Denisovans and Sasquatch

[norseman]

6 hours ago, Buckaloo said:

Perhaps I'm missing the overall point, but I don't necessarily accept that Sasquatch needs a gorilla-sized jaw or a sagittal crest just because it eats raw food.  Gorilla's have all of that because they're primarily herbivores that tackle super-tough things like bamboo shoots and tree bark.  Also, despite my huge respect for the late Jeff Meldrum, I don't think we have NEARLY enough data to decide whether or not Sasquatch is more ape-like than human-like.

 

Modern humans routinely eat raw fruits, vegetables, nuts, and I personally enjoy my steak RARE.  Omnivores are more than capable of handling many raw foods.  AND It's been established that Denisovans had significantly larger skulls, jaws, and teeth than Homo Sapiens.  So it's reasonable to speculate that they could handle raw food.

We have plenty of species in the fossil record that are bipedal but still have a sagittal crest. These species are much more closely related to us than to a Gorilla. I.e. Paranthropus Robustus or Paranthropus Boisei

 

The reason Denisovans, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lack a sagittal crest? Is because we cooked our food. That’s not to say we cannot eat things raw. But we certainly are not nearly as capable as a Paranthropus in doing so.

 

Now we are proposing hypothetically that a group of Denisovans crossed the Bering land bridge 200,000 years ago and have forsaken all Denisovan technology. Okay? Denisovans are not 8 feet tall and 800 lbs. Their bodies are used to cooking food and their hands are used to making stone tools.. So we believe that they have reverse evolved in 200,000 years to become something more primitive. They become bigger, they eat their food raw, and they don’t make stone tools.

 

Why is Dr. Meldrum’s skeleton out of line then?

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Buckaloo said:

Based on our limited knowledge so far, I am quite inclined to agree.  My statement was more aimed toward the gorilla skull comparison.  I also know that at one time, Jeff Meldrum believed that Sasquatch was more akin to a "wood ape" than a human-type.  I don't know if he ever modified his opinion on that.  Frankly, it's always been difficult for me to believe that Sasquatch could stay technically undiscovered for so long with a gorilla or chimp-like brain.  That's why the Denisovan theory is intriguing.

Denisovans have a bigger brain than Homo Sapiens do. Up to a whopping 1800 cc’s.

 

 

[norseman]

Most Bigfooters would say this is an “Ape” skull.

[norseman]

Here is a rabbit hole we can go down on human intelligence.

 

 

[Buckaloo]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

We have plenty of species in the fossil record that are bipedal but still have a sagittal crest. These species are much more closely related to us than to a Gorilla. I.e. Paranthropus Robustus or Paranthropus Boisei

 

The reason Denisovans, Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens lack a sagittal crest? Is because we cooked our food. That’s not to say we cannot eat things raw. But we certainly are not nearly as capable as a Paranthropus in doing so.

 

Now we are proposing hypothetically that a group of Denisovans crossed the Bering land bridge 200,000 years ago and have forsaken all Denisovan technology. Okay? Denisovans are not 8 feet tall and 800 lbs. Their bodies are used to cooking food and their hands are used to making stone tools.. So we believe that they have reverse evolved in 200,000 years to become something more primitive. They become bigger, they eat their food raw, and they don’t make stone tools.

 

Why is Dr. Meldrum’s skeleton out of line then?

There's really no such thing as "reverse evolution."  It's just "evolution." There's no dependable rulebook.  A species will evolve in whatever direction it needs to survive.  The ancestors of whales used to live on dry land and then "reverse evolved" to return to the sea.  That seems counterintuitive to me (since most all other creatures did just the opposite), but obviously it benefited their survival. 

 

Like I mentioned before, we MAY be over-estimating Denisovan tool use since the sights we've found their supposed tools at were also occupied by Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens.  Mistakes like this happen all the time.  And who's proven that ALL groups of Denisovans used tools?  They were apparently widely distributed throughout all of Asia.  Groups of them could have greatly varied both physically and culturally.

 

And YES an early group of Denisovans (perhaps a non-tool using group) could have crossed over into the Americas and "evolved" to be bigger.  They may have already been eating their food raw.  If you think about, most reports of Bigfoot-like hominids in Asia are smaller (sometimes MUCH smaller) than their North American cousins.  Obviously, all the early tool-using groups of Denisovans didn't survive, but perhaps some of their lineage found a unique way to beat the odds against modern humans.

