Are you sure that this article says what you think it says? Did you read it, or are you just basing this on the abstract? When I read the abstract it could be the opposite of what you're claiming.
The concept of a fundamental virtue domain is introduced to clarify issues in the virtue literature surrounding the cross-cultural universality of virtue concepts. Fundamental virtue domains are defined as directly and clearly reflecting behavioral tendencies that contribute substantially to survival and flourishing, without implying ubiquity or cultural essentialism. Evidence for this case is drawn from comparative evolution suggesting cross-species adaptations serving similar functions to the virtue domains, some of which may underpin the human potential to act virtuously.
IOW, it could be that there is evidence of a universal component of virtue which is not evolving over time. Could be. One would need to read the paper to see what it's actually saying.
I see this a lot when it comes to the request for peer-reviewed literature. All that's provided is the title and an abstract, but the actual paper itself is not readable by the person posting it, nor to any of us who are following the debate.