Is Bigfoot Related To Neanderthal?

[norseman]

I'm not arguing that it didn't happen. I'm arguing that it didn't happen the way his hypothesis explains it happened.

I don't argue that he's correct, either, but I also don't argue that he's incorrect. Indeed:

Well which is it? Either his hypothesis is correct or it's incorrect.

There are parallels even today. The majority of the human population decreases as one gets farther from the equator, yet the world is "dominated" by the more aggressive and fewer northern humans.

HOW? Homo Sapiens carry 96% AFRICAN genes! and 4% Neanderthal genes! Where is the parallel?!

Yup. Faith. "Trust".

Thanks for the admission.

Well this is certainly something you could school me in as you have turned your back on main stream science and now "believe" in a crackpot theory with little evidence to base it on.

I'm not a paleoanthropologist...........are you? If your not then both you and I as layman must place some faith in the information that is divulged to us is indeed accurate. I've NEVER seen any body depict Neanderthals the way Mr. Vendramini has in any scientific recreation. Ask your self this, could humans breed and have viable offspring with the creature he depicts? Some sort of half ape half cat super predator? The only depictions I have seen that make Neanderthals very ape ish are from very old depictions of them from science about 100 years ago. Mainstream science has moved well away from that depiction of them as being dumb ape like brutes to them being very very human like. So human like that most could walk the streets of NYC in a suit and tie and not be noticed.

That is incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that preceeded him which supports his theory, and he is "tweaking" nothing.

Like what exactly?

I know let's start with their cat like eye night vision adaptation. Let's see some evidence for that that is supported by main stream science. I find it utterly hilarious that the man goes through great pains to explain that with no tissue ever fossilized we cannot know exactly what a Neanderthal looked like. And then he turns around with some fanciful depiction and expects us to take it at face value. Hypocrisy much?

"Main stream"?

Who is your magician? Perhaps Mr. Vendramini can then cast his staff onto the ground and turn them to snakes, too?

All of them. Main stream is just a term that explains the prevailing mindset for a particular field. Meaning that it's not a crack pot theory of a non scientist like Mr. Vendramini....... Instead it's a theory in which all or most of the scientists in a given field have placed their stamp of approval on. With that said, main stream theories can and have been wrong in the past, trumped by unpopular theories that started small and then as evidence was found to support it, gained traction.

We have the Neanderthal genome mapped 100 percent. If Neanderthals exhibited cat like eyes? Do you not think the genome would show it? The problem with Mr. Vendramini's "theory" is that snake oil salesmen went out of favor about 100 years ago, because people became educated and science made big REAL strides in medicine. So any real audience for his crack pot theories are very small and don't gain much favor with anyone.

But hey! If you like the guy? Buy his book!

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 08 January 2011 - 11:45 AM, said:

That's precisely my point. You consider humans to be "the dominant species", yet the great cats, bears, sharks, crocs, etc eat us on a regular, recurring basis.

Again your framing the debate wrong.

Are you claiming the authority to "frame the debate"?

I'm stating that the evidence is extremely strong that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens preyed upon each other. In fact, I don't see how that can be denied.

While Vendramini may theorize(or others attribute to him) that Neanderthal predation on humans was a key or the main factor in our evolution, I don't give Neanderthal predation that much credit. Frankly, I don't even know if I believe that is what he is theorizing. I haven't read his work. It may be that somebody (the author of the website) is interpreting it as such.

We cannot cross our genes with cats, bears,, sharks or crocs.

And that has nothing to do with Neanderthal cannibalism, cat predation, bear predation, shark predation, croc predation, etc.

It has nothing to do whatsoever with predation.

However, it has much to do with human warfare. Rape is a common product of warfare.

And it works both ways. Neanderthals likely raped Homo Sapiens, and vice versa.

We are the dominant species concerning Neaderthals, because we as a competing hominid drove them to extinction and as a conciliation prize for second place, carry some of their genes with us today.

If Neanderthal genes still exist, have they gone extinct?

So why can't a lesser hominid do so, especially many thousands of years ago when humans were much less "dominant"?