 

I have no issue with the Dr. Meldrum skeleton.  I just have questions about the gorilla-like skull.  It's all speculation at this point anyway.  We could all be way off base.  I just find the Denisovan theory intriguing (until I hear a better one!).

Edited 6 hours ago by Buckaloo

[norseman]

33 minutes ago, Buckaloo said:

There's really no such thing as "reverse evolution."  It's just "evolution." There's no dependable rulebook.  A species will evolve in whatever direction it needs to survive.  The ancestors of whales used to live on dry land and then "reverse evolved" to return to the sea.  That seems counterintuitive to me (since most all other creatures did just the opposite), but obviously it benefited their survival. 

 

Like I mentioned before, we MAY be over-estimating Denisovan tool use since the sights we've found their supposed tools at were also occupied by Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens.  Mistakes like this happen all the time.  And who's proven that ALL groups of Denisovans used tools?  They were apparently widely distributed throughout all of Asia.  Groups of them could have greatly varied both physically and culturally.

 

And YES an early group of Denisovans (perhaps a non-tool using group) could have crossed over into the Americas and "evolved" to be bigger.  They may have already been eating their food raw.  If you think about, most reports of Bigfoot-like hominids in Asia are smaller (sometimes MUCH smaller) than their North American cousins.  Obviously, all the early tool-using groups of Denisovans didn't survive, but perhaps some of their lineage found a unique way to beat the odds against modern humans.

 

I have no issue with the Dr. Meldrum skeleton.  I just have questions about the gorilla-like skull.  It's all speculation at this point anyway.  We could all be way off base.  I just find the Denisovan theory intriguing (until I hear a better one!).

I used the term reverse evolution in the context of some bias Bigfooters have to suggest Bigfoot is more “ape” than “human”. Nevermind that Humans are fully ape. Homo Sapiens are a great ape species.

 

Just like some Bigfooters are up in arms that Meldrum’s skeleton has a “Gorilla” head on it. And yet? Go look at the Toumai skull….. There are plenty of human ancestors walking around on 2 legs with Gorilla like skulls.

 

The problem with your special pleading concerning Denisovans not using tools as a whole is that its direct ancestor used fire and tools. And its direct ancestor used fire and tools. The Homo Erectus hand axe is 2 million years old. Denisovans are very advanced and well established as humans doing human things.

 

So in my logic? It makes more sense that Sasquatch is a much older human ancestor that never developed any of these cultural trappings than to try to take something basically almost a modern human and then try to explain how it lives like it does today. Some of the modern human population has Denisovan DNA after all. Australian aborigines being some of the highest. And while they look different than a European or an Asian or an African. I cannot say they resemble Sasquatch either.

 

But that’s my .02 cents. I enjoy these thought experiments. 👍

[Incorrigible1]

A species of human could no more consciously decide to stop using/manufacturing tools than a leopard can change its spots.

[Buckaloo]

1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

A species of human could no more consciously decide to stop using/manufacturing tools than a leopard can change its spots.

I'm not sure we know enough about early hominim development to make any statements with such certainty, but I'm sure that sounds logical to many.  However, I don't think that's really the argument.  It's more complicated than that.  I think it's all about survival strategies in hostile environments and what options creatures with human-sized brains have.  I'd bet they have more options than we can imagine.

 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Buckaloo

[Buckaloo]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

I used the term reverse evolution in the context of some bias Bigfooters have to suggest Bigfoot is more “ape” than “human”. Nevermind that Humans are fully ape. Homo Sapiens are a great ape species.

 

Just like some Bigfooters are up in arms that Meldrum’s skeleton has a “Gorilla” head on it. And yet? Go look at the Toumai skull….. There are plenty of human ancestors walking around on 2 legs with Gorilla like skulls.

 

The problem with your special pleading concerning Denisovans not using tools as a whole is that its direct ancestor used fire and tools. And its direct ancestor used fire and tools. The Homo Erectus hand axe is 2 million years old. Denisovans are very advanced and well established as humans doing human things.

 

So in my logic? It makes more sense that Sasquatch is a much older human ancestor that never developed any of these cultural trappings than to try to take something basically almost a modern human and then try to explain how it lives like it does today. Some of the modern human population has Denisovan DNA after all. Australian aborigines being some of the highest. And while they look different than a European or an Asian or an African. I cannot say they resemble Sasquatch either.

