By 180 million years ago, Pangaea was beginning to split, as we believe from the evidence. By 135 million years ago (abbreviated Mya), Pangaea was gone, and all of the continents that we know today were into their basic units (India would hit Asia a few million years later).
The very earlier hominid, the first branch of the tree off of the "missing link" between Man and apes evolved somewhere between 5 - 8 million years ago. These would be creatures we might never even think of as human without being experts in the field.
However, the distribution of hominid fossils does not actually prove or even suggest any evidence that Pangaea existed. Evolution as we best understand it today takes place where conditions are right. As you can see above, the four lines of evidence are things that we can point to and correlate as, "Yes, these are the same, and this makes sense, let's talk about it." You cannot point to an *absence* of something (no fossils in the Western Hemisphere) and use that as proof of anything. In this particular case of Pangaea with the logic of absence, you could also say that South America and Africa were never a similar continent, because there are no elephants in South America. That's not evidence. All that means is that *when* they evolved, the two continents were separate. It does not prove that they were never attached. This same argument applies to hominids.
So this is an interesting question. The evidence as we know them (fit, fossils, strata, coal) clearly indicates to everyone that Pangaea existed. But if you are *only* going off of hominid distribution, then the answer is... unavailable. It doesn't tell you if it's true, and it doesn't tell you if it's just a "fun idea, but not true." It only tells you... this is where hominids evolved.