When the monkey first started to wander from the tree, the monkey was not walking upright. Think it through. The monkey can't be standing upright in the tree?
Yes, but humans aren't from a separate group of monkeys who leapt straight from the trees onto the open savanna. They are from the same family of apes as chimps, who transitioned to a mix of forest dwelling and travelling into the savanna.
I believe you have extrapolated beyond what we can actually observe.
You can believe that all you like, but it's irrelevant to the point.
The point is that you mistaken about what you are disagreeing with. The evolutionary timeline from the genetics and fossils doesn't show humans coming from little monkeys on the savanna, it shows large tool using apes.
Mankind in ancient times was much smaller than we are now. Thousands of years ago, the average size of a human male was around 5ft. Much less than we are in the modern era.
Tool use and intelligence is the great equaliser. Humans have been hunting and killing predators since long before we have sophisticated technology.
Of course, you found nomad tribes. But the nomad tribes cannot be in the vicinity of large predators. Certainly not wandering around on the savannah.
We have nomads in our country and they are ancient. No predators here. So mum and the kids can travel by foot.
The San people traditionally kill and eat lions.
It's obviously more dangerous than an antelope, but it has the added advantage of removing the lion threat.
I would have assumed that wooden fences would be easier to build than stone walls.
And you would be right... so why didn't the native Americans build stone walls to keep out bears?
It would certainly do that, but there is no evidence that it is anything like a primary purpose.
In the same areas where you are declaring that stone walls were necessary to keep out predators, nomadic shepherds would stay outside with their flocks.
Chimps may not have travelled across parts of the savannah, when predator numbers were much higher.
Can you justify that?
Because your entire argument is that a larger, faster ape couldn't do what we see chimps doing right now.
Obviously they wouldn't settle near lions if they could avoid it. But chimps are in danger from leopards in the African forests and they find ways to get around them.
Monkeys don't live on savannahs, it is far too dangerous. There is no food for a monkey on a savannah. I told you this before. You no listen.
Monkeys eat fruit, berries, things that grow on trees. Monkey don't graze on grass.
We have their bones, they lived there.
There's plenty of food on the savanna: grains, roots and smaller animals to hunt.
I need to know when man's ancestor first left the branches. To forage on the savannah. What that ancestor monkey was was after on the savannah, I have no idea?
Apes already travel in the savanna, apes already spend a lot of time on the ground, apes already hunt for food.
There is a an observational difference but same species. Dogs are wolves.
But a fundamentally different variety of wolf. With a whole lot of new or different traits they got from random mutations that humans then encouraged with selective breeding.
