Why Is Bigfoot So... Big?

[salubrious]

You're a little confused on the terms you're using. You say "community," but what you really mean is culture. Culture is behavior that is learned and shared, which results in things like making tools. It happens in societies, which are made of communities, but the words mean very different things.

Also, your description of hunter/gatherer behavior is kind of flawed. In H/G societies, pretty much every skill is known by everyone in the community, and labor is split evenly. It might be divided along gender or age lines, but generally speaking, most people do the same kinds of work and have the same skills. Everyone can make a bow and arrow, everyone can use them, everyone can make baskets, and everyone knows what's edible and where to find it (it's a requirement to survive). Some people do have things they're better at than others, but the society doesn't treat them any differently because of it, other than giving them some extra respect. You described something that sounds more like specialization of labor, which only started popping up in agricultural societies.

Alright- culture then, but the primitive skills look pretty much the same world wide.

Yes, its true that in a H/G culture everyone knows the skills. But some know certain skills better than others, so what I mentioned in that regard is very real.

[BobZenor]

Size is certainly an advantage to staying warmer. It is one of several factors that benefits the individual being larger. Changes in circulation or things like fat distribution and hair are probably as important if not more so. Modern humans are very adaptable but we probably haven't been in the northern hemisphere long enough to have significant cold adaptations. Other hominids have had time though and some likely lacked the technology that would tend to slow our cold adaptions evolving. We don't have to be as physically evolved for cold if we can sew warm hides together. We can adapt by culture or technology. Size would be one of those physical cold adaptations that you should expect in a relatively non technological hominid living in a cold place. It doesn't mean that you have to be larger than a modern human to be cold adapted. It is pretty difficult to weigh all the factors and say why something evolved a certain way. It usually ends up being the combined benefits outweighing all the combined detriments. A very large animal is less likely to be preyed on. They are likely able to get their way more often when it comes to mating. It could be very strongly influenced by sexual selection.

I don't really look at it as them being so large. It is more like why are we so small. We apparently significantly reduced in size since heidelbergensis. That is likely true no matter which population of modern humans you choose. I believe that most hominids in the fossil record are small because they also spend a lot of time in trees. Some of the more recent ones are pretty huge. My hypothesis is basically that the size of technological hominids will approximate the greatest killing potential for a given weight of adult males in a certain fixed area. 200 human sized technological hominids would probably defeat 50 bigfoot sized individuals in the competition for that territory. That is basically because populations compete for territory and we tend to fight as a group. If you don't usually attack in large numbers or don't use significant technology then I doubt if the same rules apply. Then the largest individual would probably be boss. With humans, if they get too big for their britches then someone or a gang can easily kill them with weapons where the guy getting attacked doesn't stand much of a chance. The most dangerous modern human is rarely the largest individual. After you get to a certain size, gravity starts working against you so that probably is the greatest limit to them getting larger. They would need much more bone and muscle mass to move with the same efficiency. That is because we are three dimensional. Clearly humans aren't even close to as large as mammals can get and still function efficiently. It is probably because we are able to use deadly weapons even when fairly small that keeps us relatively small. That was also probably true of the vast majority of hominids in the fossil record.

The great variation in size in modern human populations suggests that size is pretty fluid and changes rapidly for whatever is best for a particular niche. Larger size might be much more favorable to the hunter that kills with a club than it would be for someone armed with a bow and arrow for example.

Edited May 18, 2012 by BobZenor

[Rockape]

I wonder if their size is why there are so few of them? Perhaps they have an inate instinct to not breed frequently, therefore less competiton for food.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Normally, the higher up on the food chain a species is, the fewer their numbers are.

[Guest toejam]

So few of them? Nobody knows their true numbers. From what I can see, I believe their population is a very healthy number. Their true proximity goes way beyond "remote mountainous regions".

Their abilities enable them to be where you wouldn't suspect.

[indiefoot]

Normally, the higher up on the food chain a species is, the fewer their numbers are.

I thought we were at the top of the food chain.

[Rockape]

So few of them? Nobody knows their true numbers. From what I can see, I believe their population is a very healthy number. Their true proximity goes way beyond "remote mountainous regions".

Their abilities enable them to be where you wouldn't suspect.

"Rare" might be a better descrition than "few", but still, there can't be many of them or they would surely be easier to find. And I know they cover a wide area but it seems to be smaller groups scattered about.

I thought we were at the top of the food chain.

