Lake County Bigfooot

Sasquatch Adaptability and Survival

153 posts in this topic

Going full circle in a sense from where I started on the forums with the Urban Bigfoot thread, what I am interested in discussing is all the variety of adaptions that allow a 8 foot tall 500 pound plus creature to exist on this and other continents. Why does the sasquatch continue to survive despite human invasion of their territory and food resources. Also what will be the future of such a creature given the possibility of global climate changes and subsequent annual rainfall for various regions. Will Jevning suggest on his research podcast that the number of creatures seems to have increased significantly since the 1950s, is that true? What do you think is the current health of the specie and its chances for long term survival.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I for one think that its numbers have been stable for a long period of time, but perhaps they are not nearly as numerous as before homo sapiens rise. Native Americans reported these creatures being present in numbers when they came across the Bering Sea land bridge, so we know they were here before the modern humans, stories of wars between tribes and Sasquatch over territory have been told, of having to drive the Sasquatch off of the plains and into the mountains. If such things were true, and Sasquatch were numerous and thriving prior to our contact, then it is hard to imagine anything but a decline since that hey day of existence. Looking at other animal populations, there were definite decreases after the presence of modern humans arrived, including deer, buffalo, elk, moose, et., mostly due to hunting but also destruction of habitat. That destruction of habitat and over harvesting continued into the 20th century, but then declined as laws protecting the environment and overharvesting were enacted. Since those laws were put into place many animal species have rebounded, and I think most likely this could explain an apparent recent rise in the Sasquatch population. More and more open space is being preserved and protected, that can only lead to a higher population of these creatures over the long haul, but I think if it were graphed out, it might show a sudden decline due to disease when white men came to our continent, and a slow continual increase since then, perhaps a minor spike in our century has occurred.

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The average female bear has around 10-15 cubs in her lifetime. I ran across that some time back but after looking this time around I was unable to find the information. If the bear is malnourished then that number drops.  For large animals we only have bears to help us assume how many offspring a Sasquatch may produce. Two-three every two years like bears ? Mostly one at a time like Humans? Habitat that can provide nutritional needs is important of course but so is the rate of birth. There have been discussions on that subject that endeavored to look for those answers but like with everything else about the creature it was mostly circumstantial.  

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reports of encounters prior to the 1900’s often describe Sasquatch as not being very elusive or evasive. In just less than 100 years, there’s been a dramatic change in their mentality; the ones that people report seeing nowadays are unbelievably paranoid compared what is being described in older reports.

 

Their numbers today aren’t exactly most people’s idea of "small". There are still legitimate reports coming from nearly every state and province here in North America with some of the most credible reports coming from unusual areas like woods that are surrounded by urbanization or desert areas where there’s almost no vegetation to use as cover.

 

If you take the time to carefully look at the big picture, you’ll notice that much of what's commonly attributed to Sasquatch contradicts known science. The biggest contradictions of all are to well-supported theories in evolutionary science. One might claim that our understanding of evolution is flawed, but the reality is that it’s not flawed to any significant extent.

 

It seems like most experienced researchers can at the very least tell they’re missing some important pieces to the puzzle, but to this day, most them don’t have the slightest clue as to what it might be. Many people are still left with this question: What exactly are Sasquatch?

 

To many, it’s not even a real biological entity, let alone an undiscovered ape that’s roaming their backyard in Chicago.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

If you take the time to carefully look at the big picture, you’ll notice that much of what's commonly attributed to Sasquatch contradicts known science. The biggest contradictions of all are to well-supported theories in evolutionary science.

 

That's not my perception.  Hmmm.  Could you provide a list of the contradictions you perceive?  

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some attributes that they probably share with other elusive animals that help them survive and stay undiscovered. But if we look at each of these individual attributes alone it wouldn't be enough. 

 

Elusiviness: Cougars are elusive but are known to exist, though they aren't seen by many. 

 

Population density: Wolverines have low population densities and are also elusive. Black bears have larger densities than wolverines but still less than many other animals. 

