Bipedal Primates Sharing The Earth

[BobZenor]

I don't think there is much of a rift at all if you are talking about scientists. There certainly shouldn't be. It does surprise me how little most anthropology students seem to understand evolutionary theory but I suppose it is easy enough for those that care to and have the ability to figure it out on their own. That isn't as true for biology students so it isn't a problem with the science just the teaching of it. They really bug me with their teaching that humans didn't evolve from monkeys or apes. It causes much confusion in the students who don't understand basic phylogenetic relationships and cladistics. What I mean by that is the first (somewhat arbitrary) member of our ape clad was an ape so we certainly evolved from apes. All of their descendents were apes. It is simple but it seems they don't actually teach that but only when it comes to humans for some reason. It is actually because they don't want to call apes old world monkeys so we aren't monkeys for that reason. It is because of politics, semantics, tradition and people's sensibilities. It isn't real science though.

There are some legitimate differences of opinion on what the DNA means but most of the arguments are just about some of the minor details like if the DNA some of us share with Neanderthals is of more recent origin or if it might be possible that there was a group that was intermediate geographically and thus shared some genes. The more recent injection of DNA seems to be in a dominant position now but it could change with more data.

There are also many that don't understand what DNA results actually mean and it takes them a while to get with the program. Those sort of problems get ironed out over time as certain things become better established and the amount of what we don't know becomes less. They will still ague over mostly more specific details no matter how much we learn. Some will have wild opinions even though sometimes they might be right. Much of what we think we know now was some fringe theory not very long ago especially in paleoanthropology. I have personal experience with that, being on the fringe before with some ideas and now being mainstream more or less since I have been on this forum. Some people still don't seem to get that there were most likely multiple species of hominids in Asia and certainly multiple species in other places. There is still an overwhelming tendency of paleontologists to act like they have all the fossils and base their conclusions on them exclusively like when they went extinct. They also don't seem to get the political bias where logical conclusions are basically ignored. An example is they treat Homo as something special and not "ape" which just scrambles my brain since that really makes no sense. Three species radiate at a time when they are at most marginally technological and the unspoken assumption is that all three lineages evolved into modern humans or went extinct. They extend that sort of logic even when you have very primitive and seemingly divergent Asian "erectus". It is apparently going to take a while to sink in what it means when you have an Asian hominid more primitive than erectus like floresiensis seems to be. It means that there were also apparently much more primitive hominids living in Asia. Most of them just don't think along those lines. They are primarily focused on what evolved into modern humans so they just don't consider that there were logically more primitive hominids living also. That is how you get early Homo lineages evolving into something closer to modern humans when it just doesn't really add up logically. I say that because of the great differences in some of the Asian "erectus". It is still possible considering the possible role of hybridizing. It confuses the equation even more.

As far as the DNA relates to bigfoot and how much it will mean, that depends on how close they are to modern humans and what sort of data has actually been found. It is much harder to prove as it gets closer related. Right now there is really nothing released that anybody can argue about with the exception of some rumors and statements from a few years ago that were apparently changed.

Edited September 18, 2012 by BobZenor

[Guest]

Part of what begged my question had to do with some recent reading (really wish I could remember where I got the notion that there was a significant split in anrthropology, or at least some sort of major friction between geneticists and anthropologists) and a comment by our own Hairy Man that seemed illustrative of it. She said that "No matter what the DNA showed" that BF was not human. She has had her own experiences that have colored her outlook, but I just thought that the sentiment that she expressed followed the idea of this disagreement about the usefulness of DNA - a disagreement between geneticists and anthorpologists on what accounts for good quality evidence. It could be that I have taken her comment out of context, so I am still hoping that she will chime in on my question. Thanks, BobZ, for commenting. There is no doubt that we too are apes, but we have determined that we are very special apes, set apart, less a part of the "bush" than predecessors. Human exceptionalism. What blows my mind in the whole BF phenom is the resistance to the idea of relict hominoids when they exist in the fossil record, and we know (or "officially think") that they have always had overlapping existence (timewise) and range. Scientific resistance to the idea, considering what we know, is mind boggling. So mind boggling as to make one wander into conspiracy land...

