You're missing the point.

I didn't call your previous argument non-sensical because you didn't leave room for exceptions but because you lumped everything in our evolutionary past into the probably good category whereas I would argue that it's very obvious which things were good and which weren't.

If you want an evolutionary argument it's better to think about pur evolved preferences.

For example, we evolved the preference to be repulsed by rot and excrament. This would not be possible had we not been exposed to these things for our entire evolutionary history. Yet your argument would say that rotting things are good because they've always been part pf my environment where I would tell you that, quite obviously, they are not.

The same can be said for worms or starvation.