 

Large individual home ranges: Wolverines again as well as male cougars. This with lower population densities makes them very hard to find within any given area.  

 

Isolated habitat: Which is the reason for the other great apes late discoveries by Europeans. But as evidenced by LCB's urban bigfoot that doesn't seem to be the case with BF.  

 

Human avoidance: Many animals do this. But this can be overcome if none of the animal's senses have detected us. That's the reason hunters can be successful. It's probably one of the reasons why some bigfoot sightings occur. I say one of the reasons; another is a conscious choice on their part to reveal themselves. 

 

In North America the wolverine has all the above listed attributes. But, that didn't keep them undiscovered. So if bigfoot exists, which is the point of this discussion it has something more than the above attributes; because as we can see that doesn't keep something undiscovered. Population density is the main 'go to'  for bigfoot not being categorized. Along with that is the statement that they are close to or are already extinct. That is simply an excuse. It doesn't work for the wolverine or any of the other great apes. And it doesn't fit the sighting databases which cover all of North America and beyond. It doesn't fit what I or others have found or seen recently, which says they are present in the habitat  currently.  So with such a large species' range it would require a viable population. One thing I can't say is whether that population is increasing or decreasing. 

 

Finally, to the point. I happen to think they are flesh and blood creatures. So what attribute would set them apart from the animals mentioned above. Intelligence. Big argument I know because they don't use technology. But technology is a manifestation of our intelligence. Another manifestation of intelligence is the ability to remain undetected. Some Native Americans were able to do it when they saw that's what it took to survive. Aboriginal people of Australia were able to do it for the same reasons. Native tribes in South America were able to do it and some may still be. Even Japanese on the Pacific islands after WW2 were able to stay hidden. The funny thing is that the discovery of many of the above happened after they chose to come in of their own accord. 

 

Who knows, maybe sasquatch will do the same someday... ;)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evolution is driven by environmental stress and random mutations over a long period of time. It's a difficult process and it has notable limitations. From an evolutionary point of view, there are two very major problems with the concept of Sasquatch:

 

One is the absurd number of extreme adaptations that are hypothesized. There's a slight possibility that a great ape could develop a trait such as night vision or cold-weather resistance or a strength to bodyweight ratio that's bordering on unnatural, but not all of them simultaneously. It's just not in the realm of possibility when you factor in everything.

 

The other problem is that there isn't even sufficient need for a great ape to develop any of such characteristics. There's no need for an ape to come out of Africa and enter incredibly harsh climates in a such short period of time or for them to be as fast and powerful as they apparently are or for them to be so cautious when they've supposedly been at the top of the food chain. In other words, their characteristics don't fit our understanding of evolution given what we know of the environments of Africa, Asia and North America.

 

Sadly, people in this field of research think it's all possible. Why? Because they see the entity and that's led to them jumping onto the relic hominid bandwagon. Kudos to anyone who can see through it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually what I see is that we puny, big brained, naked apes are actually the ones that don't fit the mold. We are the odd man out, so to speak. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW & OS, yes we are what might be termed the high end mutation on this planet. All other similarly shaped mammals being the hairy more animal types.

 

3 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

One is the absurd number of extreme adaptations that are hypothesized. There's a slight possibility that a great ape could develop a trait such as night vision or cold-weather resistance or a strength to bodyweight ratio that's bordering on unnatural, but not all of them simultaneously. It's just not in the realm of possibility when you factor in everything.

 

There is only one common denominator in all of that. Something that I've brought up before as have others. Night vision and cold weather survival require the kind of environmental stresses that would push the evolution of those traits. The stresses themselves could be cold and dark. It points to a subterranean existence. And perhaps an ancient crossover of the Giant Lemur. The Lemur would bring a tapetum lucidum into the mix and that would allow for a subterranean life along with echolocation in order to survive cold. 