[BobZenor]

I was wondering who that guy named Harry was. I don't think that argument has made it to the scientific community yet. We shall see how it turns out when/if the DNA study comes out. The only way someone could argue against it is with the assumption that there are multiple species.

I remember one comment from Harry Man was restricted to Homo sapiens sapiens. I would agree that it would be very hard to accept that we are actually the same species based on DNA. I don't think anyone would argue with it though if it were significantly different at least in some of the genes. The argument against would logically fade over time assuming that it isn't actually a modern human as the conclusion. DNA is just less persuasive if there isn't much difference.

[Guest]

Cotter, I have two excellent books by Richard Leakey titled "The Making of Mankind" and "Origins Reconsidered" that show the bipedal "family bush". It's fascinating. It's actually unusual to have so few ape-hominid creatures - right now we only have chimps, orangutans, gorillas and humans (and however many bigfoot species there are). Fascinating stuff.

[Guest]

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.

Did neanderthals become extinct exactly 25000 years ago? Probably not. But even if they continued for ten thousand years after that they would have eventually come up against H sapiens as they became agrarian and super populous. True humans of both species were spread thinly at first but eventually, our ability to sustain larger populations on smaller portions of land would have eliminated large enough spaces for neanderthals.

Three species radiate at a time when they are at most marginally technological and the unspoken assumption is that all three lineages evolved into modern humans or went extinct. They extend that sort of logic even when you have very primitive and seemingly divergent Asian "erectus". It is apparently going to take a while to sink in what it means when you have an Asian hominid more primitive than erectus like floresiensis seems to be. It means that there were also apparently much more primitive hominids living in Asia. Most of them just don't think along those lines. They are primarily focused on what evolved into modern humans so they just don't consider that there were logically more primitive hominids living also. That is how you get early Homo lineages evolving into something closer to modern humans when it just doesn't really add up logically. I say that because of the great differences in some of the Asian "erectus". It is still possible considering the possible role of hybridizing. It confuses the equation even more.

I'm not sure I understand your perception of the evolutionary process. From my readings, I gather that populations evolve into the new breeds that then form new populations that then evolve into new species. Each population evolves in its own way and hybridisations unite disparate strains. The whole species is irrlevent to most evolutionary episodes. Only the populations matter. Asian populations of H erectus may have evolved into a plethora of subspecies and some of these probably evolved into separate species.

The species we refer to as H erectus may be a label of convenience covering disparate lineages of genus Homo. We often look at the family tree as having a few branches but in truth the family bush had dozens, perhaps even hundreds of branches. Most of them were fleeting and succumbed to extinction shortly after inception, others spread out to inhabit new territories. Asia may have been settled time and again by differing strains of our genus.

[BobZenor]

I'm not sure I understand your perception of the evolutionary process. From my readings, I gather that populations evolve into the new breeds that then form new populations that then evolve into new species. Each population evolves in its own way and hybridisations unite disparate strains. The whole species is irrlevent to most evolutionary episodes. Only the populations matter. Asian populations of H erectus may have evolved into a plethora of subspecies and some of these probably evolved into separate species.

The species we refer to as H erectus may be a label of convenience covering disparate lineages of genus Homo. We often look at the family tree as having a few branches but in truth the family bush had dozens, perhaps even hundreds of branches. Most of them were fleeting and succumbed to extinction shortly after inception, others spread out to inhabit new territories. Asia may have been settled time and again by differing strains of our genus.

I think you are talking about radiation events where the entire species isn't going to matter. In the case of Homo we have multiple groups that are supposedly extremely closely related living in the same area. The way paleontologists generally define species is when a population displays a set of specific characteristics that are preserved over time. That means in early Homo that erectus, habilis and rudolfensis maintained a distinct set of characteristics over a considerable amount of time so they are generally considered separate species. I have a hard time believing they could have changed much in that amount of time where they wouldn't likely interbreed if they shared the same niche. That is the main reason that I doubt they were all technological. There are also more involved reasons but that is the gist.