We remain....they are gone

If their genes still exist, how can they "be gone"?

[Huntster]

in the debate between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens? WE are the dominant species, and we carry forth only a trivial amount of Neanderthal genes. With our genes being the Dominant genes.

Dominant meaning more? Or are the genes still at war with each other within the human body?

Neanderthals and humans preyed upon each other. It's pretty well established.

And for the second time? I never argued against that point.

Then just what is it that you're arguing?

There should also be no surprise why the southern species overwhelmed the northern species as the Wisconsin ice age warmed. There were clearly more of the southern species, and they came from a more fertile, plentiful place.

You forget that most of the H20 on the planet was locked in ice fields. Africa was certainly not a fertile garden of eden.........more like a barren wasteland.

1) On what do you base that bit of information on?

2) Have you ever been on a glacier? I can't think of another place that can be better described as a "barren wasteland". No vegetation, no life, not even any frikken dirt. Absolutely no vegetation to graze on. This is why peoples (like the Inuit) are more carnivorous than omnivorous. More hunters than gatherers. More predator than those from lands of vegetation.

The most compelling theory on why we over took them was because of the changing environment. With much of Europe's forests becoming steppe, which made their ambush tactics with hand held spears much less effective for taking game.

Please cite that "most compelling theory".

Perhaps the warming environment allowed southern peoples to migrate north, following the game, and thus clashing with the northern hominids?

Why would a warming environment force Neanderthals south?

[norseman]

Dominant meaning more? Or are the genes still at war with each other within the human body?

You cannot be serious?

Then just what is it that you're arguing?

That unlike the NP theory? Neanderthals were at the LOSING end of their contact with us. After surviving as a separate species for several hundred thousand years within ten thousand years of contact with us? They were gone.

1) On what do you base that bit of information on?

Paleoclimatology?

Happy hunting!

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/270/5233/53.abstract

2) Have you ever been on a glacier? I can't think of another place that can be better described as a "barren wasteland". No vegetation, no life, not even any frikken dirt. Absolutely no vegetation to graze on. This is why peoples (like the Inuit) are more carnivorous than omnivorous. More hunters than gatherers. More predator than those from lands of vegetation.

And you think Neanderthals, Wolly Mammoths, Wolly Rhinos and a plethora of other Pleistocene mega fauna all lived on a glacier?

Please cite that "most compelling theory".

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/10/neanderthals/hall-text

Perhaps the warming environment allowed southern peoples to migrate north, following the game, and thus clashing with the northern hominids?

Read the article from Nat Geo.

Why would a warming environment force Neanderthals south?

It didn't force them south, they retreated with the forests into ever smaller pockets of refuge, as the Homo Sapiens utilized the every increasing steppes that our species was more adapted too.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 08 January 2011 - 11:46 AM, said:

I'm not arguing that it didn't happen. I'm arguing that it didn't happen the way his hypothesis explains it happened.

I don't argue that he's correct, either, but I also don't argue that he's incorrect.

Well which is it? Either his hypothesis is correct or it's incorrect.

It's a theory:

–noun, plural -ries.

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.

2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

3. Mathematics . a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.

4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.

5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

6. contemplation or speculation.

7. guess or conjecture.

I don't know if it's correct or incorrect, and nor do you (and we all know that, despite your posturing otherwise).

There are parallels even today. The majority of the human population decreases as one gets farther from the equator, yet the world is "dominated" by the more aggressive and fewer northern humans.

HOW? Homo Sapiens carry 96% AFRICAN genes! and 4% Neanderthal genes! Where is the parallel?!

Did you read my words or not?:

The majority of the human population decreases as one gets farther from the equator, yet the world is "dominated" by the more aggressive and fewer northern humans

Try reading it slowly and focusing on the highlighted words. There is no mention of genes, Africa, or Neanderthal. Like my position earlier regarding population densities (a factor largely ignored on this forum and, indeed, throughout sasquatchery), human density is greater in warmer climes today just like it was 50,000 years ago, and northern peoples are more aggressive today just like they likely were 50,000 years ago.

