Denisovans and Sasquatch

[norseman]

5 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Feral people have been a thing from the beginning.

As an individual yes. But we are not talking about an abandoned Homo Sapiens child being raised by wolves.

 

As a species? Of course as you go back in time the more feral we become. Which is why I think Bigfoot is an earlier branch of hominid. But this isn’t by choice or a cruel twist of fate. 

[norseman]

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

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

My sneaking suspicion is that if they could have they would have.

 

As modern humans have both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in us.

[Huntster]

15 minutes ago, norseman said:

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?.........

 

You're reversing evolution. If these creatures exist, they never used tools. Ever.

 

Quote

..........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? 

 

There are a lot of people out there who do things that you may never even want to do. You might even dislike the way they do things.

 

Why doesn't your light switch on? Because you don't want it to.

[Huntster]

6 minutes ago, norseman said:

As an individual yes. But we are not talking about an abandoned Homo Sapiens child being raised by wolves..........

 

Correct. We're talking about an incredibly rare species of human. Not individual, but certainly not a society. And its appears they like it that way.

 

Quote

.........As a species? Of course as you go back in time the more feral we become. Which is why I think Bigfoot is an earlier branch of hominid. But this isn’t by choice or a cruel twist of fate. 

 

I don't think it's an earlier branch of hominid. I think it's the evolved species of a branch of hominin. 

 

9 minutes ago, norseman said:

..........As modern humans have both Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in us.

 

Not all of us. Some of us do.

[norseman]

31 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

You're reversing evolution. If these creatures exist, they never used tools. Ever.

 

 

There are a lot of people out there who do things that you may never even want to do. You might even dislike the way they do things.

 

Why doesn't your light switch on? Because you don't want it to.

Then you agree they are not Denisovans?

 

Again you’re talking about individuals. We are talking through satellites in space. So I am assuming you’re not feral either. And so is 99.9 % of humanity. My light switch flipped on other wise I would be trying to talk to you by smoke signals.

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Feral people have been a thing from the beginning.

 

In the great course of things, and especially in the fossil record, feral probably don't leave a mark.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Correct. We're talking about an incredibly rare species of human. Not individual, but certainly not a society. And its appears they like it that way.

 

 

I don't think it's an earlier branch of hominid. I think it's the evolved species of a branch of hominin. 

 

 

Not all of us. Some of us do.

You have already said that Sasquatch and its ancestors never used tools. So Denisovans are off the table.

 

And I would be more than happy to hear your theory on what Hominin you are talking about.

 

Most of us do. Only sub Saharan Africans are not hybridized with either Neanderthals or Denisovans.

[xspider1]

Perhaps 'reverse evolution' is not exactly the correct term, however, consider this:

 

'Isolated Relic Populations: As modern humans spread across Asia, small pockets of Denisovans may have been pushed into remote mountains, dense forests, or isolated islands. Living cut off from larger groups, these isolated bands might have experienced changes in behavior or a loss of complex toolmaking skills simply due to smaller group sizes—a phenomenon anthropologists call cultural drift.'

 

 

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

Perhaps 'reverse evolution' is not exactly the correct term, however, consider this:

 

'Isolated Relic Populations: As modern humans spread across Asia, small pockets of Denisovans may have been pushed into remote mountains, dense forests, or isolated islands. Living cut off from larger groups, these isolated bands might have experienced changes in behavior or a loss of complex toolmaking skills simply due to smaller group sizes—a phenomenon anthropologists call cultural drift.'

 

 

But at some point cultural drift turns into real morphology problems. I am willing to accept small variations. Like we forgot to make bows and arrows so we went back to spears.

 

But not cooking food after your species has adapted to it biologically speaking? Or sleeping on the ground in snow when your ancestors built fires and took shelter?

 

I don’t think it’s very realistic in the Congo or Borneo. And I think it’s suicidal in Alaska or Siberia.

 

Our Homo ancestors evolved chasing down game on the Serengeti. We sweat in the noon day sun. That’s our superpower. In order to leave Africa we had to get crafty. Homo Heidelbergensis had hide scrapers. They were making clothes. They had fires. They lived in caves.

 

Basically we are talking about a Sub Arctic Mountain Gorilla that’s bipedal and hunts with its two hands only. It doesn’t use fire. It doesn’t make stone tools. It doesn’t need caves to survive. And because it doesn’t hibernate like a Bear? It’s taking the brunt of Mother Nature 12 months out of the year.

 

But it’s also intelligent enough that it stays hidden, bury its dead and has never ate bananas at a zoo in front of a audience.

 

Does anyone have a sliding scale for ancient hominins or hominids fossil record?

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

Then you agree they are not Denisovans?..........

 

No. I don't know how their species evolved. I'm just confident that (1) they existed, (2) they still exist, and (3) they're probably "human".

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

 

In the great course of things, and especially in the fossil record, feral probably don't leave a mark.

 

In the fossil record, they don't exist, because there's nothing in a bone that proves feral. But there are statistically feral Sapiens out there, on every continent, right now.

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

You have already said that Sasquatch and its ancestors never used tools. So Denisovans are off the table............

 

No, I didn't. I will agree, however, that there is no evidence of sasquatch tool making. And since Dragon Man was not found with tools, he didn't't make them, either. Fair?

 

Quote

..........And I would be more than happy to hear your theory on what Hominin you are talking about...........

 

I'm talking about sasquatches.

 

Quote

..........Most of us do. Only sub Saharan Africans are not hybridized with either Neanderthals or Denisovans............

 

My DNA is half sub-Saharan African, so I'm more sapiens than you, and less Neanderthal. But I often wish I was feral. 

[Huntster]

6 hours ago, norseman said:

.........Basically we are talking about a Sub Arctic Mountain Gorilla that’s bipedal and hunts with its two hands only. It doesn’t use fire. It doesn’t make stone tools. It doesn’t need caves to survive. And because it doesn’t hibernate like a Bear? It’s taking the brunt of Mother Nature 12 months out of the year..........

 

Pretty impressive. No wonder there are so few of them, and that explains (at least to me) why I found it's sign in California and never in Alaska.

[Buckaloo]

10 hours ago, xspider1 said:

Perhaps 'reverse evolution' is not exactly the correct term, however, consider this:

 

'Isolated Relic Populations: As modern humans spread across Asia, small pockets of Denisovans may have been pushed into remote mountains, dense forests, or isolated islands. Living cut off from larger groups, these isolated bands might have experienced changes in behavior or a loss of complex toolmaking skills simply due to smaller group sizes—a phenomenon anthropologists call cultural drift.'

 

 

I believe that this is EXACTLY the argument being made.  It's NOT that a theoretical large tribe of Denisovans that had been using tools for thousands of years just collectively voted that it was better for their survival to stop tool use cold-turkey.  It's that a very early, isolated group of them never fully-adopted tool use (or hadn't developed it to the level of others), and because of their isolation developed other methods of survival.  It also helped them to "avoid" other human-species groups which worked for them.

[Incorrigible1]

56 minutes ago, Buckaloo said:

I believe that this is EXACTLY the argument being made.  It's NOT that a theoretical large tribe of Denisovans that had been using tools for thousands of years just collectively voted that it was better for their survival to stop tool use cold-turkey.  It's that a very early, isolated group of them never fully-adopted tool use (or hadn't developed it to the level of others), and because of their isolation developed other methods of survival.  It also helped them to "avoid" other human-species groups which worked for them.

 

Ah. Are you familiar with the theory of Punctuaded Equilibrium?

 

https://www.britannica.com/science/punctuated-equilibrium-model