I think there were likely several waves of hominids in Asia. The first likely very roughly about 2.5 million years ago considering the primitive features of floresiensis. The next wave was possibly about 2 million with habilis and erectus. The next major wave was about 800,000 years ago where the ancestor of heidelbergensis likely became the dominant hominid in most places on earth. They radiated into modern humans in Africa, Neanderthals in Europe and at least Denisovans in Asia. I still think it was likely that a more cryptic species from early Homo survived until present. That is just based on there being a bigfoot if you believe that which I am pretty convinced from personal experience is true.

The differences in some of the Asian erectus is very profound. They didn't maintain any set of characteristics besides a moderately larger brain but some also show signs of being very large so that could account for the large size of the brain. Some show reduced frontal lobes and others had massive jaws and teeth. There is no reason to assume that one of them wasn't significantly more distantly related and descended from another branch of early Homo besides the old at least somewhat discredited notion that erectus left Africa first. The reason that is significant is that it means they likely diverged before there was any significant technology. I don't really agree with the idea that a technological hominid can't radiate into a new species but it isn't necessarily even relevant. It might be difficult for us since we have changed significantly as we adapted to our technological niche. You can't really say that about early Homo.

We aren't really saying much differently. The difference may be that I am looking at it as if there is a non-technological hominid living today and how it could have easily evolved from early Homo. You seem to be arguing that early Homo was too human. That is where I see the only major difference.

Edited September 19, 2012 by BobZenor

[Drew]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081229105039.htm

This was a study in 2008, here is an article about it.

[Cotter]

Thx for the link Drew.

What is interesting is there is a newer article linked within that one that suggests just the opposite of what the article you linked says.

Link above says competition, link within (from 2011) says climate change.

I think it illustrates just how much guesswork is involved with this sort of stuff.

[Guest]

^ and ^^ I believe both factors contributed. Was one dominant? Perhaps, but I find that to be irrelevent in the long run. Many species became extinct during this time and most if not all of them can be connected to climate change and human presence.

[Guest]

We aren't really saying much differently. The difference may be that I am looking at it as if there is a non-technological hominid living today and how it could have easily evolved from early Homo. You seem to be arguing that early Homo was too human. That is where I see the only major difference.

Agreed. I'm a "bleeding heart" according to my father because I believe chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans are at least "people-like" He doesn't actually disagree with me, he just likes to yank my chain because of my politics. (we won't go into that)

I certainly think Homo erectus was human in every sense of the word. I also think Homo neanderthalensis was human. Judging from the DNA results, I think denisovans were human.

I think they made and used tools. Perhaps not as elaborate as ours but they were more sophisticated than the tools that came before them. Evolution proceeds slowly, little by little. This would be just as true for us as for other kinds of animals. An early species that posessed a genetic code enabling or even pushing a tool-making habit would likely spread to most if not all descendents. Tools have been found in Africa, Asia and Europe demonstrating that humans of, most likely, several species made them. These species were not in direct conflict for most of their evolution. Only as they expanded into new territores did they interact at all. Speciation does not require all populations to evolve into differing niches. Most ""new" or incipient species are scarcely different from their kin. Numerous generations are required for a species to evolve into something significantly different from their forebears or neighbors.

[BobZenor]

I think it is very likely some of the Asian erectus don't have any ancestry that had significant technology. Some of them probably also shouldn't necessarily be assumed to be erectus.

Georgicus is a good example for how some of the previous assumptions about erectus leaving Africa first are questionable. It is classified as a subspecies of erectus but it is very similar to habilis.

http://www.science.o...salom Vekua.pdf

Because of its morphological features, small size of skull and brain volume (600 cubic cm) Dmanisi hominid manifests similarity to the oldest H. habilis. It was relatively short (height – about 1.5 m) and had very narrow, sloped forehead with moderately developed shaft of eye socket, saliently manifested prognathism, slightly flat face, relatively narrow nose, noticeably wide cheek-bones, strong protruded canine, narrow V-like alveolar arcs, teeth of archaic structure and, which is especially important, evidently small volume of brain (600 cubic cm).

