Bipedal Primates Sharing The Earth

[Cotter]

Good afternoon all:

I was hoping that some of the resident scholars could provide some insight and perhaps answer a few questions I have.

1. How long ago (recent) was it when Homo Sapien Sapien (herein referred to as Hss) shared the planet with other upright walking bipedal primates? How many others have shared the planet with Hss?

2. What event occurred that wiped out all other upright walking bipedal primates?

3. Why/how did Hss make it through the extinction of the subjects of Question 2?

4. Given the fossil record and the indication that multiple upright walking bipedal primates shared the earth for millions of years, does it stand to reason and logic, that we (Hss) are indeed NOT alone on the planet as it would suggest that we (Hss) would be the scientific 'exception' to the rule?

Those questions have been on my mind lately. Thanks in advance to all.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Excellent questions Cotter. For additional discussion about this general topic you can see the Are Other Hominins (Hominoids) Alive Today? thread.

I don't think we can say with any level of confidence how many other species of HS were alive during the history of HSS, since it seems that the rate of discovery by means of remains or DNA research seems to be escalating recently. The premise of the OP of the other thread that I started was based on the idea that if other HS species were alive as recently as 10,000 years ago, then it seems possible that one or more species have survived to the present time.

I doubt that any event like a volcano eruption or meteor strike event triggered extinction of other species. If anything I think the advent of agriculture and the resulting impact on the environment with resulting population explosion of HSS may have wiped out much of other HS species habitat to the point their populations were no longer viable. However, I consider that pockets of viable breeding populations may have survived and continue to survive in regions or areas that aren't easily exploited or settled by HSS.

[Cotter]

Thx BFS, I'll read up in that thread as well. (I just KNEW it had to be discussed).

I will add, based on your comments and your research, how do you feel Question 4 plays out?

Would not a logical and reasoned individual conclude that the probability is in favor that there are others out there based on hundreds of thousands of years of documented co-existence?

[Guest BFSleuth]

I don't think HSS is the only member of our genus on this planet. As I pointed out in the other thread it would be an aberration for there to be only one surviving species of our genus, especially a genus that is one of the most intelligent and adaptable on the planet. Look at any other genus and you will see more than one species expressed as part of the genus. It doesn't make sense to me that the most highly developed genus on the planet would be so nonviable as to have only one surviving species.

[Cotter]

Agreed BFS.

Now, add that to having absolutely no proof other species have indeed become extinct, wouldn't the numbers sway to indicate there is a good chance that some of these beings are still alive?

I'm beginning to think that perhaps the 'unbelievable' part about the BF phenom is that there's a chance they do NOT exist.

As an example, there is no proof that Neanderthal became extinct. Only 'modern' science hypothesizing. From a critical point of view, how can one uphold the view that Neanderthal's became extinct?

WAY oversimplified there, but I think my point is made.

Edited August 27, 2012 by Cotter

[Guest BFSleuth]

Well, a true skeptic would say that until we have confirmation of the existence of a species with a type specimen or other irrefutable evidence, then the lack of confirming evidence would indicate that species such as Neanderthal don't exist. However, refutable evidence exists in terms of sighting reports, trackways, etc. that indicate there are bipedal species extant in the woods and mountains of the world. Therefore IMHO it is inconclusive as of yet, but we live in interesting times with the advent of internet databases, forums and sharing of information, and advent of DNA research for establishing species in lieu of a complete type specimen.

[Cotter]

Very true, and I agree that w/o some sort of 'concrete' evidence then we are living in the realm of hypotheses.

But that was kind of my point, we have proof showing that upright walking bipeds shared the planet. However, we don't have proof showing that this proven case is no more.

With that said, wouldn't reason and logic suggest that there is a probable chance that we are still indeed sharing the planet with said bipeds and not other way around?

Where is my breakdown of reason and logic in there?

We have no proof that BF exists, but we also have no proof Neanderthal (used as an example) is extinct. Yet, the hypothesis that Neanderthal's are extinct is widely accepted as fact.

[Guest Flatlander]

How can you prove something doesn't exist?

