Are Other Hominins (Hominoids) Alive Today?

[Guest BFSleuth]

I agree that we are basing a lot of our understanding on a very spotty fossil record. By "spotty" I mean that making a "safe assumption" that when the fossil record ends therefore the species also ended assumes that:

1. We have collected all available fossils of the species <-- which is not true
   
2. The species consistently left behind fossils at a given rate <-- unknown and likely not true
   

Therefore the only safe assumption that can be made when the fossil record "ends" is simply that based on the fossils collected thus far the most recent known time this species existed is "X". We have to be prepared to amend "X" whenever new fossils are collected and dated.

Yes, other hominins existed for much of that time, but whether they were in direct contact with H. sapiens is largely debatable, and even in cases where contact is known to have happened, the extent and duration contested.

However, in the time line of HSS we seem to have already established that contact was made in terms of mating between HSS, HSN, HSD, and the possible newcomer they've identified only by genetic statistics from Africa. Interbreeding seems to an emerging and common theme among the more modern hominids.

Out of curiosity, does anyone know of another flourishing genus which died off to leave only one species as is the current accepted understanding of anthropology? Seems rather odd that the entire genus disappeared to leave only HSS as the surviving species.

[BobZenor]

Carcharodon carcharias comes to mind or the great white shark. The other member of the genus was megalodon and there were few if any other species in the genus that lived then so it isn't a perfect analogy to hominids. There are some close relatives like salmon sharks which look like they might be close enough to be the same genus so it may just be semantics. It is also dubious how closely related they all actually are.

Few land species have the ability to rapidly occupy all the earth or at least major portions of it so it is going to be hard to eliminate all other populations in a genus. Modern humans are very talented travelers. We still have problems in certain kinds of terrain like very steep or swampy places so it might leave the window open for some other species to exploit. They would have to very good at avoiding us and our ancestors since I believe that we would be especially likely to kill other hominids if given a chance. That is assuming that we considered them competitors which is very likely going to be the attitude since we eat just about everything that we can digest that isn't poisonous and even some of that is eaten as medicine. I think our ancestors would be pretty bad neighbors when times got tough.

Edited September 5, 2012 by BobZenor

[Guest rolando]

The hairy wildman has a history as long as written language itself. Transcending through the ages up to the present. In medievel times they were called Woodwose.

Nice Link.

This drawing somehow shows how consistant the idea of bigfoot is:

[Cotter]

Thoughts? If you're saying what I think you are, your argument has some flaws. First off, it's a logical fallacy to assume that because something has happened in the past that it needs to happen now. If I have a car that starts 98% of the time, there's no guarantee that it will start the next time I try. Dinosaurs lived a lot longer than we have, does that mean they still have to exist?

Is it a logical fallacy to apply statistics and mathematical models based on data points obtained from historical data?

I'm not sure that a car is a good example to use as an analogy, however, expanding on that, I would say that if I had 100 cars that started 98% of the time, there is a high probability that one of those cars would start on any given day.

I agree that applying my logic to dinosaurs would not be appropriate at this time, but may be appropriate if scientists were to find fossils of a t-rex that dated 10,000 years ago.

Don't forget that the only reason people think any ancient homids existed in the first place is that we've found bones of them. No one has seen a Homo habilis running round Africa and making Olduwan tools.

Correct, we've found bones and dated them as recent as 10,000 years ago. And as far as Homo Habilis, I will amend your statement and read it as that no one has PROVEN there are Homo Habilis running around. (I really don't know what some folks are seeing.)

Fossil records are all we have to say that these things existed, when the record stops, it's pretty safe to assume that the species did as well. You don't really need to see proof that the died off because such evidence really wouldn't exist. You have to extropolate that they died off based on when the record stops, and the record stopping is very much tangible evidence that species died out.

I'm not so sure that is a safe assumption. It would require that we have found all possible fossil remains, correct?

I also think you phrased your proposal in a really clumsy way. Humans weren't walking side by side with other hominins for 3 million years. Bipedal apes (not all of them are in the Homo genus, by the way) have existed for a really long time (possibly as far back as 8 million years ago), but humans (H.s.s. - us) have only existed for 200,000 years. Yes, other hominins existed for much of that time, but whether they were in direct contact with H. sapiens is largely debatable, and even in cases where contact is known to have happened, the extent and duration contested.

I agree with your first sentence, I certainly didn't deliver as eloquently and 'safely' as I should in an environment like this, but I think you caught the drift of what I was getting at.

