The conclusions (which aren't MY conclusions) but are rather the conclusions of most anthropologists and paleontologists, and other subject matter experts were merely synthesized by me from myriad books and papers on these topics from a wide variety of related academic areas. You either don't believe that since you're acting like I just invented these concepts or don't believe these experts understand their own subject matter - and you know better. 🙄

I don't see your "concerns" as being substantive or even well supported. Some of them are just completely far fetched, e.g. "I found and linked two instances of skeletons with multiple violent injuries from way before the time period Ferguson was talking about." 🤷‍♀️ I mean seriously.... This is neither here not there to my premise and imagining that is a rebuttal of some sort means you haven't actually read to understand.

Aside from the fact that current neuroscience indicates that humans are a highly social species hardwired for connection and cooperation, I have never once asserted that violence does not take place as a regular aspect of human culture. That's not the point - and trying to argue against a point that I'm not even making is the complete opposite of making things simpler.

As already pointed out to you in the Killer Apes story, "“As we shall see, unrestrained aggression (the last category in Figure 23.1) is exceedingly rare among mammals. An important implication of this fact is that any claim that escalated, unrestrained fighting is species-typical in humans must be strongly justified, rather than simply assumed a priori, as such a claim flies in the face of a well-documented mammalian pattern of restrained agonism. The burden of scientific proof reasonably rests with any claimants that human agonism (the benefits of conflict) in this regard constitutes an exception to a widespread mammalian pattern."

Saying that sometimes humans fight and kill each other does not disprove this (particularly when I've already stipulated to that). Saying that genetics can have implications for aggression does not disprove it either. You asked me who I was speaking to as if you couldn't imagine it and then jumped in to be another detractor - who as usual, wasn't actually addressing the points I made but was looking for a way to show me up and be performatively argumentative. It's tiresome because it's not good faith discussion or debate.

Moving on to other things....