 

The mingling of a large primate (Africa) with a large primate (Madagascar) over millennia may have produced a creature that was large, strong, had night vision, and the natural intelligence to survive by getting out of the cold. Many may have died in the evolutionary processes of learning that going underground or into caves would be what saves them. Homo Naledi, Red Deer Cave peoples, Neanderthal,  Wacko thought? Sure, maybe. But the idea also tackles the surveillance issues to a degree as well. In other words, not Human, still animal, intelligent, and doesn't jump into portals unless it is a hole in the Earth. If this kind of dialogue keeps coming full circle then there must be at least something to it.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said:

Evolution is driven by environmental stress and random mutations over a long period of time. It's a difficult process and it has notable limitations. From an evolutionary point of view, there are two very major problems with the concept of Sasquatch:

 

One is the absurd number of extreme adaptations that are hypothesized. There's a slight possibility that a great ape could develop a trait such as night vision or cold-weather resistance or a strength to bodyweight ratio that's bordering on unnatural, but not all of them simultaneously. It's just not in the realm of possibility when you factor in everything.

 

The other problem is that there isn't even sufficient need for a great ape to develop any of such characteristics. There's no need for an ape to come out of Africa and enter incredibly harsh climates in a such short period of time or for them to be as fast and powerful as they apparently are or for them to be so cautious when they've supposedly been at the top of the food chain. In other words, their characteristics don't fit our understanding of evolution given what we know of the environments of Africa, Asia and North America.

 

Sadly, people in this field of research think it's all possible. Why? Because they see the entity and that's led to them jumping onto the relic hominid bandwagon. Kudos to anyone who can see through it.

 

Incorrect ... or at least incomplete.   There's a factor you're overlooking.   In a large somewhat homogeneous population, change is dampened / buffered because a significant portion of the population is not subjected to selective pressures, however, when a small population is subjected  evenly to severe selective pressure, mutations / adaptations are reinforced, not absorbed and buffered back out.  Ice age conditions could well have done that.   Think about the effects of the Toba super volcano on human populations 75K years ago.    Remember that genetically speaking, the two most diverse humans on earth are more similar than two unrelated chimps from the same troupe.   Apply that to a small population of sasquatch ancestors with a bottleneck maybe down into the hundreds or less instead of the 3K to 10K humans who survived.

 

The things you suggest are ridiculous suddenly become biological probabilities, not ridiculous at all.

 

MIB

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your forgetting "punctuated equillibrium",evolution wise, not that I have a love of Gould.

I think Footsy would more likely be classified under Hominid, Not 'great ape'. Plenty of information points in that direction. An ape can be caught by msn. And even apes have remarkable language abilities. This seems to be an issue, ape or hominid. When you go with hominid, you are more understanding of human level intelligence in them, so some of the mystery is taken out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget that in the evolution of primates, there were a large number of species in Europe and the northern parts of Asia for much of the time we primates have been on the planet. Large size and cold tolerance go hand in hand. Simple extrapolation of great ape strength could well account for any "super strength" of sasquatch. As for night vision, that would a very selectable trait when one is evolving amongst the megafauna without the benefit of fire, in terms of not only locomotion, but also predator evasion, and hunting. Every slight advancement of enhanced night vision could prove an enormous edge depending on the specific context, couple that with a bottleneck or two where the ability to see at night even just a little bit better than the average bear was a part of avoiding extinction, and those that can't don't make it to the next dance, puts you and yours on the path to continuing and most likely improving that trait. Toss in progressively developing cognition, a hallmark of our primate family tree, and you have evolution occurring in both the physical and mental planes, which can't help but begin to impact each other and push it all the further.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Waggles said:

Your forgetting "punctuated equillibrium",evolution wise, not that I have a love of Gould.

I think Footsy would more likely be classified under Hominid, Not 'great ape'. Plenty of information points in that direction. An ape can be caught by msn. And even apes have remarkable language abilities. This seems to be an issue, ape or hominid. When you go with hominid, you are more understanding of human level intelligence in them, so some of the mystery is taken out.

Hominids would be classified under great ape since we are hominids and we are great apes ourselves, so not mutually exclusive.

