We're disagreeing about a technical, possibly even a semantic matter. It's a question of whether psychological and sociological patterns emerge from biological ones, so that the higher-level regularities aren't reducible to the biological narrative. Biologically, our function is to live as hunter-gatherers in a Stone Age setting. At least, that's what evolutionary psychologists say. But we carry the seeds of that lifestyle's destruction, in the form of the cerebral cortex and the capacities for self-consciousness, language, reason, autonomy, and so on.

It's like the caterpillar that turns into a butterfly: it's early stage is supposed to destroy itself so that a phoenix can emerge from the ashes. We outgrew our protohuman phase so that more specialized sciences are needed to explain our behavioural modernity. Those sciences go beyond biology to account for our anomalous ambition, creativity, and intelligence.

So it's a question of disciplinary boundaries. If you like, you can say we're highly adaptable because of our cerebral cortex, which is a biological fact about us. Or you can emphasize the software and say it's language and our self-model (consciousness) that freed us from the animal life cycle, enabling us to attempt to live like gods in worlds we create in our image.

We're probably agreeing more than we seem to be here.