Hi Deborah, cool sites. Welcome!
VVart, let's talk morals.
You should ask this person what makes life meaningful for him. The likely replies will range from making money, to helping others. Also ask him if he believes in evil. If he answers no, then ask about Hitler etc, whether that was evil or not. From this it follows that since he knows that he has to help people, and that Hitler was evil, this "feeling" or knowledge had to come from somewhere. His answer is likely to say that the majority decides, but that is not good enough, as we saw with Hitler's Germany. The fact that the majority of Germans agreed with Hitler does not make it any less evil. Once you reach this point, his argument gets weaker, since it was not his own intelligence that compells him to help others, or to say that Hitler was evil, it was something else, since a lot of people used their intelligence and still followed Hitler. The question then remains what that influence is? There is a moral law, or nature's law, as described by the USA's founding fathers, that shows the difference between right and wrong. This is present throughout the world. Murder is not right, and everyone knows it. Some might argue against that, but point a gun to anyone's head, and they will quickly try to convince you that murder is wrong. Some manage to override this conviction, like suicide bombers, and since humans are fallible, it may happen. The fact that they can override their morals still does not make it right. People can be overcome by evil, if they ignore the morals deep in their inner being.
Morals, as described by Professor J Budzoszewski of UT @ Austin, is that which we can't not know. It is a basic knowledge of right and wrong. You can't not know that it's wrong to kill innocent people.
We know that absolute truth and absolute moral law exists. Your friend may debate that, and say there is no absolute truths or absolute morals. His mere statement denies that, how does he know that that is the truth? He may argue that he is absolutely sure there are no absolutes.
As for the existence of values or morals, try to insult him by telling him that his opinion is worth nothing and if he gets upset, that proves your point about absolute morals existing, the very thing he was trying to deny, since you are trying to deny him the right to express his point of view. His complaint will be that he has the right to his opinion, an absolute value! Without these absolutes, we can't detect evil, or have the right to prosecute criminals.
You have thus far established that he has absolute morals, and that his intelligence does not account for that.
As for the evoltution part of it, ask him to show from historic (paleo, anthropology, fossil record etc) evidence when man got moral. There should be adequate proof of that, if it evolved. Also, since man came from nothing but pondscum, or is made out of carbon etc, ask him where the morals reside in those elements? How would he measure that? Evolutionists claim only material exist, so ask him weigh out some hate for you.
The physical cannot be responsible for morals, otherwise PolPott just had some bad molecules. It can't be instinct, since our instincts often compete, and something tells us to ignore the stronger instinct. Back to helping people, our strongest instinct is to not help people, but the weaker instinct is to get involved. Something judges between those instincts and compells us to follow the weaker one. Witnessing a mugging is an example. You want to run, but you end calling the cops, ie getting involved. That something that compells you to help cannot also be instinct, it has to be an implanted moral law. Social morals don't fly either, since evolution has no purpose, and morals at the granular level is what helps us survive, thus indicating purpose. That purpose cannot come from a non-intelligent process, such as evolution.
Your friend may also confuse the fact of how we know morals with the existence of morals. Where did morals come from in the first place? Our capacity to know morals does not explain where/how/when they were 'invented'. Also, why should any biologically derived sentiments be obeyed? Why don't the strongest just kill the weakest? If morals were biological in nature, we would act like the animal kingdom, and there would be no right or wrong.
The conclusion is this:
1. Every law has a law giver.
2. There is moral law.
3. Therefore, there is a moral law giver, ie God.
Hopefully this gives you some ammunition to fight back.
. Get him to name names of species and put together his own lineage tree. This way, you can challenge the species he names as being apart of the hominid tree. Many biologists disagree on how the tree looks, but all who advocate macroevolution are certain one exists nonetheless. 