11 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

Don't forget that in the evolution of primates, there were a large number of species in Europe and the northern parts of Asia for much of the time we primates have been on the planet. Large size and cold tolerance go hand in hand. Simple extrapolation of great ape strength could well account for any "super strength" of sasquatch. As for night vision, that would a very selectable trait when one is evolving amongst the megafauna without the benefit of fire, in terms of not only locomotion, but also predator evasion, and hunting. Every slight advancement of enhanced night vision could prove an enormous edge depending on the specific context, couple that with a bottleneck or two where the ability to see at night even just a little bit better than the average bear was a part of avoiding extinction, and those that can't don't make it to the next dance, puts you and yours on the path to continuing and most likely improving that trait. Toss in progressively developing cognition, a hallmark of our primate family tree, and you have evolution occurring in both the physical and mental planes, which can't help but begin to impact each other and push it all the further.

A primate (Listeni/ˈprmt/ pry-mayt) is a mammal of the order Primates (Latin: "prime, first rank").[2][3] In taxonomy, primates include two distinct lineages, strepsirrhines and haplorhines.[1] Primates arose from ancestors that lived in the trees of tropical forests; many primate characteristics represent adaptations to life in this challenging three-dimensional environment. Most primate species remain at least partly arboreal.

With the exception of humans, who inhabit every continent except for Antarctica,[4] most primates live in tropical or subtropical regions of the Americas, Africa and Asia.[5] They range in size from Madame Berthe's mouse lemur, which weighs only 30 g (1 oz), to the eastern gorilla, weighing over 200 kg (440 lb). Based on fossil evidence, the earliest known true primates, represented by the genus Teilhardina, date to 55.8 million years old.[6] An early close primate relative known from abundant remains is the Late Paleocene Plesiadapis, c. 55–58 million years old.[7] Molecular clock studies suggest that the primate branch may be even older, originating near the Cretaceous–Paleogene boundary or around 63–74 mya.[8][9][10][11]

The order Primates was traditionally divided into two main groupings: prosimians and anthropoids (simians). Prosimians have characteristics more like those of the earliest primates, and include the lemurs of Madagascar, lorisoids, and tarsiers. Simians include monkeys, apes and hominins. More recently, taxonomists have preferred to split primates into the suborder Strepsirrhini, or wet-nosed primates, consisting of non-tarsier prosimians, and the suborder Haplorhini, or dry-nosed primates, consisting of tarsiers and the simians.

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm ... ok.    On the plus, I commend your cut and paste skills.   On the minus, you seem to have forgotten to state what your point is.     What are you trying to say?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OntarioSquatch:      " The other problem is that there isn't even sufficient need for a great ape to develop any of such characteristics. There's no need for an ape to come out of Africa and enter incredibly harsh climates in a such short period of time or for them to be as fast and powerful as they apparently are or for them to be so cautious when they've supposedly been at the top of the food chain. In other words, their characteristics don't fit our understanding of evolution given what we know of the environments of Africa, Asia and North America. "    

 

Since Africa is considered the cradle of human development and it has been continuously populated by human species variants since then,   into the present days,    one could also say there was no need for humans to leave the continent either.    But we did, evolved and spread throughout the world.   To discount a known ape leaving the African continent also discounts those that have done just that, spreading into Asia and the islands of the Pacific and into the Americas.    To claim some African origin as a reason BF cannot exist discounts all the species that originated in Africa and spread outward evolving all the way,   some even getting larger like Gigantopithecus.     Even the human species and its ancestors have existed long enough that there have been several massive changes in earths climate requiring adaptation and migration.    Africa itself has promoted that with periods of drought resulting in several pushes of humans out of Africa into Europe and Asia.    One of the characteristics of the many ice ages is that so much of the earths water gets locked into the polar and sub-polar regions that much of what is normally fertile grasslands and savannas become very arid and desert like because of little rainfall.    That forces existing species that habituate those regions between ice ages to migrate to have access to water.    Pushing them towards the edge of the ice sheets which in the Northern Hemisphere is into the forested and mountainous regions.   The ice ages for the last two million years have come about every 65,000  years with corresponding dramatic climate changes.    It is that sort of thing which pushes evolution and migration and BF would be part of that.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites