What a strawman. Pre-sapiens, all clades of Homo (sapiens
neadertalis, erectus, habilis) and all Australopithecine clades
(gracile forms africanus, afarensis, and even the robust clades,
robustus, for example) were all social. We arose from a social
context. Primates are generally social. Where in the world did you get
the idea that I said Homo sapiens were the only primates that were
social? Or that they have not ever been social? I never said this. I
never said anything like this. I simply said there is a difference between
the social and the natural constitution of our being. If you believe this
is a false dichotomy, then you are a believer in sociobiology. But just
as sure as you are about the facticity of your position, I am as certain
that you are wrong. Please refrain from building strawmen about my text.
People who have trouble understanding my position might adopt your
outrageously incorrect interpretation of my position and this moves the
debate further away from any useful dialogue. Is this obfuscation of my
argument purposeful?
Andy