you need to keep in mind that objectivity and subjectivity are mutually exclusive. Claiming that evolutionary processes are subjective to humans means that it is not objectively true. That means that you are claiming that evolutionary processes have not taken place. in that case, I believe you need to keep on researching the matter, preferably from reliable sources.

"A universal ethic is emergent..."
you make in that passage claims about survival of single people, and then jump to the pleasure of people depending on the survival of everyone in the universe. You have an huge gap there, why should anyone care about the survival of someone in some far away country on your account?

You are on the right path, but you need to read more about the topic, the claims you make are not yet worked out properly.

Contemporary thinkers may have duped their audience and perhaps even themselves into the impression that harmonizing the epistemology of evolutionary relativism with universal ethics is much harder than it actually is. — Enrique

First I have a few questions:
a. What exactly does evolutionary relativism mean?
b. What does universal ethics mean?

If you mean something along the lines of moral realism by universal ethics then there are some naturalist moral realists who have proposed an evolutionary realist (mind independent) account of morality. The papers that I am aware of are "Evolution and moral realism" by Sterelny and Franser and "Evolutionary moral realism" by Collier and Stingel. That is by no means a mainstream view but I hope that it will gain some more attention as we move to views that consider our best science. I believe that both biologic and social evolutionary processes are important to the understanding of morality.