Guest Particle Noun Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 It's a good question. We only have the statement that "they know which relict hominid it is" from spurious leaks, so it's hard to hang much on that, but I wonder if we could make an educated guess based on which relict hominids have been DNA sequenced?
Guest gerrykleier Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 It's a good question. We only have the statement that "they know which relict hominid it is" from spurious leaks, so it's hard to hang much on that, but I wonder if we could make an educated guess based on which relict hominids have been DNA sequenced? I would say it was an educated guess at best (more properly probably a SWAG...), probably based on 'genetic drift' to make a guess as to how far back they diverged. Unless they have bones or teeth that can be directly compared to fossils. GK
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I'm only aware of two relict hominids that have had complete DNA sequencing: Neanderthal and Denisovan. We will have to wait and see whether the "leak" they know the species of an existing relict hominid is accurate, or whether the DNA of the BF samples will reveal a new species.
Guest Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 While it is always tempting to look back to ancestors that may physically match modern day BF, we should keep in mind that if a certain set of environmental conditions prevail, then humans - and by extension hominids/oids - are capable of becoming significantly taller over a relatively short period of time. See the following article for an example of this (and one which has always fascinated me): http://suite101.com/article/why-are-the-dutch-so-tall-a55753 Woodland living might particularly favour survival of the largest/strongest.
Guest gerrykleier Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 While it is always tempting to look back to ancestors that may physically match modern day BF, we should keep in mind that if a certain set of environmental conditions prevail, then humans - and by extension hominids/oids - are capable of becoming significantly taller over a relatively short period of time. See the following article for an example of this (and one which has always fascinated me): http://suite101.com/...-so-tall-a55753 Woodland living might particularly favour survival of the largest/strongest. I would say that it's unlikely we have fossils from all the large primates of the last million years or so too. We have to compare BF with those that we have. GK
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Hi everyone!!! I personally think that we are missing some events in the hominoid evolution, which gave origin to Bigfoot, Yahoo, Siberian Snowman and similar creatures. Something happened between the pliocene and the pleistocene that we still ignore. Now we start to realize that in these gap, there were some hominoid species like Denisovans, Heidelbergensis, Red Cave Deer People and Paranthropus/Meganthropus...and maybe others that are still unidentified. It seems it is not 100% clear if Meganthropus was an asian robust australopithecine, or an archaic Homo erectus, or maybe something else. It seem it was big, but how big? OK, having just teeth, some jaw pieces and crushed skulls... Nevertheless, it gives us a hint that there was ancient hominoids living on these tropical parts of Asia. Something "evolved" there and had the chance of reaching other places. Like continental Asia, China, New Guinea and Australia. Was it Bigfoot related? We do not know...(to prove it, we basically need recent Bigfoot DNA and ancient Meganthropus DNA sequences....quite easy isnt' it? a true "piece of cake"... We know for sure that Giganthopitecus was big, but, was it an oversized orangutan, or something Bigfoot-like? Same problem, there is a few teeth and jaw pieces and the answer is inconclusive. As I mentioned before, there was also a "large" Sivaphitecus species (which it is supposed to be also orangutan-like) in Asia called Sivaphitecus parvada. I googled a little bit but I could not find a scientific size estimation of this species. Best regards. K. Adam.
Guest Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 BF Sleuth astutely points out that the only hominids we have DNA for are Neanderthal and Denisova. So, if the bf is a relic hominid, it's one of those. IF.
bipedalist Posted July 20, 2012 BFF Patron Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Apparently if Mike Rugg's tooth has roots with cementum it could be in as much demand as the internal contents of the dentine. Even dental calculus is now proving to be a gateway to describing immune systems in archaics. Oops, forgot my linky: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/fossils/flores/jones-hobbit-dna-2011.html Edited July 20, 2012 by bipedalist
Guest poignant Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 BF Sleuth astutely points out that the only hominids we have DNA for are Neanderthal and Denisova. So, if the bf is a relic hominid, it's one of those. IF. Good points, but I don't think you'd need two complete genomes to infer if a new specimen is near-human.
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 I never liked the idea of sasquatch being gigantopithecus, and given that scientists know so little about meganthropus, or paranthropus robustus, that it is quite possible. I have always wondered whether the fossil find, starting in the 40's, were all actually ancient, or if they could have been more modern. I have spent many late nights flipping through all known fossil finds, trying to match up what sasquatch could possibly be, and meganthropus has definitely been on my list ever since I learned about them. Sasquatch may also be simply an offshoot of meganthropus, possibly after interbreeding with more modern humans. This could also explain their current geography, since they could have basically moved up from Indonesia, if that is where they actually developed into whatever they were compared to other species, into China, the mountains of Russia, all the way to North America. I have harbored this idea for at least a few months now, that if we wanted to find the origins of sasquatch via ancient artifacts, Indonesia would be the place to look. I've also learned that every idea I've ever had about sasquatch has been formulated already, lol, and I really do get blown away reading some of the older generations' work, because much of the time they amazed me by their advanced ideas. Or maybe they just seem advanced since I was just learning about them, lol. This still could be wrong, but I have a feeling it could also be a step in the right direction. I also wanted to say that I am impressed by the vast majority of comments in this thread. It seems the brilliance is never-ending. Many great ideas, and stuff to look in to. Also, thanks Slim for posting that about Mike Rugg and meganthropus, as I never knew that, but am glad that I do now, lol. It seems this issue has been pondered before, which is great. I would like to point out the wisdom from whoever said that sasquatch probably aren't exactly the same as meganthropus, or the fossils found I mean, because they likely would have evolved or changed in the time it took to spread around the globe. As I mentioned earlier, interbreeding would most likely have occurred, especially the further north one would go during the time of the last glacial maximum, because the ice would have separated populations that normally would have bred...forcing populations that normally would not have reproduced to do so out of necessity of preservation of the species. Anyway, great stuff everyone, keep it coming.
Shelly Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 I think its important too that our ancestors don't seem to have evolved into each other but evolved and died off in parallel with each other. We know for example that Cro Magnon man and Neanderthal man lived at the same time initially.
Guest Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) I'm only aware of two relict hominids that have had complete DNA sequencing: Neanderthal and Denisovan. We will have to wait and see whether the "leak" they know the species of an existing relict hominid is accurate, or whether the DNA of the BF samples will reveal a new species. If I understand the genetic relationship between Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes (chimpanzees) anything that is more than 98.5% human but less than 99.5% human would be a (non-sapiens) hominid. Neandertals and denisovans fall into this category but so would australopithecines, paranthropines, meganthropus and erectus. If bigfoot is a (non-sapiens) hominid then the results of the DNA testing being done by Ketchum and her partners will fall in this range. Edited July 20, 2012 by antfoot
bipedalist Posted July 20, 2012 BFF Patron Posted July 20, 2012 Makes sense so here is your line up: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species
Cotter Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 Good link Biped. So, according to the Smithsonian, there were at least 3 other upright walking primates existing at the same time as Homo Sapiens.... Interesting.
Guest Posted July 20, 2012 Posted July 20, 2012 (edited) Bobo said that humans turn out to be the product of five different hominids I bet it's denisova because Neanderthal are not bigger than us and I heard that Neanderthal has inner ear structures showing they probaby had poorer balance than homo sapienes--and I am pretty sure BF has very good balance. For Denisova, they only have like a knuckle bone or something---but a big one. He also said that the bf was 99.4 - 99.7% like us....something like that. Edited July 20, 2012 by Kings Canyon
Recommended Posts