[Guest]

I returned to the study of human/hominid beginnings this year after a hiatus of some 25 years, and was surprised to see that there had been little advancement from the days when I was taught about Lucy and the Johansson-Leakey rivalry by my long-haired, pot-smoking anthropology lecturer in the African Studies department of the University of Birmingham. I was taught that austrolopithecus africanus had survived due to fire and adaptability, whereas the more robust boisei had fallen away as he could not compete against contemporary suidae who, like he, craved root vegetables but were better adapted to acquire them.

I often wondered whence such speculation derived, until I began my own academic career and came to learn that the more ground-breaking and eye-opening the theory, the better the chance of securing the grant to further one's studies!

I think the last Ice Age should begin to be considered as a factor in the final chapters of the story of Homo, Neanderthal, and any other recent players on the hominid/hominin stage. The event would have caused gradual migrations and changes to survival and nutritional strategies. As a skeptical believer, my view is that there was no 'event' causing the demise of Neanderthal, rather there may have been a fading of populations due to food competition or other environmental factors.

[Guest BFSleuth]

CH, are you indicating a return to academic studies? If so, has there been any discussion in the classroom regarding more recent studies of Neanderthal DNA and Denisovan DNA in HSS, or the more recent discovery of the Red Deer Cave People or homo floresiensis? I'm wondering whether these newer discoveries might be working their way into the discussions of anthropology curriculum, or whether they may be too new for textbooks or professors to catch up to them.

I agree with your thoughts that the last ice age being the catalyst for the demise of Neanderthal is unlikely. They had already survived through several ice ages, so it would seem they could adapt quite well to the most recent event. If they are indeed extinct then it would need to be something else that did it, and it was likely a longer process of food competition.

[Guest]

Hi BFS,

I've returned only to the informal study of the area, not formal classroom study - I still need to make money, and academia (like crime) doesn't pay. So I don't have the scoop on what makes the curriculum these days. You would hope though that DNA is now a cornerstone. All they really had was carbon dating to help back in the day when I was getting taught.

CH

[Cotter]

@Flatlander - good question and part of my point. Why is it accepted so widely as fact if it can't be proven?

Neanderthal's range was Europe and the Middle East. 20,000 years ago, global population was only a couple million (few?). Is that truly enough competition to be outed of your food source - especially in that area?

I find that difficult to believe, but it doesn't mean it's not true.

[Guest]

^ The alleged extinction of neanderthals is only theoretical and not considered fact by anthropologists. Sometimes it is spoken of as fact but since, as is said "you can't prove a negative", it is not in fact a fact.

The theory that neanderthals are extinct is fairly likely however as there has been no evidence of their continued existence. This could be a false appearance (coelacanth anyone) but may be a little harder to justify today for a large social animal that needs to eat roughly 5000 calories a day as per modern thinking about neanderthals.

Claims that Hss couldn't possibly be the only remaining bipedal primate just because we never were the only ones before is not based on logic. Aardvarks are the only members of their genus still in existence and they're from Africa too just like us.

just because something was always one way before does not mean that something will be that way today. We were all rather shorter than our parents at one time.

Populations that become smaller become more susceptible to extinction than they were previously. If Hss became more populous, they would have needed more resources and territories. Other hominids in neighboring territories or similar niches would have to yield them up if they were unable to defend them. This would increase pressure among these other species as resources and options became scarce. Populations would become smaller and weaker and more suceptible to extinction.

Does this mean that all other species of bipedal primates are extinct? No, but this does not mean they are still around either. If BF is real they would most likely inhabit a niche we cannot or will not exploit. This is coherent with typical reports of BF. None of these reports are consistent with neanderthal habitats or niches as we understand them and physical descriptions of BF do not match neanderthals either.

Neanderthals may have lost ground due to competition with Hss and climate changes which resulted in olss of habitat and prey species. Various populations would likely have become more isolated as the population over all began to thin. If Hss transferred diseases to neanderthals this would have reduced many populations without Hss necessarily spreading it around themselves. Surviving populations would have become more inbred resulting likely in infertility and health issues. The relative scarcity of neanderthal populations and Hss populations would have reduced selective pressures for immunity to each others diseases. By the time these diseases began to work on neanderthal populations the situation may have been hopeless as Hss had aquired resistence to neanderthal diseases through a small number of (or even just one) hybridisations.

