How could human beings move out of Africa with so many large, fierce animals?

Gawdzilla Sama said:
When did humans hunt lions. I've seen lions avoid Masai, but they had spears and the lions were conditioned to avoid them. How recent that kind of thing is is open to speculation.
Click to expand...
After humans came out of the forest, where they lived for 100 thousands years, and some still do

Unlike Tigers, Lions are mainly plains hunters.
Lions inhabit grassy plains, savannahs, open woodlands and scrub country. These landscapes allow the hunters to creep stealthily through vegetation and leap upon their unsuspecting prey.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Gawdzilla Sama said:
When did humans hunt lions. I've seen lions avoid Masai, but they had spears and the lions were conditioned to avoid them. How recent that kind of thing is is open to speculation.
Click to expand...
People are clever, they can build traps and snares, like tiger pits. Tigers are even bigger than lions.
 
spidergoat said:
People are clever, they can build traps and snares, like tiger pits. Tigers are even bigger than lions.
Click to expand...
That is because Tigers normally are solitary forest hunters, while Lions are open plains pack hunters.

In fact very few natives are Lion hunters, that is left to civilized doctors with long range guns which can kill before the animal is even aware of the hunter's presence. Or to people like Trump's son who likes to kill baby elephants, just for the "fun" of it.
 
Gawdzilla Sama said:
There were lions in Asia at the time.
Click to expand...
That does'nt change the fact hat they are primarily plains hunters and not deep jungle hunters where they cannot exercise their method of coordinated movement while the females of the pride hunt in coordinated packs and try to separate a potential target from the herd.
OTOH, Tigers are solitary hunters and do not employ this type of pack hunting. And that's why they are striped which makes the blend into the forest, whereas lions are solid colored which makes them less noticable in open spaces. Color adaption offers both hunting advantages as well as hiding advantages. Most all plains animals except the zebra have plain neutral coloring.

This was one of the reasons which attracted the attention of Darwin. Sand mice were beige colored and rock mice were dark gray colored. He deduced that their environment selected for optimal survival coloring.

This is why I suspect that human migration North happened the fastest along both coast lines.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that they probably traveled by boat, now would it.

Predators were a fact of life back then. The humans who were excessively scared of them were the ones who never left the trees.
 
geek said:
If so, how come modern scientists just get to the inference that humans could walk the walk all the way out of Africa to all parts of earth?
Click to expand...

Guess this theory of humans just "walking" from Africa to Australia, must have been put forward by some Mathematician, chemists , physicist scientists ,at some time in the past, when they clearly never had any idea of the true magnitude of the giant flora, fona, and of planet earths biological fierceness of the past.

What where those humans ever want to run aways from? what motivated them just to walk, or escape africa?

Even to todays bleak standards, when 99 % of earth's flora,fona and animal specices already bein bieing wiped off earth, Africa has a better soil fertility flora and fona, than all other places of Earth combined.
 
geek said:
What where those humans ever want to run aways from? what motivated them just to walk, or escape africa?
Click to expand...
Through the giant worm tunnels, like I said - remember, the Earth was smaller then, before the Flood when the oceans filled up.
And they didn't know they were leaving Africa - they were just walking around, seeing the country (at night, when the Tyrannosauruses were asleep), on vacation like.
They were looking for places where there weren't so many mosquitos. You know Tahiti and places like that didn't have any, right?
That's how the ones who left Africa got white skin - from living in the worm tunnels.
It all makes sense, when you know the science. Check it out.
 
geek said:
What where those humans ever want to run aways from? what motivated them just to walk, or escape africa?
Click to expand...
Because human societies spread. An area of land can only sustain a given population of humans before the land, water, fauna and fauna reaches sustainable capacity. So at some point, the next generation will set up their hut at the next river mouth up the coast, where there is still plenty of land, water flora and fauna to raise their families.
 
Do we have a map of the earth from 100,000 years ago? That may shed some light on the paths and exit points from africa
 
Write4U said:
Do we have a map of the earth from 100,000 years ago? That may shed some light on the paths and exit points from africa
Click to expand...
It was the same as it is today. 'cept for maybe some glaciers.

migration-north-late.jpg
 
geek said:
Guess this theory of humans just "walking" from Africa to Australia, must have been put forward by some Mathematician, chemists , physicist scientists ,at some time in the past, when they clearly never had any idea of the true magnitude of the giant flora, fona, and of planet earths biological fierceness of the past.

What where those humans ever want to run aways from? what motivated them just to walk, or escape africa?

Even to todays bleak standards, when 99 % of earth's flora,fona and animal specices already bein bieing wiped off earth, Africa has a better soil fertility flora and fona, than all other places of Earth combined.
Click to expand...
Like I said, migration was gradual, and you underestimate the ability of people to deal with fierce local animals. Africa was a tough neighborhood, if we could survive there, we could survive anywhere.
 
spidergoat said:
Like I said, migration was gradual, and you underestimate the ability of people to deal with fierce local animals. Africa was a tough neighborhood, if we could survive there, we could survive anywhere.
Click to expand...
And besides, we already know people populated Australia, New Guinea, the Pacific Islands, China, Siberia, the Arctic... basically everywhere but Antarctica. So what's the difference between them being there and people migrating there?
 
geek said:
Guess this theory of humans just "walking" from Africa to Australia, must have been put forward by some Mathematician, chemists , physicist scientists ,at some time in the past, when they clearly never had any idea of the true magnitude of the giant flora, fona, and of planet earths biological fierceness of the past.
Click to expand...
?? If the "biological fierceness of the past" wasn't enough to kill all humans, it wasn't enough to keep them from walking a few miles.
What where those humans ever want to run aways from? what motivated them just to walk, or escape africa?
Click to expand...
None of the above. They just meandered.

Look at it from this perspective. It took humans about 50,000 years to move from Africa to Australia, a distance of about 6000 miles. That means if people moved (on average) about 600 feet per year, then that would get them there.

Do you think people are capable of walking 600 feet per year? Even if they are facing fierce animals and whatnot?
 
geek said:
What where those humans ever want to run aways from? what motivated them just to walk, or escape africa?
Click to expand...
Let's clear up some confusion here. Prehistoric humans did not do any "escaping". They know nothing of the land except that within walking distance, or intel passed between strangers.
They moved in response to a direct need to find food, water, land, shelter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top