Yup. Faith. "Trust".

Thanks for the admission.

Well this is certainly something you could school me in as you have turned your back on main stream science and now "believe" in a crackpot theory with little evidence to base it on.

1) Again, I don't "believe in a crackpot theory"

2) Did you not write these words?:

I trust the recreations of the Smithsonian and others over a guy that is trying to make a species look and act the way his off base hypothesis says they should be.

Please cite where I wrote that I "trusted" or "believed" anything with regard to Neanderthals.

Unlike you, I don't "trust" anybody. Science ain't about "trust", even "main stream" science (or is it?...........)

[Huntster]

I'm not a paleoanthropologist

We can see that.

are you?

Nope. Nor do I "trust" any.

If your not then both you and I as layman must place some faith in the information that is divulged to us is indeed accurate.

You may "place some faith" in whatever you wish. I need evidence or proof, thanks.

I've NEVER seen any body depict Neanderthals the way Mr. Vendramini has in any scientific recreation.

Nor have I.

Ask your self this, could humans breed and have viable offspring with the creature he depicts?

The creature he depicts is a form of electronic art, and no, I strongly doubt a human can breed with electrons.

Some sort of half ape half cat super predator?

Again, the art is fanciful. Neat art. Not likely accurate. It was likely created to move people like you; those easily moved with pictures.

Can humans breed with lower hominids? I don't know. If, as you say, Neanderthal genes can still be found within the human family, then they must have been able to, huh?

The only depictions I have seen that make Neanderthals very ape ish are from very old depictions of them from science about 100 years ago. Mainstream science has moved well away from that depiction of them as being dumb ape like brutes to them being very very human like. So human like that most could walk the streets of NYC in a suit and tie and not be noticed.

Another theory unproven just like Vendramini's.

The neat thing about fossils is that, after many thousands of years, skin and hair are not likely to be found. We have no idea whether or not Neanderthals were covered with hair or not. Indeed, there are people out there depicting many dinosaurs as being covered with feathers, and there's not much anybody can do about it because we just don't know. They could have been covered with feathers, hair, scales, or whatever.

That is incorrect. There is plenty of evidence that preceeded him which supports his theory, and he is "tweaking" nothing.

Like what exactly?

His citation of the physical traits of Neanderthals and how it fits with this theory, for one:

Periglacial adaptations

Neanderthals were the only hominid species to evolve in a climate of seasonally

lethal cold (Steegmann, Jr. et. al., 2002). Their periglacial European environment has been

described (Shea, 2001) as one of the harshest and most inhospitable habitats ever occupied

by hominids. During their 350,000 year occupation, Neanderthals acquired a range of novel

morphological and behavioural adaptations to cold climate, including short distal limb

segments (Trinkaus, 1981), the shape of the femur and pelvis (Weaver 2003; Russ, 1994)

large nose, and compact torsos, all features believed to minimise heat loss (Trinkaus, 1986,

1989; Churchill, 1994). While Steegmann, Jr. et. al., (2002) propose a number of

physiological climatic adaptations, (Figure 2), they stress the role of behaviour in cold

resistance has not been addressed and remains one of the great puzzles of Neanderthal

climatic adaptation....

..........Carnivory

Steegmann, Jr. et. al., (2002) conclude that Neanderthals could only tolerate the cold

climate if they could consume an adequate amount of energy. This highlights the need for

protein and fat in cold climate ecosystems which has been amply demonstrated, (Cachel,

1997). A high protein, high fat, animal meat diet was therefore almost certainly another

functional constraint imposed by the periglacial European environment. Kuhn and Stiner,

(2006) show that few plants could survive in the cold climate and those that did were not

nutritious enough, or required too much effort to collect and process relative to their low

nutritional yields. Given that fishing was not generally practised during the MP (Bar-Yosef,

2004), and no Neanderthal contexts unequivocally reveal fishing technology, the only means

by which Neanderthals could procure a constant supply of fresh meat was by proactively

hunting terrestrial prey. The abandonment of the ancestral omnivorous diet in favour of

carnivory would establish an ecological divide between Homo Neanderthalis and EMHs,

with profound implications for modern humans.

