could humans have developed the same on other continents?

[Gelgoog]

Some time back I watch a show on the evolution of our species and they theorized that it was the unique conditions of africa that humans developed into upright bipeds like we are now.

reasons being
A) upright posture allows us to see threats over high grass when moving from tree to tree

b) upright posture minimizes the amount of heat lose when touching the ground, so two is better then four, as well as standing taller gets you cooler air higher up. so it has alot to do with thermoregulation within the african climate.

so the thought being that modern humans developed in africa because the conditions were just right for us to become the bipeds there, where they were not in other areas.

[Theseus1234]

well we give up a lot too by being bipeds
1. more strain is put on our backs than those of quadrupeds
2. the ability to make babies is a lot harder, since the female's legs are closer together to maintain stability and mobility

[Gelgoog]

well we give up a lot too by being bipeds
1. more strain is put on our backs than those of quadrupeds
2. the ability to make babies is a lot harder, since the female's legs are closer together to maintain stability and mobility

true, but we also have very high stamina even compared to other species like horses, and we seem to have one of the better thermoregulation systems of any mamals.

[Theseus1234]

true, but we also have very high stamina even compared to other species like horses, and we seem to have one of the better thermoregulation systems of any mamals.

i always thought that horses had much higher stamina than we did

anyways, i am litt confused as to the thing we are talking about in this thread. is it just the evolution of the human race and the perks? or a discussion about the possibility of humans on other continents?

[Gelgoog]

i always thought that horses had much higher stamina than we did

anyways, i am litt confused as to the thing we are talking about in this thread. is it just the evolution of the human race and the perks? or a discussion about the possibility of humans on other continents?

both, but mainly would we have evolved the same outside of africa?

[Hunter Makoy]

well, if we would pertent that prehistoric apes were running around europe, lets say, and then started evolving into humans, its possible.

one of the main aspects is trees: how many are there, and how far apart. (as it relates to walking on 2 legs)

the reason we evolved into bipedal to see over the tall grass is because there were less trees then before in the same geographical area. instead of being able to swing from tree to tree, and spend little time on the ground, we had to run from tree to tree. and being bipedal made that easier.

also, modern-ish humans did evolve in 2 different places. Homo sapiens in africa, and the neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis) in europe. based on the higher protein (and probably other factors), sapiens were smarter and more highly organized then neanderthals, who were bigger and stronger. some scientist theorise that sapiens went into europe after food, and eventually killed off the dumber neanderthals (either directly as a few think, or out of cometition), and eventually turned into wat we r today (homo sapiens sapiens)

so to answer ur question, atleast at the end, humans (homo-) did evolve differently depending on location. but ultimately, H.s.s. was superior.

[Gelgoog]

well I wasnt talking about the minor differences between cro-magnon and neanderthals. Im talking as far back as homo-erectus.

[Hunter Makoy]

even between homo erectus and homo sapiens there's not much difference other then further developement of characteristics that already existed.

H.e. already had the ability to learn and solve problems, use tools, and walk completely upright. there were more characteristic trade offs between H.n. and H.s. then H.e. and H.s.

H.e. is part of the common ancestry between H.n. and H.s. (and all subspecies therein). so differences in characterists and developement for comparative purposes is much more suited to h.n. and h.s. cro-magnon.

H.e. also developed primarily in Asia, not africa for the majority of its existance. Homo antecessor devoloped at the same time generally as H.e. and developed in Europe and also Africa. u might want to look into that one, but i dont know how much research there is on H.a.

[Richard]

I was once told by a chap in a hiphop chatroom that one-thousand years ago, a group of gorillas travelled to America where they evolved into black people, who are actually the true native Americans. If this is indeed true, it proves humans evolve exactly the same whether from gorillas or other forms of homo-, and on any continent.

[That Damn Robot!]

The basic answer is no.

Homo erectus moved out of Africa and populated Asia and Europe. In Asia there was little further evolution of homo erectus, in Europ we see homo neanderthalis as a further development. Although homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis are quite similar, there are clear evolutionary differences that made homo sapiens the stronger of the two. However, in Europe homo sapiens have developed further to gain some similar characteristics similar to those of homo neanderthalis, such as pale skin, thick hair, etc. This suggests that there is a specific set of adaptations that homo neanderthalis had that made it specialised to the European climate, and these were in turn partly developed by homo sapiens. Homo sapiens and homo neanderthalis never interbred and I don't think that it would have been possible to create a fertile offspring from them; like with lions and tigers, breeding with our cousins would have only created an infertile liger.

I was told by a professor of evolution the other day that homo erectus colonies may still have existed in Asia in 10,000 BC, which is amazing considering that it is almost within the timeframe of recorded history. There may also be another cousin of ours decended from homo erectus still living on the planet. Apparently those hobbit-people of Indonesia are close to being proven to be descendents of homo erectus rather than specialised homo sapiens according to the same bloke who told me about homo erectus in 10,000 BC. Not sure how true this is, but I suppose it's possible that homo sapiens could have missed some remote islands that homo erectus was still present on and left them still alive.