I agree with you that morality comes biologically from evolution but it evidences itself via environment. For instance...if a child is raised in a loving home and taught the golden rule and the repercussions for actions, then that child will learn quicker than a child raised in a horribly abusive house without direction.

I really had to think hard about this when I had my children. I was Catholic; my husband was a non-practicing Jew. Both churches refused to marry us. I read my children Bible stories for the cultural literacy, but I taught them to be kind, honest, and fun to be with (non-judgmental). For me, that just about covered it.

You seem to be asking a lot of questions here this morning. My definition of morals would be much the same as yours. Religions have appropriated human empathy and moral codes which were developed early in man’s entity on earth.

Morality is a social construct, which is why what one society sees as Moral another society can see as immoral or amoral.

Individuals use Empathy and Ethics to choose right action, Cultures and societies adopt behavioral standards based upon these and call behaviors within that motif Moral, and ones outside that Immoral.
Thusly we see things like forced female mutilation for religious reasons in parts of the Mideast as wholly immoral, while our own society forcibly mutilates small infants for religious reasons and has zero issue with that (this is changing now).

This is reflected in a myriad of ways. We eat Beef (Moral), unless your Hindi (Immoral), same with Pork and so on, culture by culture. Each culture feeling it has it correct because people raised inside any culture tend to adopt it by osmosis when growing up in it.

Morality is, as you say, a product of empathy, in terms of the mechanism. Since different people have different levels of empathy it is mostly filtered through society so at that level it represents a sort of composite of everyone's views. In most cases the overall view of society's members is that we want society to be civil, stable, and supportive of as much individual freedom as possible, according to (roughly) the Golden Rule.

So morality "comes from" societal interactions (explicit and implicit) around how we are to coexist and cooperate. It is enabled and guided by empathy. As empathy and standards of "fairness", "equality" and other abstractions changes (hopefully, improves), societal morality also improves.

Religion appropriates societal morality and claims to be its inventor and protector but in reality it is a straight-up appropriation with a few bolted-on embellishments.

When you stop to think of it, no religion's morality can be very different from that of its host society. If it were, society would sanction it as ... immoral.

And indeed, despite claims of the religious that their allegedly superior morality is immutable, it does change. A good indicator is what fundamentalists fulminate about in any given era. Christian fundamentalists of 100 years ago railed against hemlines shorter than ankle length, listening to the radio, going to the movies, public display of affection, and un-chaperoned dating. NONE of these things is even on their radar today (except perhaps in the really extreme sects). Now it is more ideological and less behavioral ... no abortions, no reliance on social welfare (except when it's deniable), etc. But behavioral proscriptions are now mostly extreme levels of profanity and of course sexual misbehaviors (except when it's concealed).

Moses said to his followers when he came down from Mt Sinai with the ten commandments: I've got good news and some bad news guys, The bad news? It turns out is Adultery, Theft, and Perjury are off limits. The Good news? While the law says that Killing is off limits, we can ignore that one, because god said it's just a PR stunt and we can go on killing as we see fit.