Neanderthal carnivory is supported by data derived from carbon and nitrogen

isotopes of bone collagen that reveals the percentage of plant foods in their diet was close to

zero (Vincent and Laurent, 2006). Strontium-calcium and barium-calcium ratios extracted

from 40 Saint-Césaire Neanderthal samples by Balter et. al., (2001) similarly shows of

Neanderthal diet comprised approximately 97% (in weight) of meat. See also Lalueza-Fox

and Pérez-Pérez, (1993); Fizet et. al., (1995); Lalueza, Perez and Turbon, 1996; Geist, (1978,

1981); and Richards, et al., (in press). The new consensus, exemplified by Bocherens, et. al.,

1999; Fizet, et. al., 1995; and Pettitt, (2000 is that Neanderthals were exclusively

carnivorous, subsisting only on a diet of animal flesh. Drawing on isotope analysis of

mammal bone from the Vindija Neanderthal Cave, Croatia Richards, et al., (2000), draws the

parsimonious conclusion – that Neanderthals were top-level carnivores.

Archaic humans, by comparison, maintained their African omnivorous diet, from

which approximately 50% of energy intake was supplied by uncultivated fruits and

vegetables (Eaton, 2006).

Edited January 9, 2011 by Huntster

[Huntster]

I know let's start with their cat like eye night vision adaptation. Let's see some evidence for that that is supported by main stream science.

Back to the pictures, huh? Haven't I already discounted them? How long will you continue to base your attack on the pictures, Oh Wise One.

Does everything have to be a picture for you? Does the written word work? You know, Neanderthals were pretty big on pictures, too.........

I find it utterly hilarious that the man goes through great pains to explain that with no tissue ever fossilized we cannot know exactly what a Neanderthal looked like. And then he turns around with some fanciful depiction and expects us to take it at face value.

Well, it appears that the only one who has "taken it at face value" is you.

Funny, that.

Hypocrisy much?

Only if the only mode of communication that works with you are pictures.

You know, I like to use the phrase, "do you need a picture" when dealing with those of limited communication skills..........

"Main stream"?

Who is your magician?

All of them. Main stream is just a term that explains the prevailing mindset for a particular field. Meaning that it's not a crack pot theory of a non scientist like Mr. Vendramini....... Instead it's a theory in which all or most of the scientists in a given field have placed their stamp of approval on.

While Vendramini has not been ordinated into the Church of the Past, his theory is just that; a theory.

What has the "main stream" of science written about it? Is it like their view of sasquatchery.

That would be impressive, huh?

With that said, main stream theories can and have been wrong in the past

No shoot?

The problem with Mr. Vendramini's "theory" is that snake oil salesmen went out of favor about 100 years ago

So much for Global Warming. Shall we call that polar bear oil?

But hey! If you like the guy? Buy his book!

No, thanks. Don't really like him, and don't need his theory.

Sorta' like all the "main stream" scientists busy selling their own theories............

[norseman]

One more thing I'd like to add, if the NP theory is correct then human evolution would have never taken place. There were plenty of proto human species that were much more "brutish and ape like" than Neanderthals. But yet at every step of the way the bigger brain, more elaborate weapons and superior culture replaced them at every turn. In the case of the Neanderthal it was that they didn't have bigger brains, but how they utilized them.

Imagine if you will the scene of a Neanderthal encounter with Homo Sapiens.

Neanderthals possessed cruder weapons and lived in small family groups, while Homo Sapiens possessed superior weapons and lived in larger multi family tribes. Add to that that the Neanderthal environment that favored them was going away while the a new environment that favored Homo Sapiens was becoming more and more frequent.

It eventually spelled disaster for them. Direct conflict was not the determining factor, it was direct competition for resources that ultimately spelled their doom.

[norseman]

Back to the pictures, huh? Haven't I already discounted them? How long will you continue to base your attack on the pictures, Oh Wise One.