I remember watching a TV special about Georgicus where the anthropologists said they found no significant technology but they did find piles of rocks like they were there to be used as throwing weapons. I don't know why the paleontologists said that they didn't find tools other than the piles of rock but they must have been only talking about in a certain area. The rock piles were pretty interesting to me but I never verified what they said with a more reliable source. Rock piles don't necessarily imply a fixed camp or higher intelligence though. Chimps will makes piles of rocks to throw later by the way. There was one in a zoo that did that and waited for the right time to create the maximum effect.

They apparently did find some more significant technology but it wasn't nearly as elaborate as stone hand axes. You still don't know that Georgicus left the more advanced technology. There may have been an early erectus in the mix. That likely was before hand axes. It generally takes a significant amount of time to bury something. For that reason you really can't say who made a tool and you also don't know if was used by the hominid that killed him. Perhaps georgicus wasn't the dominant species. The tool wasn't very impressive even if they made it but their brain was larger than a chimp's so I don't mean to imply I doubt they could have made it.

Some of the Georgian scientists and other scientists agree with me by the way. That should say something about erectus and habilis likely cohabiting with one likely less technological than the other even in Asia.

http://www.science.o...salom Vekua.pdf

We presume that two populations of early hominids inhabited South Georgia 1.8 million years ago: Homo ergaster and Homo georgicus. But not everybody shares this view of Georgian scientists. Some foreign scientists think that only one population of early hominids has been found in Dmanisi. Professor J. Schwarz from Pittsburgh University shares our version and notes that hominid remains unearthed in Dmanisi undoubtedly belong to two or several species, which coexisted for a certain period of time. We realize that the view on the existence of two species in Dmanisi calls for more discoveries to be proved and we believe this will be the case

I realize that there are many people that now say they are erectus but that doesn't surprise me. I am skeptical and think it likely is people trying to preserve the erectus first out of Africa hypothesis. Hybridization could easy happen and that likely has been why some don't think Asian and African erectus are different species. They found an African erectus that shared some Asian features so many assumed they are all the same species. They used to call African erectus ergaster but now that is pretty much only the first ones called that. They might be confusing the later arrival of the ancestors of heidelbergensis where you would expect them to be very similar. I am unconvinced and still suspect they are completely different species where the older Asian erectus before a million years ago are a combination of descendents of early African erectus/ergaster and other species of Homo.

Edited September 20, 2012 by BobZenor

[Drew]

There is also another possibility that I hadn't thought of.

That Neandertals are not extinct. We are Neandertals and they are us. If the human Genome contains a percentage of Neandertal DNA, are they truly extinct?

[BobZenor]

We share much of our genes with all other mammals and you could even carry that logic farther to include bacteria. Some genes are that well conserved in living organisms apparently by being indispensable. They aren't quite extinct in the literal sense but they are as biological species unless there is still some of them around somewhere like the Caucasus.

The link is very well written about the evolution of life. I only included it in case someone doubts the bacteria comment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....books/NBK26866/

The studies that led to the classification of the living world into the three domains of bacteria, archaea, and eucaryotes were based chiefly on analysis of one of the ribosomal RNA subunits—the so-called 16S RNA, which is about 1500 nucleotides long. Because the process of translation is fundamental to all living cells, this component of the ribosome has been well conserved since early in the history of life on Earth (Figure 1-22).

I think that bigfoot is more logically a species of hominins that evolved to elude more dominant hominins. It didn't necessarily have to start in Africa in early Homo. It could have started later with hominids more closely related to us and it may have evolved entirely in Asia. Early Homo seems most likely and there are also logical reason why the cryptic niche may have started to evolve early in Homo or possibly even earlier. If you go back much farther than early Homo for candidates some of the features like the protruding nose even though it is apparently flat become harder to explain.

[Drew]

The problem with that idea BZ, is that Bigfoot would have been vastly dominant over any of the hominins that we have found evidence of. Why would he need to elude those little fellas?

[Guest poignant]

Drew:

My take: a technologically superior but diminutive species will be able to rout and kill larger species using technology and tactics.

Combined with agriculture and food distribution systems, Hss was able to dedicate members of its species to specialize in warfare (i.e. soldiers) without having to invest time in other pursuits e.g. hunting, farming, gathering.

I think that BF's elusiveness was selected FOR and those that remain are those who wisely decided to avoid contact with humans.

Edited September 20, 2012 by poignant