I don't know how two people can bugger up an argument so badly.
Morals are derived like this:
One person or dog wants more power; so slaughters his way to the top of the pack. When he gets to the top of the pack, he decrees that nobody else can do what he did; so murder is wrong, and he will enforce it by murdering anyone who tries it. Then he kills a few more people and steals everybody else's stuff, then makes a law that you cannot steal your stuff back from him, or he will kill you. People and other dogs then complain that he has made one law for himself, and one for them. He says that's OK. People and dogs then lead a revolt and kill him, because they want their stuff back. They then address whether killing him was against his law, but come to the conclusion that killing him was OK, because they didn't like him anyway, and he's now not in charge.
Another person or dog obtains a few girlfriends to reproduce with and have fun with. Someone else comes along and inseminates them behind his back. Eventually he finds out that they were not his children, and is miffed that his genes were not propagated, and he wasted all that time raising them, so he finds the younger male and either kills him, or hounds him out of the pack, where he then dies; then perhaps even slaughters the children and wife. (I must point out that this law still stands in the Bible and Quran. Christians and Muslims have not moved beyond this pack animal thinking.)
Laws against indiscriminate murder appear in human civilization after rich people gain assets to protect. Typically they feel a loss when some other person pillages their house, or rapes their children and women, because it's a significant survival setback. Laws against murder in tribes are instigated, because people need the tribe to not diminish in numbers, or they fear it happening to themselves. In "civilization", the murdering of slaves and underclasses is not a problem. Pack animals tend not to murder each other, because they need the numbers to attack neighbouring packs and hunt animals. In humans and animals, it's OK to kill neighbouring tribes to gain wealth, increase territory or steal captive human resources - women and slaves. (This principle stands in the Quran and Bible.)
The first laws are by necessity against murder and theft of/from the aristocracy. The aristocrats then create laws to steal off the lower classes and enslave them. In a sense, "morality" is necessary to sustain a gradient of immorality. It is from this that we can derive indignation, and a sense of righteousness to attack others.
We don't have "morals", but every mammal (after interaction with others) acquires a sense of what is "fair", even if it's entirely one-sided and hypocritical. Children are always saying that someone else "hit first". This is the prime "moral" : you are morally obliged to retaliate and demand tit for tat, or worse. (This is a Quranic and Biblical principle. Eye for eye. ) You are morally obliged to protect your assets, or it affects your reproduction. The confusion on this issue still reigns. How many would defend their home with a gun, and feel no real guilt about killing an intruder?
If you want to argue that morals come from God, then the retaliation moral is what truly comes from God or evolution. The next moral from God or evolution is to kill anyone who comes near your women. Trez noble. You will notice that the Bible is full of death sentences and retribution, whilst condemning murder. This is morality.
Human "morals" are derived from the basest selfish animal behavior, hypocrisy and "game theory"; and we can see most of it mirrored in wolves, as they piss on trees.
The idea that morality comes from God, is so arse-about. To prove that morals come from God, you have to prove that they cannot be derived from game theory and evolutionary survival and philosophy. Whatever is left over, comes from external sources.