So, either you’ve lost track of the original comments being about testosterone influence or you’re just gaslighting.

So let’s recap.

No one is arguing the fact that prehistoric man hunted mega fauna. Or that they did so because of evolutionary pressures and that large game gave them a survival advantage as a species.

The rebuttal is that they did so because of testosterone fueled bravery and courage or because they needed the fat to feed their large brains. Or that testosterone in general has anything to do with hunting prowess or even whether or not a species is a predator species. Or that out of all the potential game available they chose mega fauna, falsely perceived as the hardest game because of their size, because the testosterone made them do it or because that was the only place they could get enough fat to feed their brains when any nutritionist can tell you such a broad statement has glaring problems.

Nothing I have rebutted disregards or dismisses the best anthropological studies or methodologies, which like most sciences, work best when tackled with cross discipline approaches and mentalities.

Further, a theory is just that. A theory. Nothing more and nothing less. It is not a proof (or law) until the study has been replicated many times over with the same results, can stand up to challenge, and no other 'exceptions' or causes are found. I have provided links that rebut both the theory you based your comment on and the curious assumptions you derived from them.

You should read them.