Guest The big grey man of ben ma Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 @ bipedalist you must go on to itunes and download free " david reich igsp special seminar " duke institute for genome, its so good. enjoy
Guest The big grey man of ben ma Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Also look for this free download " Your Inner Neanderthal: Insights from the Neanderthal Genome Project "
Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Neanderthals are almost always depicted as resembling modern humans in that they are considerably hairless. I wonder if, when the sequencing and ID of genes is more complete, we can answer the question "quite hairy, or not so hairy?" Can the genetic sequencing answer that question? Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I about genentic sequencing, hair, and body hair covering can comment on that question. Many older and some newer Sasquatch accounts (and threads here on the forums) mention language, and we have the Sierra Sounds, so that subject- Sasquatch language- if real, would jive with Neanderthals having had articulate language. The only things missing in my mind would be discrepencies in height/size and overall hairyness. What if it turns out that Neanderthals, like our Bigfoot, were covered with a significant amount of body hair? apologies if this was already all covered in the thread...I will take my thrashing accordingly.... My own opinion is that most wild man accounts are not related to relict Neanderthals, but, what if the older generation of Russian hominologists were right?...
norseman Posted January 21, 2011 Admin Posted January 21, 2011 Neanderthals are almost always depicted as resembling modern humans in that they are considerably hairless. I wonder if, when the sequencing and ID of genes is more complete, we can answer the question "quite hairy, or not so hairy?" Can the genetic sequencing answer that question? Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I about genentic sequencing, hair, and body hair covering can comment on that question. Many older and some newer Sasquatch accounts (and threads here on the forums) mention language, and we have the Sierra Sounds, so that subject- Sasquatch language- if real, would jive with Neanderthals having had articulate language. The only things missing in my mind would be discrepencies in height/size and overall hairyness. What if it turns out that Neanderthals, like our Bigfoot, were covered with a significant amount of body hair? apologies if this was already all covered in the thread...I will take my thrashing accordingly.... My own opinion is that most wild man accounts are not related to relict Neanderthals, but, what if the older generation of Russian hominologists were right?... Maybe somebody better sequence me then, cuz I'm dang hairy. I'm also pretty strong, have a great memory and cannot figure out my cell phone.........
Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 (edited) Germanic and middle eastern folks tend to be hairier than Africans and Asians and just happen to have the 4% as opposed to the lesser amount of Neanderthal genes. They have isolated the gene that makes our hair fine, unlike other primates, but we didn't completely lose it. My guess is the Neanderthals were pretty hairy. Edited January 21, 2011 by Jodie
Guest Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Look at your big toe. Does it have hairs on it? Then I would say you got some Neanderthal genes. Asian and Africans don't have hair on their big toes. I would know, I've looked at plenty of feet during deliveries, it's just a personal observation of mine
Incorrigible1 Posted January 21, 2011 Posted January 21, 2011 Maybe somebody better sequence me then, cuz I'm dang hairy. I'm also pretty strong, have a great memory and cannot figure out my cell phone......... As am I, but I'm smart enough to use my cell as a phone and not a telegraph.
Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 "Hairy, like animal!"....-Ivana Humpalot.... I am aware that we haven't "lost" our hair...I should have spoken in terms of fineness or the appearance of "hairyness"...I meant comparatively, from an appearance/portrayal perspective,when I said "hairy (sasquatch-like) or not so hairy (*most* humans, not suffering from hypertrichosis)." Jodie, thanks for pointing out the correlation between human stock with the Neanderthal genes ("monkey-man" looking sexy beasts like myself, grrr...to continue the Austin Powers theme)and racial stock that appearto have less body hair...and I definitely cannot operate my cell phone or telegraph.... Next: Neanderthal baldness....?
Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Baldness is related to excess testosterone as well as having the male pattern baldness gene. I haven't heard them say anything specific about that regarding Neanderthal but I bet it's not related to them since all races have that. It probably came from the Cro Magnon side of the family. I've never heard anyone report a bald sasquatch though.
Guest Posted January 22, 2011 Posted January 22, 2011 Now THAT would be ugly. Does mange itch? Seems like it would. One crabby big dude if that happened. Nasty.
