It seems that what you really wanted to do is to criticize the narrative of the story. But you end up criticizing the factual truth of the story. Those are two

It seems that what you really wanted to do is to criticize the narrative of the story. But you end up criticizing the factual truth of the story. Those are two different things. Just because the words chosen to describe this piece of biology invoke a certain association between words, does not mean what they describe isn't happening. The science of conflicts within what appears to be cooperation is sound, well-proven science. The problem with these evolutionary biology stories is that narrative always implies as if this "conflict" is somehow conciously driven. That problem is mostly caused by human language, that is not well equipped to talk about conflict without implying some drive. The author of this article could have put more effort in toning down the conflict tone, perhaps. I don't think that would have been really necessary, but that would qualify as goor criticism. But the facts are what they are.