Not if you toss us into the woods alone, armed only with what the great spirit gave us at birth. Then we slip down quite a bit on the chain.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Rockape

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

"Not if you toss us into the woods alone, armed only with what the great spirit gave us at birth. Then we slip down quite a bit on the chain.

^That's kind of the right idea. I wish I could remember the name for it, but unlike other species, we also have the power to evolve our ideas. Ideas that get passed on from generation to generation. So I guess we are now separate from the normal food chain. It's an ability even chimps don't have. They will use the same stick over and over again without thinking how they can make it better.

Edited May 22, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

It's not that bigfoot is so big, it's that you're so small.

[Guest BFSleuth]

One aspect of human evolution that is fairly recent is our use of clothing and its impact not only on the range of climates we can live in but also its impact on our bodies. This article talks particularly about the impact of wearing shoes and the changes it makes in the bone and muscular structure of our feet:

http://neuroanthropology.net/2009/07/26/lose-your-shoes-is-barefoot-better/

I was searching for an article I read a few months ago that talked about the advent of shoes from about 30,000 to 40,000 years ago and the resulting loss of bone density and thickness in homo sapiens sapiens.

It may be that our use of other clothing may have also impacted our physical bodies over generations. I've often marveled at how poorly designed my body is for living naked in the wild. Considering this thin skinned, almost hairless body, with tender feet, and I wonder how my ancestors pre-clothing survived. Well, they likely survived in tropical places only, but even then how did they keep from getting small injuries with infection risk every day, like scratches from walking through brush?

I'm thinking that perhaps the use of clothing and selective breeding (ie. our attraction to smooth skinned and relatively dainty footed partners) may have altered our skin, amount of hair, and overall robustness. Footwear began having an impact about 30-40K years ago, I think crude clothing started sometime before that, so it may be that we have altered our personal environment by wearing clothing to keep the outer environment comfortable, but this in turn has changed us through the generations.

Compare this to BF, which has never worn clothes (at this point I'm discounting possible sighting reports of them wearing clothes), never worn shoes, and is active year round in environments that can be downright harsh. They have survival of the fittest as the arbiter of who gets to breed, and their selective breeding may hinge upon larger size (ie. the biggest, strongest, best fighting male gets the biggest, strongest, childbearing female).

[Guest Josh S. Henaman]

When you take into consideration all of the factors involving migration across the land-bridge (ice age, harsh terrain and the concept of larger, more ferocious = greater chance of survival, then you're probably on to something. As the climate grew increasingly colder, the population spread south and then retreated (or went extinct) as the temperature normalized. Who knows how long evolution had a chance to play out prior to North American migration, but I can't imagine it was a picnic. Run and hide or grow large and dominate (however, that doesn't explain how worthless pandas are.) It would only be in recent years (the last couple hundred or so) that the species saw their decline, so evolution hasn't caught up with the run and hide concept.

[Guest BFSleuth]

While the land bridge theory of human population of the Americas is the most popular, I think that migration by boat may have preceded travel by land. Especially the peoples that came down the coast from Alaska fairly rapidly, following seal populations and other foraging opportunities on seacoasts.

[Guest vilnoori]

Just thinking of feet, I (and many children in the world today) wore no shoes (well, except to church on Sunday, lol) until about the age of 9. There is a technique to it. You learn to be sharp eyed and watch where you put your feet to avoid sharp stones, snakes, scorpions, poop, and so forth, and, you also learn to deal with any mishaps right away. The most frequent thing was getting a thorn or sharp stone in your feet, and you just take the time to remove it or it will hurt! Plus you get super thick calluses in no time at all. I can remember running across sharp gravel with no problem.

This was in West Africa. We also wore just shorts and sleeveless tee's most of the time as well, and it was warm most of the time. You got really brown really fast, and if it was cold you learned to huddle close, or run and keep active. It did get cold sometimes because of the elevation. There was always a fire, but even without a fire staying close together in a protected area was good enough to keep the cold out.

I'm sure some of the older generation can relate to being barefoot as kids and going barefoot as soon as the snow was off the ground. I've read lots of stories. Shoes were expensive in the rural areas during the depression and war years and many kids had a pair only for school and/or church.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I've also spent a fair amount of time in third world countries where shoes are usually not worn. Even if you give them shoes they refuse to wear them because they are so uncomfortable. Their toes are spread wide and their feet are very muscular, even the toes are muscular compared to a shod person's bare feet.

[Guest MikeG]

I thought we were at the top of the food chain.

We're top of our food chain.........but there are hundreds of different food chains which we aren't involved with at all.

Mike