Perhaps a huge but steady growth in cold temperatures over a large number of years?

Imagine a situation where because of tech, let's say animal furs, leathers, fires and maybe even house insulating architecture or something, less was said to the DNA to adapt to the environment, and as such humans grew with a simulated temperature.

However, the temperatures wouln't stop dropping over a large span of years, resulting in wild animals adapting slowly over time, meanwhile humans not adapting as much.

Although I couldn't possibly know any plausible numbers, I can try to give an illustrative example of what I'm saying.

Imagine if it got -0.15ºC colder each year over 1.000 years, where animals felt 100% of that each year and evolved with the change - even if some didn't - while humans felt 40% of that and so didn't evolve as much over time. Finally, when the cold 'stacked up' enought, animals endured it, while humans lived all that time "protected" from the small temperature drops. At those pre-historic times they wouldn't have the tech to help them against so much cold (I'm talking -150ºC total).

Second thoughts: Maybe not a steady growth but a scalating one, where the lowering of temperatures got bigger and bigger. (Resulting in a 'sudden' shock to humans and less so to wild life).

Mind not the actual numbers, -150ºC is too brute for any living organism... but the idea is a steady growth in cold, where animals DNA changed enought and the inteligent species didn't because of their protective tech.

Perhaps a huge but steady growth in cold temperatures over a large number of years?

Imagine a situation where because of tech, let's say animal furs, leathers, fires and maybe even house insulating architecture or something, less was said to the DNA to adapt to the environment, and as such humans grew with a simulated temperature.

However, the temperatures wouln't stop dropping over a large span of years, resulting in wild animals adapting slowly over time, meanwhile humans not adapting as much.

Although I couldn't possibly know any plausible numbers, I can try to give an illustrative example of what I'm saying.

Imagine if it got -0.15ºC/-32ºF colder each year over 1.000 years, where animals felt 100% of that each year and evolved with the change - even if some didn't - while humans felt 40% of that and so didn't evolve as much over time. Finally, when the cold 'stacked up' enought, animals endured it, while humans lived all that time "protected" from the small temperature drops. At those pre-historic times they wouldn't have the tech to help them against so much cold (I'm talking -150ºC/302ºF total).

Second thoughts: Maybe not a steady growth but a scalating one, where the lowering of temperatures got bigger and bigger. (Resulting in a 'sudden' shock to humans and less so to wild life).

Mind not the actual numbers, -150ºC is too brute for any living organism... but the idea is a steady growth in cold, where animals DNA changed enought and the inteligent species didn't because of their protective tech.

Perhaps a steady growth in cold temperatures? Imagine a situation where because of tech, let's say animal furs, leathers, fires and maybe even house insulating architecture or something, less was said to the DNA to adapt to the environment, and as such humans grew with a simulated temperature.

However, the temperatures wouln't stop dropping, over a large span of years, resulting in wild animals adapting slowly over time, meanwhile humans not adapting as much.

I'm just theorizing here, (but I think people would ship this explanation as to why nature killed of the more technologically advanced species and not the stronger and fitter wild life). Although I couldn't possibly know any numbers, I can try to give an illustrative example of what I'm saying.

Imagine if it got 0.15ºC colder each year over 1.000 years, where animals felt 100% of that and evolved with the change - even if some didn't - while humans felt 20% of that and so didn't evolve as much to adapt, and at those pre-historic times they wouldn't have the tech for so much cold (I'm talking -150ºC total).

Second thoughts: Maybe not a steady growth but a scalating one, where the lowering of temperatures got bigger and bigger. (Resulting in a 'sudden' shock to humans and less so to wild life).

Mind not the actual numbers, -150ºC is too brute for any living organism... but the idea is a steady growth in cold, where animals DNA changed enought and the inteligent species didn't because of their tech.

Perhaps a huge but steady growth in cold temperatures over a large number of years?

Imagine a situation where because of tech, let's say animal furs, leathers, fires and maybe even house insulating architecture or something, less was said to the DNA to adapt to the environment, and as such humans grew with a simulated temperature.

However, the temperatures wouln't stop dropping over a large span of years, resulting in wild animals adapting slowly over time, meanwhile humans not adapting as much.

Although I couldn't possibly know any plausible numbers, I can try to give an illustrative example of what I'm saying.

Imagine if it got -0.15ºC colder each year over 1.000 years, where animals felt 100% of that each year and evolved with the change - even if some didn't - while humans felt 40% of that and so didn't evolve as much over time. Finally, when the cold 'stacked up' enought, animals endured it, while humans lived all that time "protected" from the small temperature drops. At those pre-historic times they wouldn't have the tech to help them against so much cold (I'm talking -150ºC total).

Second thoughts: Maybe not a steady growth but a scalating one, where the lowering of temperatures got bigger and bigger. (Resulting in a 'sudden' shock to humans and less so to wild life).

Mind not the actual numbers, -150ºC is too brute for any living organism... but the idea is a steady growth in cold, where animals DNA changed enought and the inteligent species didn't because of their protective tech.