An appeal to naturalistic phenomena, and in such a stretched out fashion, is hardly a solid argument for anything. I mean, you could argue against anarchy using similar reasoning. It is a natural state of affairs in wildlife ecosystems that the stronger prey on the week, so an exertion of power by some stronger members of a community over others is as natural a conclusion as the one that we are all equal because we are all made from the same constituents that have been around since the Big Bang. Moral and ethical philosophy arose, to a great extent, precisely to deal with this preying of the stronger upon the weaker, which is a natural state of affairs, trying to arrive at social standards that would fundamentally change the natural course to an unnatural one. (Which is not rigorously true because, after all, from a naturalistic point of view, anything that happens is by necessity consistent with nature, but you get my point.)

As for the religious argument, I don't believe it even deserves any comment...