I left out the bipedal apes as the genus Homo (of which we derived apparently), came on to the scene about 3 million years ago. If we consider the 200,000 year timeframe, removing the last 10,000 years where apparently something happened to make Hss the only genus homo left, we are still left with 95% of the history of Hss sharing the earth with other homonids. I would also like to say at this time I made an error in my initial calculations, using 3 million years, the % time the genus homo shared the earth with others comes out to 99.7%. So now, based on historical data, the suggestion there are indeed other bipedal primates on the earth at this time has greatly increased.

Also, apparently, by looking at modern Human DNA, it would suggest (prove?) that indeed Hss what interacting with other hominids, at times breeding with them. And isn't one of the theories on the extinction of Neanderthal was that they were hunted and out competed by Hss? That would suggest recurring contact.

I appreciate your reply, and look forward to others. I want to figure out why suddenly we're the exception and not the rule (based on the history of primate evolution).

[Guest]

I really like the idea that while we have been looking to the stars for decades searching for intelligent life, it's been sitting out in our own forests laughing at us

[Guest BlurryMonster]

Is it a logical fallacy to apply statistics and mathematical models based on data points obtained from historical data?

Well, kind of. We're not talking about mathematics, we're talking about living organisms, and statistics don't really need to have much bearing on whether an animal lives or not. Keeping with the previous dinosaur analogy, they lived for 100 million years and were pretty successful. A meteor came and ruined that; it happens. A person could consitantly live for 100 years in good health and suddenly get hit buy a bus. Just because something has lived, doesn't mean it's always going to.

Correct, we've found bones and dated them as recent as 10,000 years ago. And as far as Homo Habilis, I will amend your statement and read it as that no one has PROVEN there are Homo Habilis running around. (I really don't know what some folks are seeing.)

H. Habilis was around five feet tall and is noted for making tools. As far as I know nothing is running around the African savannah doing that, nor are people seeing that. Their fossil record also stops at about 1.4 million years ago (not 10,000 years ago), so it's pretty safe to assume that they died out. You keep saying that other bipedal primates existed until 10,000 years ago, but you have to remember that there were lots of them running around, we're deeling with a lot of time; many of these species are separated by thousands or millions of years. The only hominin that has a fossil record going to 10,000 years ago is H. floresiensis, and they lived on fairly remote islands in Indonesia and may have had no contact at all with H. sapiens. Most other hominins died out before that, for example the most recent Neanderthal remains found date to about 24,500 years ago.

I'm not so sure that is a safe assumption. It would require that we have found all possible fossil remains, correct?

Not at all. Neadnerthals are a great example of this. Their remains are found all over Europe and stretch back hundreds of thousands of years, but suddenly end at 24,500 years old. The remains that date back that far were found on the Iberian peninsula (a place humans weren't inhabiting at the time) and suggest that Neanderthals had lost territory (the fossil record shows their territory descreasing steadily before that) and had retreated to the most isolated place they could. Considering that no remains have been found more recent than that, and Neanderthals seem to have been diminishing at the time, it's pretty reasonable to assume that they died out. Also keep in mind that conclusions like that (as with everything else in science) is based on the evidence available. If something were found that would prove it wrong, different conclusions would be drawn.

Also, apparently, by looking at modern Human DNA, it would suggest (prove?) that indeed Hss what interacting with other hominids, at times breeding with them. And isn't one of the theories on the extinction of Neanderthal was that they were hunted and out competed by Hss? That would suggest recurring contact.

The DNA evidence of human/Neanderthals interbreeding actually suggests that it wasn't recurring. The shared DNA is found in pretty much the same amounts across all Eurasian peoples, which suggests that the interbreeding took place shortly after we left Africa and didn't continue. Otherwise, some populations would have more Neanderthal DNA than others (continued breeding = more DNA). As far as human hunting Neanderthals out, no one I'm aware of in anthropology thinks that happened; the current hypothesis (and what the evidence suggests) is that we outcompeted them for resrouces because of superior technology.

I appreciate your reply, and look forward to others. I want to figure out why suddenly we're the exception and not the rule (based on the history of primate evolution).

I'm glad to help if I can and people are actually willing to listen to what I have to say. I would say that there isn't a rule. Nothing is set in stone that says "more than one species of bipedal primate needs to exist at all times." The reason why we stayed alive when others didn't is that we're very smart, we make good tools, and we made it to the top of the food chain. It's hard (maybe even impossible) for anything else to compete with us, and that applies to our relatives as well, especially if they were to occupy the same niche as us.

Edited September 5, 2012 by BlurryMonster

[Guest BFSleuth]

The reason why we stayed alive when others didn't is that we're very smart, we make good tools, and we made it to the top of the food chain. It's hard (maybe even impossible) for anything else to compete with us, and that applies to our relatives as well, especially if they were to occupy the same niche as us.

