Niceness" pays under certain, highly-specific circumstances. Under almost all circumstances, it does not.

That's a straw-man characterisation of the idea. It pays in enough cases for it to evolve genetically. Not all cooperation is due to DNA genes (some is due to culture), but cooperation is a widespread phenomenon, and most scientists agree that humans have niceness in their DNA genes - more than their nearest relatives (chimpanzees and bonobos) do.

We surely have "sufficient evidence". We have all of recorded history. This isn't like the quest for an elusive high-energy particle - much of the relevant evidence is staring us in the face every day.

The fact that something happened is evidence that there is some explanation why it happened, a fact that I have repeatedly acknowledged. It is not necessarily sufficient evidence for a specific reason why it happened. This is so basic that I'm kind of shocked you're actually making this argument; I have updated my estimation that you are a troll based on it. Of course, it's possible that I have misinterpreted the argument you were trying to make, but assuming I haven't: there are many thing that we know evolved, that we do not understand how.

I think you have the wrong end of the stick there. To recap, you wrote:

I believe I already characterized such work as just-so stories and/or speculation in the absence of sufficient evidence.

I claimed that we do have enough evidence to go on. I stand by that. Without performing any more experiments, we have enough information to figure out the evolutionary basis of human morality, in considerable detail. Basically, we have an enormous mass of highly pertinent information. It's more than enough to go on, I reckon.