 

But that’s my .02 cents. I enjoy these thought experiments. 👍

I guess I'm just less inclined to accept what we think we know about early hominims and their development.  So much has changed so drastically and so fast - and I think it will continue to do so.  I also tend to believe that body morphology can change more quickly and drastically than we might imagine with human (or human-like) populations that are isolated and stressed.

 

I understand where you're coming from though and I enjoy these thought experiments as well!

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

A species of human could no more consciously decide to stop using/manufacturing tools than a leopard can change its spots.

Here is another example maybe most don’t think of.

 

Two Homo Sapiens separated by 12000 years?

 

(This number is rapidly going older, but for sake of argument I will stick with the traditional number)

 

Within the span of 100 years? Native Americans are quickly adopting Horses, Guns, Steel knives, Iron cookware, mirrors, etc.

 

They cannot make any of the trade items themselves. And yet they forsake traditional methods and begin seeking to acquire the trade goods. They are not using rifles as teepee stakes or steel knives as door stops. That’s because despite being cutoff from mainstream human technological advancements. They are not dumb people. They see the technology for what it is and incorporate it into their lives.

 

I am going to go out on a limb and say that if North America was populated by Paranthropus Robustus? This quick assimilation to these trade items just simply would not have occurred. Many tales of the Ebu Gogo, I just posted a video of a man who was studying the myth before the discovery. One of the stories as told by Flores natives is some hobbits (as they are now known) came into camp one night. The villagers fed them dinner on plates. When the hobbits got done with the dinner they tried to eat the plates…..

 

Many stories about Bigfoot as well that are similar. One that sticks in my mind is a miner in California had noticed that his camp was being messed with. So one morning he left camp as usual and then snuck back and hide and observed it. A Bigfoot came into camp and began playing with the fire like a child would. Very curious but at the same time just inept with the concept.

[norseman]

6 minutes ago, Buckaloo said:

I guess I'm just less inclined to accept what we think we know about early hominims and their development.  So much has changed so drastically and so fast - and I think it will continue to do so.  I also tend to believe that body morphology can change more quickly and drastically than we might imagine with human (or human-like) populations that are isolated and stressed.

 

I understand where you're coming from though and I enjoy these thought experiments as well!

Well we are now on the subject of the Ebu Gogo! How long does it take for a species to shrink to a island?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_dwarfism

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis

 

I enjoy it very much!  Thanks!

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, Buckaloo said:

I'm not sure we know enough about early hominim development to make any statements with such certainty, but I'm sure that sounds logical to many.  However, I don't think that's really the argument.  It's more complicated than that.  I think it's all about survival strategies in hostile environments and what options creatures with human-sized brains have.  I'd bet they have more options than we can imagine.

 

 

 

Events just couldn't occur that way. Denisovans were spread, geographically, what? Over a third of the globe? And existed temporally for hundreds of thousands of years. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say (and I can be hopelessly incorrect often,) there had to be a collective decision to forgo tools. Do I have that right? Forgive me if I don't. 

But if that's the case, it simply couldn't work that way. 

(Excuse me, I haven't watched the video, as I think associating Denisovans with bigfoot is, frankly, silly. No offense intended.)

[norseman]

35 minutes ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

Events just couldn't occur that way. Denisovans were spread, geographically, what? Over a third of the globe? And existed temporally for hundreds of thousands of years. If I'm understanding what you're trying to say (and I can be hopelessly incorrect often,) there had to be a collective decision to forgo tools. Do I have that right? Forgive me if I don't. 

But if that's the case, it simply couldn't work that way. 

(Excuse me, I haven't watched the video, as I think associating Denisovans with bigfoot is, frankly, silly. No offense intended.)

Well let’s say that did happen. A break away group of Denisovans dropped their stone tools, left their warm hearths and just walked into the wilderness. The elders of the group have made a pact to become feral.

 

How would they make it stick? 
 

Great great grandson is out picking berries and watches a group of Neanderthals or other Denisovans kill an Elk using spears.

 

How does the light bulb not go on? 

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

A species of human could no more consciously decide to stop using/manufacturing tools than a leopard can change its spots.

 

Feral people have been a thing from the beginning.

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

.........Within the span of 100 years? Native Americans are quickly adopting Horses, Guns, Steel knives, Iron cookware, mirrors, etc............

 

I doubt native Americans were stupid enough to teach sasquatches how to build stone knives, bows, and arrows 10,000 years ago.