If he means that human females evolved to extract resources from males it is also reductionist. Females were not hunters, but they were harvesters and growers. I think he is implying that females could not get resources because they took care of the offspring and the male got them. This is also wrong, evidence of early human settlements point that females took care of the offspring while harvesting and growing crops.

True but the vast majority of protein intake was provided by males.

They also performed the most dangerous activities because women are reproductively far more "valuable".

You are implying that we mostly evolved eating meat, which is wrong. We evolved being omnivores and we ate everything we could get, mussels, large insects, fruit, tubercules... Make no mistake, humans were hunters but that was only one part of the picture.

I think you are mixing two different (although very related) terms.

We did evolve by eating meat. The archeological and even biological evidence for that is quite strong. Eating meat (more specifically fish) allowed for the necessary proteins for brain increase.

But we seem to have evolved to eat as much as possible, thereby, we evolved to be omnivorous.

The difference here is between by what diet we did evolve and to what diet we evolved to. But the by part is purely biological in nature, the to part is also a sociologic one, since it depends, amongst other factors, on the use of fire to cook.

How do you mean "restricted to humans"? What exact cases do you have in mind?

I made the original comment in this thread, let me attempt to clarify.

The person you replied to thought that I was referring to humans exclusively (Close enough, I had not only humans but most primates in mind), while a comment above that level the person thought that I was referring very broadly to animal kingdom.

What the hell is going on here? Why are you being downvoted for politely asking for clarification?

Because the question is extremely stupid, he should take an extra 10 seconds and it should be obvious

This breaks the HN guidelines about civility. We ban accounts that do that, so please don't do it.

You should also have better manners than to presuppose "he" when speaking of a fellow user.

In which sense is this "obvious", hubert123? I am really interested in what the comment meant by "restricted to humans". Try to be explicit in explaining.