Well crafted presentation of your ideas, BM! +1

My thought is related to the boldfaced portion of your post. The qualifier in your statement is IMHO the key to whether or not other species in the genus homo are still alive. I agree that if they were trying to occupy the same niche as HSS then it would be reasonable to give greater weight to the idea that we out competed them and they have all died off. However, if they occupy niches other than HSS, then that would increase the possibility that other species of homo might still be alive today.

There are three factors in defining the niche that a species occupies within an ecosystem (from Biology Online):

1. The area the organism occupies.
   
2. The function of the organism within the ecosystem.
   
3. The interrelationship between the organism and the biotic and abiotic factors affecting it.
   

To this I might add the time of day or year the organism is active within the ecosystem. For example, diurnal predators may compete less against nocturnal predators, as they may be predating on different species. A recent study of tigers in Nepal has noted they have changed to more nocturnal activity to avoid contact with humans as humans have encroached on their territory. I think it is very possible that if other homo species are still extant, then it is likely that they are largely nocturnal, especially if they live in close proximity to humans.

From Native American and First Nations stories to modern sighting reports BF has been reported as cathermeral (both diurnal and nocturnal). They lived in deep forests and mountains in areas that were regarded as frightening and taboo places to go. They live in a manner that doesn't require any kind of development of the land (trails, roads, clearing trees for agriculture, etc.) and they don't seem to require any high level of technology (weapons, clothing, fire, tools, etc.) and they are physically capable of traveling great distances for a wide range. With intelligence, efficient hunting skills, detailed knowledge of their range and best time and places for foraging, and especially if there is language and the ability to learn and pass on knowledge; then it is possible for a species such as BF to occupy a niche that is unique enough to survive and thrive.

[Cotter]

Great post BM and a + from me as well. I'm definitely looking for differing views and inputs to add to my considerations. With that said, my responses below.

Well, kind of. We're not talking about mathematics, we're talking about living organisms, and statistics don't really need to have much bearing on whether an animal lives or not. Keeping with the previous dinosaur analogy, they lived for 100 million years and were pretty successful. A meteor came and ruined that; it happens. A person could consitantly live for 100 years in good health and suddenly get hit buy a bus. Just because something has lived, doesn't mean it's always going to.

True, but statistical models are applied to organism populations all the time (deer management comes to mind), so although I'm confident I didn't apply anywhere near the statistics wildlife folks do for population evaluation, I think there is some merit looking at the history of co-existing bipedal primates and applying some mathematical reasoning to it. Additionally, I agree a catastrophic event can change things abruptly and detrimentally, but I don't believe we've got any solid evidence of such an event occurring within the last 25k years. Or am I mistaken?

H. Habilis was around five feet tall and is noted for making tools. As far as I know nothing is running around the African savannah doing that, nor are people seeing that. Their fossil record also stops at about 1.4 million years ago (not 10,000 years ago), so it's pretty safe to assume that they died out. You keep saying that other bipedal primates existed until 10,000 years ago, but you have to remember that there were lots of them running around, we're deeling with a lot of time; many of these species are separated by thousands or millions of years. The only hominin that has a fossil record going to 10,000 years ago is H. floresiensis, and they lived on fairly remote islands in Indonesia and may have had no contact at all with H. sapiens. Most other hominins died out before that, for example the most recent Neanderthal remains found date to about 24,500 years ago.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that H.Habilis is potentially still running around and I think you make a good point that it is safe to assume they've died out, but it is just that - an assumption. Regarding Neanderthal, and your comment on finding fossils on the iberian peninsula, indicating their range was being crept upon and they moved b/c they couldn't compete. Wouldn't options included with the dying out theory that they moved to an area that a.) wasn't conducive for fossilizing remains or b.) an area where there hasn't been much archeaological (sp?) excavations?

The DNA evidence of human/Neanderthals interbreeding actually suggests that it wasn't recurring. The shared DNA is found in pretty much the same amounts across all Eurasian peoples, which suggests that the interbreeding took place shortly after we left Africa and didn't continue. Otherwise, some populations would have more Neanderthal DNA than others (continued breeding = more DNA). As far as human hunting Neanderthals out, no one I'm aware of in anthropology thinks that happened; the current hypothesis (and what the evidence suggests) is that we outcompeted them for resrouces because of superior technology.

