Can we separate the handicap principal(virture singnalling) from morals?

Obviously if it is an evolved trait it is not a handicap... tautologically

The only argument that comes to mind is the virtue in the fact that genetic advancement and worldly ethics are in contradiction?

What this thread is gonna read like tomorrow.

Blah blah blah morals.
Blah blah blah handicap principal
Blah blah blah connection
Blah blah thread.

I pause on a thought and I post...

That's not how evolution works.

Seems a like a strong response to a pretty ambiguous quote.

Ill follow suit though and say that: I thought (perhaps wrongly?) that evolved traits were in fact evolved because they had evolutionary utility.

Or if you are for instance saying that being a spicy pepper is a handicap because the people who now populate your environment like spicy peppers… well.

Sometimes evolved traits has evolutionary utility, and sometimes they don't. Evolution isn't a finely-tuned process by which only good traits are passed along.

I'll create a hypothetical example just for clarity of making the point. Suppose that a particular mutation improves the probability of surviving early childhood by 1%, but also causes instant death at 40 years of age. This mutation is likely to persist because children are surviving more frequently and living long enough to reproduce, but it's not immediately clear that the "utility" of this mutation is a net positive for the species.

A common mistake is to pick a random feature and declare that the feature exists for some evolutionary benefit. Sometimes, it's just a random feature that showed up.

Looks like OP is talking about the handicap principle and "virtue signaling" as if its the same thing.

You should maybe read up on sexual selection. Zahavi would approve.