The world of today is far different from the world that our cousins lived in. Large mammals are scarce and Hss dominates the planet pretty well. The largest remaining habitat in the world that could hide a bipedal primate is the boreal forest habitat of the northern continents. Once upon a time mammoths and mastodons would have cleared huge spaces in these forests. Today they are dense and even dark. But they are bountiful as well. Many species of birds and mammals live in these forests in large numbers relying on numerous species of food plants. Humans live along the margins of these forests more than in them. If we have a relative out there, they will most likely be in just such a habitat, and what do you know, we have reports of such things.

I seriously doubt they are of our genus. They just don't act human as I understand the word and all members of genus Homo are humans. Earlier offshoots from our family tree are more likely.

[Cotter]

Claims that Hss couldn't possibly be the only remaining bipedal primate just because we never were the only ones before is not based on logic. Aardvarks are the only members of their genus still in existence and they're from Africa too just like us.

just because something was always one way before does not mean that something will be that way today. We were all rather shorter than our parents at one time.

I agree that a claim such as 'couldn't possibly' based on the historical record isn't very logical. But a claim such as "statistically possible" isn't as far-fetched. As in the case of aardvarks, I would revise that statement to add 'that science knows of' at the end. Still leaving the situation minutely open-ended. And yes, totally agree that just b/c something was one way does not make it that way at all times. But more often than not that is the case (probability vs possibility).

Populations that become smaller become more susceptible to extinction than they were previously. If Hss became more populous, they would have needed more resources and territories. Other hominids in neighboring territories or similar niches would have to yield them up if they were unable to defend them. This would increase pressure among these other species as resources and options became scarce. Populations would become smaller and weaker and more suceptible to extinction.

I have a bit of trouble trying to visualize such a relatively small number on such a vast area competing for the abundant resources at the time having troubles finding food. Sure, the honey hole would be hotly contested, but the 'losing' group would not have to move far to find other ample resourced areas. We talking single - possibly double digit millions of population spread all across eroupe and asia. There's an awful lot of area to spread out on.

Does this mean that all other species of bipedal primates are extinct? No, but this does not mean they are still around either. If BF is real they would most likely inhabit a niche we cannot or will not exploit. This is coherent with typical reports of BF. None of these reports are consistent with neanderthal habitats or niches as we understand them and physical descriptions of BF do not match neanderthals either.

Very true, I was using Neanderthal as an example, not as a suggested explanation of BF.

Neanderthals may have lost ground due to competition with Hss and climate changes which resulted in olss of habitat and prey species. Various populations would likely have become more isolated as the population over all began to thin. If Hss transferred diseases to neanderthals this would have reduced many populations without Hss necessarily spreading it around themselves. Surviving populations would have become more inbred resulting likely in infertility and health issues. The relative scarcity of neanderthal populations and Hss populations would have reduced selective pressures for immunity to each others diseases. By the time these diseases began to work on neanderthal populations the situation may have been hopeless as Hss had aquired resistence to neanderthal diseases through a small number of (or even just one) hybridisations.

That is a plausible theory I will agree. But it also could be incorrect.

The world of today is far different from the world that our cousins lived in. Large mammals are scarce and Hss dominates the planet pretty well. The largest remaining habitat in the world that could hide a bipedal primate is the boreal forest habitat of the northern continents. Once upon a time mammoths and mastodons would have cleared huge spaces in these forests. Today they are dense and even dark. But they are bountiful as well. Many species of birds and mammals live in these forests in large numbers relying on numerous species of food plants. Humans live along the margins of these forests more than in them. If we have a relative out there, they will most likely be in just such a habitat, and what do you know, we have reports of such things.

*thumbs up* Nothing in there that I would disagree with.

I seriously doubt they are of our genus. They just don't act human as I understand the word and all members of genus Homo are humans. Earlier offshoots from our family tree are more likely.

And this is what everyone is waiting for! It's great to be alive!

[Guest]

You would hope though that DNA is now a cornerstone.

Not an anthropologist here, but my understanding (which could be very off base) is that there is quite a rift within the field between folks who are "DNA" advocates, and those who are not. Perhaps someone (Hairy?) can chime in on this disagreement over the usefulness of DNA, and what it means for the search for BF? Or, you guys can correct my misguided notion