See what Noam Chomsky says here.

(I urge you to watch it at 1.25 or 1.5 speed; the man talks slow as fuck.)

Here's a quick transcript of the comments:

One of the many areas where I think people should be skeptical is in what you read about this. It's a very popular topic these days to discuss what evolutionary psychology (as it's now called..."sociobiology" it used to be) teaches us about the nature of humans.

But the problem is it doesn't teach us very much at all. It's an extremely hard scientific problem to understand the nature of any organism--say insects, where you can do any [invasive] experiment you like [unlike with humans where there are ethical constraints]. When you get to something as complex as human beings what you just find is almost anything you look for.

You want to find aggressiveness and violence and sadism, yeah, we can find that. You don't need evolutionary psychology to tell us about that; we see it in the world.

You want to find self-sacrifice, courage, integrity--a willingness to sacrifice yourself for some totally remote species like to wade out into the wintry waters of Cape Cod to save dolphins--yeah, you can find that.

You can find what you look for. Humans have all of these capacities. Different ones manifest themselves in different circumstances and with different backgrounds and so on. But the sciences just don't reach far enough to answer questions like this.

Chomsky then mentions Trivers and Kropotkin, both of whom argued that altruism makes evolutionary sense.

See the Wikipedia for Trivers's "reciprocal altruism" here.

See the Wikipedia for Kropotkin's 1902 work Mutual Aid: A Factor in Evolution here.