Guest DWA Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 On 12/15/2010 at 7:50 PM, Guest said: I vaguely remember a topic like this based on foot morphology a while back. Are there any other theories floating around out there that link bigfoot to Neanderthal? If so, I'ld love to hear about it. I think that a lot of this comes from eyewitness descriptions that liken what they saw to a primitive man more than to an ape. Personally, I think this can depend more on personal slant than anything else, and can depend on things as small as one feature very reminiscent of humans (which appears to be the nose, in many encounters, and the eyes, which many witnesses describe as having a subjective quality reminiscent more of ours than of other animals'). It can be a naïve reaction to seeing something on two legs that has humanlike features. I would bet that a person with a relevant scientific background would be most unlikely to take a "caveman" slant on a sighting, based on what I've seen in the reports. I think it's pretty much useless to speculate at this time, although I personally don't think we're talking a Homo species here, and none of the physical descriptions I have read would lead me in that direction. The "caveman" takes tend to sound superficial and subjective to me, and applied to an animal significantly larger than and differently built from any Homo on record, fossil or otherwise. Patty - albeit at least possibly only one species of unlisted NA hominid - certainly doesn't look Neanderthal to me. Two primate lines appear to have possible sasquatch progenitors: the Gigantopithecus genus and the robust australopithecines. Giganto has fossils that appear to b "in the right place at the right time," but anyone who knows much about fossils would know that could be total coincidence. No one has looked for robust australopithecines in Asia, of course. Or - and this is at least as likely - sasquatch could be part of a lineage for which we don't have fossils, yet.
FarArcher Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 Sure be interesting to see the Neanderthal presented with long body hair. Might give folks a whole new perspective.
BC witness Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 Here is another possibility for Sasquatch/Bigfoot ancestry that seems well thought out and nicely presented: https://youtu.be/YT8BdKA8D8g
Guest DWA Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 (edited) My candidates among known fossil lineages are Giganto, the robust australopithecines, and - after watching that video - Dryopithecus. (OK, conditional on facts being as presented; haven't researched that yet.) I'd consider them in rough reverse order. Giganto has been declining in likelihood for some time now; the more I think about it, the more Giganto seems anchored on "fossil in right place, right time." Given what we know about fossils, that isn't necessarily enough. But it says much that we *already* have such an impressive range for dryopithecine fossils. It's also interesting that oak forests figure in to the extent they do; if sasquatch exists, count on it, oak mast is a major food wherever in the range it occurs. Edited June 8, 2017 by DWA
Guest Cricket Posted June 20, 2017 Posted June 20, 2017 (edited) On 12/16/2010 at 6:50 AM, masterbarber said: On 12/16/2010 at 6:50 AM, masterbarber said: That was pretty cool Hunster. Here's a video of this guy's theory. I found it very interesting: The author of this hypothesis, Vendramini, seems to be unaware that humans *are* primates, and that Neanderthals are of the genus Homo, the same as we humans are! He says that “humans no longer look like their primate ancestors,” but we do in some significant ways. He doesn’t seem to be aware of what those retained primate features are. Oddly, he thinks that human and Neanderthal skulls are “quite different,” yet he believes that chimpanzee skulls and Neanderthal skulls are similar. This leads me to wonder if he has actually studied and compared the skulls of any of them. Among a number of skeletal characteristics that distinguish Neanderthals, their skulls have a condition called 'mid-facial prognathism,' meaning that it is the mid-face, beginning with the brow ridge area and extending to the tooth row area, that protrudes forward, resulting in a retromolar space after the last molar. This is different from the prognathism of the African apes. The following paper indicates that Neanderthals did not have strong bite forces, and to me that is a big distinction from the skull/jaw biomechanics of the African apes: "...Neandertals tend to have more worn anterior teeth than posterior ones, and their anterior teeth show a high incidence of enamel chipping, microfractures, and microstriations on the labial surfaces. Taken together, these signatures of anterior tooth use suggest that Neandertals were using their mouths like a vise. The anterior dental loading hypothesis extends this idea by proposing that Neandertal facial form, and perhaps other cranial features, are adaptations to dissipate the high mechanical loads produced by this behavior (47–52). Because Neandertal facial features appear early in development, they cannot be direct mechanical responses to anterior dental loading. They would have to be adaptations produced by natural selection after the species consistently performed this behavior for multiple generations. One problem with the anterior dental loading hypothesis is that biomechanical modeling suggests that Neandertals were not able to produce particularly high bite forces (53, 54). Neandertal cranial form cannot be adapted to resisting high bite forces if Neandertals were incapable of producing them in the first place. O'Connor and colleagues (54) showed that, although Neandertals would have been able to produce fairly high bite forces in absolute magnitude, their bite forces would not have been unusually large for the size of their crania. Additionally, if efficiency is quantified as the ratio of bite force to muscle force, Neandertals were actually less efficient than many modern humans (54)..." Timothy Weaver, The meaning of Neanderthal skeletal morphology http://www.pnas.org/content/106/38/16028.full Additionally, I have NEVER read or heard anything about Neanderthals being nocturnal, and I studied paleoanthropology with a world class Neanderthal expert. Vendramini’s hypothesis is certainly imaginative, I’ll grant him that, but it is based on a superficial impression of Neanderthals, and a dubious familiarity with the African apes. I would strongly urge anyone on this forum to get familiar with the taxa that are involved in any hypotheses regarding BF’s relationship to other primates. It would be useful in separating the goofy stuff out there from that which is thoughtful. Edited June 20, 2017 by Cricket
Recommended Posts