Does everything have to be a picture for you? Does the written word work? You know, Neanderthals were pretty big on pictures, too.........

Well, it appears that the only one who has "taken it at face value" is you.

Funny, that.

It's not about "pictures" (and no Neanderthals are not known for their cave art), the NP theory places a heavy reliance on this "night vision" adaptation that he supposes Neanderthals to have. Without Neanderthals having this supposed "night vision" major cracks start appearing in his theory.

Only if the only mode of communication that works with you are pictures.

You know, I like to use the phrase, "do you need a picture" when dealing with those of limited communication skills..........

Despite your attempts to slander me, the fact remains, that NP theory relies on his supposed traits of Neanderthals that is not supported in the fossil record nor in genetics. All apes are trichromatic, when you get a chance research that term.

While Vendramini has not been ordinated into the Church of the Past, his theory is just that; a theory.

True, but not a accepted one by mainstream science.

What has the "main stream" of science written about it? Is it like their view of sasquatchery.

That would be impressive, huh?

Pretty much our whole entire understanding of the Neanderthal comes from science. Unlike the *mythological Sasquatch, they have sequenced the whole entire genome of the Neanderthal.

*-science's view

Sorta' like all the "main stream" scientists busy selling their own theories............

I do not understand your bias of science, but it is what it is. When NP theory is vetted by the majority of science, I'll sit up and take notice.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 08 January 2011 - 02:56 PM, said:

Dominant meaning more? Or are the genes still at war with each other within the human body?

You cannot be serious?

Ridiculous as it appears, it appears to be a valid question based upon your statements.

Then just what is it that you're arguing?

That unlike the NP theory? Neanderthals were at the LOSING end of their contact with us.

No s**t?

There is no question about that, is there?

What does that have to do with Neanderthal predation?

1) On what do you base that bit of information on?

Paleoclimatology?

Specifically what findings or theories within "paleoclimatology"? Specifically what indicates to you that Africa was less plentiful and productive than the ice sheets of Eurasia?

Happy hunting!

Thanks, but my next hunt is in May for spring bear. I have no intention of proving your silly positions for you by "hunting" through academia for you.

2) Have you ever been on a glacier? I can't think of another place that can be better described as a "barren wasteland". No vegetation, no life, not even any frikken dirt. Absolutely no vegetation to graze on. This is why peoples (like the Inuit) are more carnivorous than omnivorous. More hunters than gatherers. More predator than those from lands of vegetation.

And you think Neanderthals, Wolly Mammoths, Wolly Rhinos and a plethora of other Pleistocene mega fauna all lived on a glacier?

They all lived in the face of glaciers. Like me.

I'm looking out my window at the Knik Glacier as I write. No vegetation out there to eat. It's all under snow.

Do you know what snow is? Cold environs?

[Huntster]

The most compelling theory on why we over took them was because of the changing environment. With much of Europe's forests becoming steppe, which made their ambush tactics with hand held spears much less effective for taking game.

Please cite that "most compelling theory".

http://ngm.nationalg...thals/hall-text

From your own link:

Scientists estimate that even at the height of the Neanderthal occupation of western Europe, their total number probably never exceeded 15,000. Yet they managed to endure, even when a cooling climate turned much of their territory into something like northern Scandinavia today—a frigid, barren tundra, its bleak horizon broken by a few scraggly trees and just enough lichen to keep the reindeer happy.

Again, why would it not be expected that they would ultimately lose to Homo sapiens and their exponentially greater numbers?

More from your link:

By the time of the tragedy at El Sidrón, however, the Neanderthals were on the run, seemingly pinned down in Iberia, pockets of central Europe, and along the southern Mediterranean by a deteriorating climate, and further squeezed by the westward spread of anatomically modern humans as they emerged from Africa into the Middle East and beyond. Within another 15,000 years or so, the Neanderthals were gone forever, leaving behind a few bones and a lot of questions.

Obviously, predation worked both ways, just as I've been writing all along. And all Vendramini is theorizing is that the first clashes in the eastern Mediterranean initially were favorable toward the larger, more aggressive Neanderthals, and the Homo sapiens evolved to their advantage. I theorize that the greater numbers of Homo sapiens was the deciding factor.

