An objective morality can be discerned

It is not the objective of the 'con' to prove the existence of anything. I do not think that the 'pro' has shown the possibility of an objective morality being discernible. 1. Firstly, my question should be asked again, maybe someone can answer it in the comments: Where do you think an innate morality comes from? If it comes from evolution, then why have humans not evolved other innate knowledge, for example the toxicity and edibility of different plants? That is certainly important to survival, and yet it is not innate within us. 2 To prove that a morality can be objective, you must first prove that a moral choice can be made without involving an emotional state. I believe this to be very improbably, and I do not think that it has been made any more probably by pro's arguments. 3. Some moral choices simply cannot be made objectively, because morality is not a methodical process. Is it morally better to commit robbery or to commit arson? This answer to this question cannot be decided via logic. This is where morality comes into play. Each person morality is different on such a matter. If one person says arson and one person says robbery, does one of those two have the moral high ground? Even more importantly, if they'd had an innate morality, then why couldn't they agree on one choice over the other? 4. It has not been shown to my satisfaction that moral pillars are anything more than survival instincts. Survival instincts are not innate psychologically, but in my view are very quickly adapted by people who are avoiding the physical suffering which they will endure without survival instincts. As modern societies emerged, morality changes to fit the needs of a society. To put this in more understandable terms, I will provide a scenario. If tomorrow a drastic change occurs in the world, such as the beginning of a global war, will the children born two days from now be born with a different morality? I don't think that they will. I think rather that the children born two days from now (in this scenario) will be born with no moral instincts, and will rather learn morals from their environment (parents, education, etc.). 5. To prove the ability to discern an objective morality, you must also first prove that all actions can be measured objectively. It has not been shown that every action can be measured by the application of numbers or statistics. I will again use the train scenario. Is it moral to push someone in front of a train to save the lives of 5 or 10? How can one possibly measure the value of each life? The variables are the value of the life of the person being pushed in front of the train, the morality of murder, and the value of the lives being saved. None of these can be objectively measured, ergo none of these can be objectively moralized. I apologize, I know I'm not supposed to rebuttal, but I just have one final point. Human have not escaped natural selection. We have simply changed the way in which 'selection' occurs. Now economic and social statuses must be factored in to natural selection. Those who are genetically gifted mentally are now more valued than those who are genetically gifted physically. Thank you for the debate.