norseman Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100305-first-proof-gorillas-eat-monkeys-mammals-feces-dna/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Is any member of the ape or gorilla family, modern or primitive, carnivorous? Even Albert Ostman says he did not see one of his captors eat meat. Chimps diet is at least 10% meat, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Oops, I think we already have a thread about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Thanks for sharing. Those findings come as know surprise to me. I can see no correlation with the mythical creature in which we come here for. If the said creature exists and that is a big if. It is more likely it would be a relict hominid not a descendant from a giant Asian ape whom has never been here. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 They didn't die out, they just learned how to use portals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 They didn't die out, they just learned how to use portals. There's one "portal" they never come back through if they enter it. Just down the road from your place. Man-made, Ashland area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 I'm not sure how they can deduce something so definitive based on what, two molars or some such? There isnt much physical evidence of Giganto to go on. People dind't realize that chips ate meat until somewhat recently. And, there are instances of animals adapting their diets as their environments change(d) over tens of thousands or millions of years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 When we read something on MSN that was said by "scientist" that states, ""Due to its size, Gigantopithecuspresumably depended on a large amount of food," that's slim pickings from the tree of knowledge. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) Due to a lack of a modern human like (Homo Sapiens) frontal cortex Patty and he ilk would likely. 1) Not use fire 2) No agriculture or technology such as advanced tool making. Other points... 3) P. Boisei is probably the closest hominoid relative that later achieved gigantism through exposure to food toxins. (Larger body mass offsets the toxins and is a common reason). As was noted there was never enough of Gignatopithicus to establish where it fits in although it seems it may much more primitive than a P. Boisei 4) A separate species cannot occupy the same ecological as another species it is an offshoot of and is a know principal. The reason Sasquatch live where it does is precisely because it allows it to not compete with us. If it competed with us, it or we, would go extinct. We may have competed at one point on the plains of Africa when are ancestors were Homo Erectus and overlapped with the remnants of Australopithecus, of which P. Boisei was the robust version of. Since the forum editor dumped my attempts to edit my own post yet again here is the edit. Due to a lack of a modern human like (Homo Sapiens) frontal cortex Patty and he ilk would likely. 1) No use of fire 2) No agriculture or technology such as advanced tool making. Other points... 3) No advanced intellectual abstraction or advanced language abilities although it is quite possible that Sasquatch do have some form of language. 3) P. Boisei is probably the closest hominoid relative that later achieved gigantism through exposure to food toxins. (Larger body mass offsets the toxins and is a common reason). As was noted there was never enough of Gignatopithicus to establish where it fits in although it seems it may much more primitive than a P. Boisei 4) A separate species cannot occupy the same ecological as another species it is an offshoot of and is a know principal. The reason Sasquatch live where it does is precisely because it allows it to not compete with us. If it competed with us, it or we, would go extinct. We may have competed at one point on the plains of Africa when are ancestors were Homo Erectus and overlapped with the remnants of Australopithecus, of which P. Boisei was the robust version of. Edited January 11, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) There's one "portal" they never come back through if they enter it. Just down the road from your place. Man-made, Ashland area. Right, it absorbs Bigfoots like socks in a washer. Edited January 12, 2016 by roguefooter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 12, 2016 Moderator Share Posted January 12, 2016 They didn't die out, they just learned how to use portals. There's one "portal" they never come back through if they enter it. Just down the road from your place. Man-made, Ashland area. Explain, please? What are you referring to, man-made in the Ashland area? MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 They didn't die out, they just learned how to use portals. There's one "portal" they never come back through if they enter it. Just down the road from your place. Man-made, Ashland area. Explain, please? What are you referring to, man-made in the Ashland area? MIB http://www.fws.gov/lab/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted January 12, 2016 Moderator Share Posted January 12, 2016 Thought that might be what you were talking about. So what purportedly went in that didn't come out? I haven't heard of any such .. yet. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 This is in line with my suspicion that Gigantopithecus and bigfoot are not the same animals. I have always entertained the possibility, but have had this nagging thought that Gigantopithecus, despite its size, did not align with bigfoot. There was no real logical reason for this belief, just a feeling. If the two are one in the same, what are the possibilities? It would mean that either the eyewitness reports of sasquatch as a carnivore are wrong, or this scientific claim of a strictly vegetarian diet are incorrect. The only other possibility that I see is that the animals have evolved or adapted, expanding their diet through genetic variation or through necessity. The question would be whether enough time has passed for such adaptation or evolution to have occurred. Maybe, maybe not. The simpler explanation, the one that has the least contradictions, is that the two are not the same animal. I think it is plausible that no bigfoot fossils or remains have been found, while those of now extinct primates have been discovered, because of the environment. I don't think there is any large effort to unearth extant primate remains in environments that bigfoot would call home. There is some overlap I suppose, such as caves and whatnot, but the best locations for preservation of fossils and remains tend to be different from what we believe to be typical sasquatch habitat. I wonder if we do have bigfoot bones that have not been identified as such, but that the animal they originated from was not of a large stature. Instead they perhaps came from a smaller animal, thus we have no way to link the bones with bigfoot. Because let's face it, entire species of primates are classified based on a single bone. Might one of those be from sasquatch? Is Gigantopithecus truly out of the running? The only reason this species was linked with bigfoot was because they are both giants, but remembering that not all bigfoot are giant in stature, is it possible that it is an error to exclude other possibilities? I don't really know, but remember that very few bones from extinct primates actually exist. Very few in fact, so it is not that improbable that bigfoot bones have yet to be discovered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 4) A separate species cannot occupy the same ecological as another species it is an offshoot of and is a know principal. The reason Sasquatch live where it does is precisely because it allows it to not compete with us. If it competed with us, it or we, would go extinct. We may have competed at one point on the plains of Africa when are ancestors were Homo Erectus and overlapped with the remnants of Australopithecus, of which P. Boisei was the robust version of. I would tend to agree with that, since an offshoot from a species requires separation to break the gene flow. So if Sasquatch shares so much of this continent with us, it either becomes tenuous to have a new species with zero gene flow between them and us if they are genus homo, or to have no other bipedal great ape ancestor to diverge from and yet have such human-like qualities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts