Is Bigfoot Related To Neanderthal?

[Huntster]

Neanderthals are not known for their cave art

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm

Commentators say the object shows the Neanderthals were more sophisticated than their caveman image suggests.

"It should finally nail the lie that Neanderthals had no art," Paul Bahn, the British rock art expert, told BBC News Online. "It is an enormously important object."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-09/uow-bff092203.php

A 50,000-year record of mammals consumed by early humans in southwestern France indicates there was no major difference in the prey hunted by Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, according to a new study.

The paper, published in the online Journal of Archaeological Science, counters the idea proposed by some scientists that Cro-Magnon, who were physically similar to modern man, supplanted Neanderthals because they were more skilled hunters as a result of some evolutionary physical or mental advantage.

"This study suggests Cro-Magnon were not superior in getting food from the landscape," said lead author Donald Grayson, a University of Washington professor of archaeology. "We could detect no difference in diet, the animals they were hunting and the way they were hunting across this period of time, aside from those caused by climate change.

"So the takeover by Cro-Magnon does not seem to be related to hunting capability. There is no significant difference in large mammal use from Neanderthals to Cro-Magnon in this part of the world. The idea that Neanderthals were big, dumb brutes is hard for some people to drop. Cro-Magnon created the first cave art, but late Neanderthals made body ornaments, so the depth of cognitive difference between the two just is not clear. Cro-Magnon created the first cave art, but late Neanderthals made body ornaments, so the depth of cognitive difference between the two just is not clear."

http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterOne/LascauxCave.htm

The Spanish researcher Luz Antequera Congregado in her doctoral thesis "Arte y astronomia: evolución de los dibujos de las constelaciones" (1992) first set out the astronomical interpretation that the dots above the shoulder of the bull depict the Pleiades open star cluster and the dots on the bull's face depict the Hyades open star cluster. In her later paper "Altamira: Astronomía y religión en el Paleolitico" (1994) she interpreted the row of 4 dots to the left of Great Bull #18 as the stars of the belt of the constellation Orion. Luz Antequera Congregado has also investigated Paleolithic art in other European caves from an astronomical perspective. See her essay: "Practicas Astronomicas en la Prehistoria de la Peninsula Iberica y los Archichipielagos Balear y Canario" (1994).

Wheston Price also made the identification of 10 painted dots on a Neanderthal cave painting with the Pleiades.

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.

Have you even read Vendramini's paper?:

Nocturnality and its functional constraints

Carnivorous predation imposes dietary restrictions which require carnivores to

expend significant resources on hunting. Because terrestrial prey are easier to capture at

night when they are sleeping or resting, most mammalian terrestrial predators are nocturnal.

It is likely then, that in addition to diurnal hunting, Neanderthals also adapted to nocturnal

hunting during their European sojourn. This hypothesis is testable because it predicts that 15

like other nocturnal hunters, Neanderthals acquired specialist morphological and behavioural

adaptations to enhance prey capture in low-light conditions, including increased olfactory,

auditory and nocturnal visual acuity. Several lines of evidence supporting the hypothesis are

here reviewed.

Visual perspicacity

Just as the visual systems of primates evolved to meet the challenge of their arboreal

habitats (Elliot Smith, 1924; Le Gros Clark, 1959; Crompton, 1995;) so too, nocturnal

primates acquired specialist adaptations to increase retinal image brightness in low light

conditions (Cartmill, 1972; Heesey, 2003; Ravosa and Savakova, 2004). These adaptations

contributed to prey capture by facilitating improved identification of prey and stereoscopic

depth judgements (Cartmill, 1972; Allman, 1977). Based on a review of comparative data,

Callum and Kirk, (2007) report ‘that nocturnal visual predation had a putative selective

influence on the early evolution of the primate visual system.’ To maximize visual

sensitivity, nocturnal primates acquired allometrically larger pupils and corneas (relative to

the focal length of the eye) than diurnal species of similar size. To accommodate these larger

eyes, Kirk, (2006b) reported that nocturnal primate species have larger orbital apertures

relative to diurnal species.

If Neanderthals were nocturnal hunters, then larger corneas and optical orbits (eye

sockets) would be a feature of their cranial morphology. While eyes do not fossilise, orbits

do, and even a cursory comparison between Neanderthal and human orbit size reveals

Neanderthals orbits were substantially larger. (Figure 4) To date, no explanation has been

suggested for this novelty.

Figure 4. Comparison between orbit size of Gibraltar

Neanderthal specimen (left) and EMH skull (right) reveals substantially different orbit size.

The skull comparison is on page 15. Explain that away, please.

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.

His evidence is cited in his paper, unlike your posts.

No slander is needed. Just references.

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

There are plenty of scientists who disagree with you.

Oh, are you a "scientist"?

When NP theory is vetted by the majority of science, I'll sit up and take notice.

And the rest of us await that breathtaking day with great anticipation.

Edited January 9, 2011 by Huntster

[Huntster]

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?

Huntster, on 08 January 2011 - 02:55 PM, said:

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?

Yes. Both quotes point out Norseman's error:

Neanderthals are "gone", yet their genes remain.

[norseman]

Yes. Both quotes point out Norseman's error:

Neanderthals are "gone", yet their genes remain.

Nothing to my "error", as I've stated earlier part of the Homo Sapien population exhibits 1-4% of there genes.

Not exactly a strong case for the NP theory. In which they ate us at will, and bred the rest.

[norseman]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3256228.stm

Let me help you out as to what "cave art" actually is:

http://www.modernhumanorigins.com/cro-magnon-cave-paintings

So you have one crudely fashioned piece of bone and a few dots to compare to the vast artistic work of Cro Magnon (Homo Sapien)?

When I said they were not "known" for the cave art, I did not say they had no artistic abilities what so ever, just that it pales in comparison to us. In other words their art was nothing much to write home about. And while I understand you don't seem to keen on science? This is one of the many stated differences between the two species that gave us a "leg up" on the competition.

The skull comparison is on page 15. Explain that away, please.

Pretty easy really. Neanderthal skulls are typically bigger than ours, and one could safely assume that their eyes being proportioned to their skulls would also be larger. What does this have to do with night vision? Have you researched trichromatic vision yet?

And yes I've read his website.........it's more akin to witchcraft than any real scientific inquiry.

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 08 January 2011 - 03:51 PM, said:

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

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

Then they cannot be determined as "dominant" or "passive", can they?

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?

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.

Can you show us where a "Planet of the Apes" scenario is described in Vendramini's paper, or that Homo sapiens did not win out in the "larger scheme of things"? I've linked you to his paper. A simple quote will do.

You have read it, haven't you? One would think so, considering the passion with which you condemn it. It would be difficult to imagine such a passionate condemnation of something you haven't even read, wouldn't it?

[Huntster]

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.

Actually, you are obligated to support your words, or I will quite gleefully "spoon feed" them back to you with my own spicing applied, and I am not obligated to find out the "facts" you cite.

Like this one:

FACT: Africa was a much more arid place then, than it is now.

Reference, please, specifically during the time frame we're discussing, not 45 million years ago.

More, even if Africa was "more arid than it is now", it still supports a greater density of human life as well as greater vegetative resources than Greenland, Iceland, Alaska, and other areas primarily or significantly covered by ice.

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.

Good. Then tell us about all the vegetation available in your yard. Your fruit trees? Grasses? Legumes? Vegetable garden?

What did the natives in your area eat this time of year 150 years ago?

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.

Which was a smaller area, darker in winter, still quite covered by snow much of the year, and supporting fewer humans than the equatorial areas of the planet for all the obvious (to all but you) reasons.

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.

So why were there more humans in that area then as well as now?

[Huntster]

Nothing to my "error", as I've stated earlier part of the Homo Sapien population exhibits 1-4% of there genes.

Not exactly a strong case for the NP theory. In which they ate us at will, and bred the rest.

NP theory is how and why Homo sapiens evolved to overcome Neanderthal predation, not that Neanderthal predation succeeded in killing off humanity by eating them.

Why is this so difficult for you? Didn't you read it?

[norseman]

Huntster wrote:

Then they cannot be determined as "dominant" or "passive", can they?

Not that you will read it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)

Of course we can also establish between two distinct species that have interbreed which genome is the dominant one. In the case of European and Asian Homo Sapiens, they retain 96-99% of the African Homo Sapiens genome.

Alright, I've got to sign off, good debating with you (tips hat).

[norseman]

NP theory is how and why Homo sapiens evolved to overcome Neanderthal predation, not that Neanderthal predation succeeded in killing off humanity by eating them.

Why is this so difficult for you? Didn't you read it?

Alright, I'll stay for this post.

I don't agree with his hypothesis, that's all.

I do not think that predation or forced breeding was a very large issue between us and them. It probably did occur in a very small scale. But nothing like his NP theory suggests.

[Huntster]

So you have one crudely fashioned piece of bone and a few dots to compare to the vast artistic work of Cro Magnon (Homo Sapien)?

No. I offered three references to Neanderthal art, which you stated "they were not known for" (no surprise that you didn't know........that is becoming quite clear).

When I said they were not "known" for the cave art, I did not say they had no artistic abilities what so ever

Correct. You simply admitted what you didn't know. I understood, and provided you some reference for your education.

In other words their art was nothing much to write home about.

I don't write home about Cro Magnon art, either.

And I don't include me with either. They aren't "us", as far as I'm concerned.

I've evolved quite a bit from Cro Magnon. If you're still that primitive, oh, well.

And while I understand you don't seem to keen on science? This is one of the many stated differences between the two species that gave us a "leg up" on the competition.

What? Cro Magnon utilized "science"?

Well, perhaps like you do...............

Pretty easy really. Neanderthal skulls are typically bigger than ours, and one could safely assume that their eyes being proportioned to their skulls would also be larger. What does this have to do with night vision?

1) The photo shows that the skulls are the same height.

2) The orbital eye socket is exponentially larger, which would be expected of both a nocturnal as well as a northern species

Didn't you read the words, sir?

There is more:

The theory that Neanderthal eyes were adapted to nocturnal predation additionally

implies the emergence of a larger visual cortex to process low-luminosity visual precepts. In

primates, the primary visual cortex is located in the occipital lobe. Significantly, the

pronounced posteriorly-directed projection of the occipital lobe is a ubiquitous feature of

Neanderthal cranial morphology. This ‘bunning’ is absent in the human skull, suggesting

that the Neanderthal bun may have evolved partially to accommodate an expanded visual

cortex. However, for alternative explanations for Neanderthal occipital bunning; see Geist,

(1978), Lieberman, et. al., (2000), and Smith and Green, (1991).

Have you researched trichromatic vision yet?

Nope. You?

And yes I've read his website.........it's more akin to witchcraft than any real scientific inquiry.

In what way?

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Yes. Both quotes point out Norseman's error:

Neanderthals are "gone", yet their genes remain.

Ah

I don't know why I interpreted it differently.

...... as a side note, when people list animals that are sometimes dominant over humans, they often forget #1, the mosquito.

[Huntster]

Not that you will read it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_(genetics)

Of course we can also establish between two distinct species that have interbreed which genome is the dominant one. In the case of European and Asian Homo Sapiens, they retain 96-99% of the African Homo Sapiens genome.

So the remaining 4% that are Neanderthal were dominant over the African, correct?

[Huntster]

...... as a side note, when people list animals that are sometimes dominant over humans, they often forget #1, the mosquito.

Maybe I did that because right now our incredible mosquito hordes are "sleeping"................

[Huntster]

I don't agree with his hypothesis, that's all.

Nor do I.

I do not think that predation or forced breeding was a very large issue between us and them.

I do.

It probably did occur in a very small scale. But nothing like his NP theory suggests.

I'm quite confident it occurred on a scale even greater than what he suggests. Indeed, it resulted in the complete or near complete eradication of a complete species.

However, I don't agree that it caused significant "evolution" in humans. The genocide was just a matter of numbers; few Neanderthals, many Homo sapiens, and when the warming climate allowed/encouraged an invasion from the south, the fewer northerners were simply wiped out over time, even if they were physically stronger/larger/bulkier as individuals.

Just like today...........but that's another story, isn't it?

Edited January 9, 2011 by Huntster

[Guest]

Huh. Randomly baddish link there Hunster. I clicked it, and was kinda sad you posted it.

If we empower all of us then it's not really applicable at all, is it.

It's just when some but not all get to be really real humans, like acknowledged as real human people that this sort of thing can take place. It's like a thing.

Hard to counter without violating forum guidelines but I just want you to think, really really really really think, about the primary cause of this kind of bad behavior.

Dang. Sorry for the derail, but dang man.