Some races have more Neanderthal DNA that others, wouldn't that indicate it recurred for a period of time? If I recall, Native Americans and East Asians having the highest % compared to their European counterparts - which I find interesting that modern humans exhibiting the highest % of neanderthal DNA live outside the accepted range of Neanderthal - perhaps an indication they fled to the undiscovered americas or to the rugged Asian landscape. Additionally, it is estimated that at 10K years ago, global population of Hss was around 5 million. Is that enough of a population to completely overrun another species across the entire planet? I would think that competition in local areas would be tough, but why the pursuit into other areas that the weaker species went to? I'm having a tough time wrapping my brain around how resources could be so scarce that 5 million Hss's would eradicate another population globally.

Thx BM, I look forward to your responses.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I looked up extinction events and came across this wikipedia entry for the Quaternary extinction event, the most recent major extinction event known. Note there are two competing hypotheses to explain the large die off especially of megafauna: climate change or overkill by HSS. There's quite the list of species and families that died out during this period. I'm not confident of the climate change hypothesis, and really question the HSS overkill hypothesis as explanations.

Cotter, regarding the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in human populations, I think you might have that turned around a little bit. Modern human DNA with the highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA is in Europe and the Middle East. Denisovan DNA has even greater percentages in SE Asian and Polynesian human populations. Recently in Africa they have identified an as yet unknown third hominid species that appears in similar percentage as Neanderthal DNA to Europeans. It was also found that Denisovan DNA has Neanderthal DNA, from the most recent complete genome mapping of Denisovan DNA. I doubt that the spread of DNA across species were isolated events, more likely they were repeated events.

[Guest BlurryMonster]

True, but statistical models are applied to organism populations all the time (deer management comes to mind), so although I'm confident I didn't apply anywhere near the statistics wildlife folks do for population evaluation, I think there is some merit looking at the history of co-existing bipedal primates and applying some mathematical reasoning to it. Additionally, I agree a catastrophic event can change things abruptly and detrimentally, but I don't believe we've got any solid evidence of such an event occurring within the last 25k years. Or am I mistaken?

I'm honstely having a hard time wrapping my head around the idea that since we've co-existed with bipedal primates in the past that the same has to be happening now. No offense, but it just doesn't make a lot of logical sense to me. The statistical aspect really has nothing to do with it, because the issue isn't mathematical; there are no mathematical rules about whether or when something has to live or not. As you pointed out, when statistics are applies to animals, it's usually related to studying populations, and that's not what we're talking about with different species of bipedal primates. What we're talking about is mulitples species existing and not existing, which is something very different, and I don't think math can even be applied to it. It's purely a matter of whether physical evidence suggests that a species lived or not.

Also, I wasn't suggesting that a catastrophic event happened, I was trying to demonstrate that looking at an issue like whether species live or not shouldn't be reduced to math. You were saying that since other hominins existed for so long they still should, and I was trying to demonstrate that that you could say the same about dinosaurs to show it's a flawed argument (to me). I really don't know what else I can say about the argument because I just doesn't make sense to me, and I've tried to explain why.

Yeah, I'm not going to argue that H.Habilis is potentially still running around and I think you make a good point that it is safe to assume they've died out, but it is just that - an assumption. Regarding Neanderthal, and your comment on finding fossils on the iberian peninsula, indicating their range was being crept upon and they moved b/c they couldn't compete. Wouldn't options included with the dying out theory that they moved to an area that a.) wasn't conducive for fossilizing remains or b.) an area where there hasn't been much archeaological (sp?) excavations?

Well, it's not really an assumption, it's an educated conclusion. It's what the evidence suggests is the case. Could it be wrong? Yes, but it's the best conclusion to draw from the evidence. As for your suggestion as why the Neanderthal range seems to have shrunk, they're both perfectly valid hypotheses, and I'll try to address them with what I know offhand:

A. Neanderthal remains have been found ranging from the Middle East to the Iberian peninsula. The remains being found suggests that fossilization was possible, and it did happen. Remains of other species have also been in other areas, again indicating that fossilization wasn't impossible.

B. It's possible, but agains, the remains have been found everywhere.Dating the remains shows that the range decreased chronologically; the remains in the Middle East were old, the remains in Iberia were new, and in between are a number of remains of varying age Looking at them does show a pattern demonstrating a westward retreat that indicates a loss of territory. It's possible that some new dig may challenge those finding, but the evidene really does point to a territiry loss.

Some races have more Neanderthal DNA that others, wouldn't that indicate it recurred for a period of time? If I recall, Native Americans and East Asians having the highest % compared to their European counterparts - which I find interesting that modern humans exhibiting the highest % of neanderthal DNA live outside the accepted range of Neanderthal - perhaps an indication they fled to the undiscovered americas or to the rugged Asian landscape.

