(May 20, 2015 at 2:58 am)robvalue Wrote: Would it be reasonable to say there may be as yet undiscovered independently evolved humanoids? Or have we explored the world so thoroughly now as to pretty much discount this? (I'm talking about just on earth).
Yeah thats fair. I am starting to think that what is more likely, is the fact that they were more evolved. So they didn't have as much need to migrate. They could make better due with there surroundings. Someone mentioned that they could control the climate, I don't know about that but I see an advantage to being able to have stable living condition. And besides, who wouldn't want to live in Europe.
I'm still stumped on why a higher intelligence animal didn't evolve in the americas. I know that its not impossible that one didn't. It just seems that following the patterns of other animal lines seems to suggest animals evolved in their own unique way but also with some kind of uniformity. I know thats probably not exactly correct but I guess what I am saying is that bears, for example, seem to be unique whether or not you're in south america, north america or asia. However, they're all so similar to a point where you can quickly identify them as a bear. Even though Koala's are sometimes erroneously called, "koala bears" they are clearly not related closely like a black bear or a speckled bear in peru. So that begs the question for me, how come there wasn't an offshoot of Lucies that made it to even eastern china or canada? Perhaps we just haven't found the fossils yet but the evidence seems to suggest that early hominids evolved in that one general area.
Also just a random thought, its crazy that fundamentalist claim that all humans can be linked back to adam and eve. But an evolutionist (which is a word and proper term) believes that all living organisms, humans, animals, trees, viruses, etc go back to a single one celled ancestor. Kind of cool
