Cable, it's not my job to disprove your hypothesis. It's your job to formulate a working hypothesis that is testable and then conduct tests to evaluate its utility. Do you realize how vague your hypothesis is?
h1 = "Almost all people feel a great deal of empathy towards some animals."
What does "almost all" "a great deal" and "some" mean? If I see the turtle struggling on the ground and not spit on it as I walk over it, instead of crushing it, does that qualify as a display of empathy?
For you to then assert that I have to disprove your hypothesis, well, you've pretty much abandoned the scientific method in its entirety.
And you seem to be teetering on the brink of romanticizing primitive cultures. I would point to examples of primitive cultures acting in decidedly unempathetic ways, but you'd just dismiss those, since apparently singular examples that disprove your hypothesis don't matter.
BTW, while Gould and Dawkins generally do disagree on the utility of gene-centered evolutionary theory, Gould conceded roughly 30 years ago that Dawkins' deterministic view was useful and appropriate for explaining altruism, a concept that Gould too struggled to explain. So, unless he changed his mind later, Gould isn't opposed to its application for this particular subject.
And if you are working from the premise that human beings never adopt memes (not genes) that are evolutionary disasters, you're just wrong. We've accepted many disasterous memes despite their having terrible evolutionary consequences.
And cynical, really? That seems rude. You asked for feedback and I attempted to give a considered response. Your hypothesis is untestable and void for vagueness.