You "trust" somebody that you still haven't clearly identified.

Perhaps the warming environment allowed southern peoples to migrate north, following the game, and thus clashing with the northern hominids?

Read the article from Nat Geo.

I did. It validated my statement, didn't it?

Why would a warming environment force Neanderthals south?

It didn't force them south, they retreated with the forests into ever smaller pockets of refuge, as the Homo Sapiens utilized the every increasing steppes that our species was more adapted too.

The retreating ice age allowed homo sapiens to move north and overwhelm the Neanderthals just as I wrote, didn't it?

[Huntster]

One more thing I'd like to add, if the NP theory is correct then human evolution would have never taken place. There were plenty of proto human species that were much more "brutish and ape like" than Neanderthals.

25,000 to 150,000 years ago?

But yet at every step of the way the bigger brain, more elaborate weapons and superior culture replaced them at every turn.

Please tell us about the elaborate weaponry and culture of Homo sapiens 50,000 years ago.

In the case of the Neanderthal it was that they didn't have bigger brains, but how they utilized them.

Imagine if you will the scene of a Neanderthal encounter with Homo Sapiens.

Neanderthals possessed cruder weapons and lived in small family groups, while Homo Sapiens possessed superior weapons and lived in larger multi family tribes.

Your references for that, please?

Add to that that the Neanderthal environment that favored them was going away while the a new environment that favored Homo Sapiens was becoming more and more frequent.

Which is what I've been writing all along, and several times.

It eventually spelled disaster for them. Direct conflict was not the determining factor, it was direct competition for resources that ultimately spelled their doom.

I disagree. It was direct conflict over resources (just like it has been for many thousands of years and still is today) with greater numbers of invaders.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Oh crap, I'm about to quote Huntster. I don't know if I'm up to this but here we go anyway.

I chopped out some of your words. I hope I didn't just misquote you but I see you making two opposing points here.

So, Neanderthal's may have hunted other human subspecies and eventually lost out. Sorta'like Philistines routinely hunted Israelites and eventually lost out.

See any Philistines lately?

If Neanderthal genes still exist, have they gone extinct?

If their genes still exist, how can they "be gone"?

If I understand your parallels, your second point negates your first. Traces of the Philistines still survive in Palestinians and maybe a few others. No? Or are you saying that they are still around through gene residue? Not sure I understand your first quote.

[norseman]

Ridiculous as it appears, it appears to be a valid question based upon your statements.

To my knowledge genes do not "fight" each other.

No s**t?

There is no question about that, is there?

What does that have to do with Neanderthal predation?

Everything. Any Neanderthal predation on Homo Sapiens was a small isolated trivial thing in the larger scheme of things. Instead of the "planet of the apes" scenario in which NP theory describes.

Specifically what findings or theories within "paleoclimatology"? Specifically what indicates to you that Africa was less plentiful and productive than the ice sheets of Eurasia?

Thanks, but my next hunt is in May for spring bear. I have no intention of proving your silly positions for you by "hunting" through academia for you.

If you have no intentions of doing any research yourself? I'm not obligated to spoon fed it to you so that you then just blow it back into my face. FACT: Africa was a much more arid place then, than it is now.

They all lived in the face of glaciers. Like me.

I'm looking out my window at the Knik Glacier as I write. No vegetation out there to eat. It's all under snow.

Do you know what snow is? Cold environs?

I live about 100 miles south of the Columbia ice fields. And I have about three feet of snow in my front yard as I write this.

And the fact remains that Neanderthals didn't live ON the glaciers, for the very reason that you have asserted, nothing grows there. They made their living in the heavily forested regions to the south of the European ice sheet. And I'm not saying they had a easy go of it, but the over enlarged ice age Sahara would have been no picnic either.

[norseman]

Huntster wrote:

Your references for that, please?

I already have, when you have taken an honest stab at actually READING the references that I've already established in this debate? Get back to me so we can have a educated debate on the subject.