I've never heard of this. Everything I've read suggests a pretty flat 1-4% of Neanderthal DNA across non-African populations. Europeans seem to average a little higher in the spectrum, but not in a way that's statistically significant (ie, it's still basically the same amount, genetically). Everyone having the same amount suggests that no one bred more with Neanderthals than anyone else, and the small amount of common DNA suggests that not much interbreeding actually happened, and it was a long time ago (probably about 65,000 years ago).

Additionally, it is estimated that at 10K years ago, global population of Hss was around 5 million. Is that enough of a population to completely overrun another species across the entire planet? I would think that competition in local areas would be tough, but why the pursuit into other areas that the weaker species went to? I'm having a tough time wrapping my brain around how resources could be so scarce that 5 million Hss's would eradicate another population globally.

Well, it wasn't the entire planet, it was Europe. The Ice Age also ended, and with it, many of the megafauna that Neanderthals relied on for food died off. People kept spreading for the same reasons we always have: we needed more space. The resources weren't scare at all, they were plentiful enough that people were able to live, procreate, and want to spread out over the continent; we were just better at it than Neanderthals. Don't think of it as an eradication (I wouldn't, it sounds way too nasty), it was just a question of who was more effective at survival - if were eating all the food, there was less for Neanderthals.

Edited September 6, 2012 by BlurryMonster

[Guest BFSleuth]

Neanderthal remains have been found ranging from the Middle East to the Iberian peninsula. The remains being found suggests that fossilization was possible, and it did happen. Remains of other species have also been in other areas, again indicating that fossilization wasn't impossible.

I've always questioned such a narrow range for Neanderthal. The recent publication of the complete Denisovan DNA, which noted interbreeding with Neanderthal, might call this into question. The Denisovan Cave is in the Altai Mountains, where Russia, Mongolia, China, and Khazakhstan come together.

I think as research continues and additional fossils are found and hopefully the DNA is also mapped, that we might start getting a bigger picture regarding the known range of Neanderthal. It would make more sense that an intelligent hominid would be capable of moving about on such a large land mass with relative ease and be able to thrive over a wide range.

[Guest]

I am going to nail my colours to the mast and state that I believe that if there is a relict hominid hiding away in the forests of North America, then it is a Neanderthaloid derivative.

My reasoning is impressionistic:

1) Homo Neanderthalensis is a fairly recent and common contemporary of HSS (1,000 generations ago, maybe less), and far less elusive on the fossil map than, say, Denisovans

2) Neanderthal skeletons, with their long arms and large femurs, remind me somewhat of BF

There are some facts which militate against the above thesis, for instance the average height of HN and the midtarsal break question - but I don't think they are necessarily deal-breakers.

I would be interested to hear the views of others, backed up with reasons why (they can be as shaky as mine!).

Edited September 6, 2012 by corvus horribilus

[Cotter]

Cotter, regarding the percentage of Neanderthal DNA in human populations, I think you might have that turned around a little bit. Modern human DNA with the highest percentage of Neanderthal DNA is in Europe and the Middle East.

Hi BFS, I believe I am accurate in my original thought.

"Present-day east Asians and Native Americans appear to have more in common genetically with the Neanderthals than present-day Europeans, even though Europe was thought to be the main hangout for Neanderthals hundreds of thousands of years ago."

http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/30/13570175-new-technique-clears-up-mysteries-in-extinct-denisovan-human-genome?lite

Makes you wonder where the Neanderthals made their way to after the Iberian Peninsula.

[spacemonkeymafia]

Really dumb question alert!

If bigfoot is an evolved Neanderthal, were the fossils we have been totally hair covered when alive? Is a few thousand years enough time to develope a pronounced sagittal crest and larger size? Did the hair covering come along later also?

We have found Neanderthal graves and it has been suggested bigfoot bury their dead hence no bodies. Neanderthal were tool users. Some have said bigfoot use tools more advanced than simple clubs. Why doesn't the evolved Neanderthal (bigfoot) still use fire ? Maybe thier greater size and near- animal senses have rendered the need for fire or spearpoints obsolete?

I don't intend these questions as confrontational at all. It's just some thoughts if bigfoot might be evolved Neanderthals. Or any other Homo [fill in the blank] for that matter.

Thanks for bearing with me !

[Cotter]

Hi Spacemonkey.

Just to clarify, I wasn't suggesting that Neanderthal's are BF or vice versa (evolved or not), just was using that as an example.

Additionally, I'm not so sure that folks (scientists) know exactly what Neanderthal's looked like (regarding hair covering).

A few thousand years would be ample time I would think for a species to evolve - especially through inter-species breeding - into a very different looking being. But I am no anthropologist, so at best it's a barely educated guess.