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

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

People are clever, they can build traps and snares, like tiger pits. Tigers are even bigger than lions.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There were lions in Asia at the time.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Thus forcing them to continue to North America.
Alex

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Via Majorca?

 

Well you would, I mean if you go on a world trip you would want to see all the sites, unless there is a lion problem in the region.
Alex

 

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

 

It was the same as it is today. 'cept for maybe some glaciers.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

Curiosity.

 

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?

 

?? 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.

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?

 

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.

 

I thought it was because a certain orange Cheeto won an election.