Study Shows Sasquatch Intelligence Impossible Without Fire.

[Guest]

But nowhere near enough intelligence to what a sasquatch is credited with or must have to avoid detection as a species.

Of course that begs the point that sas are detected quite often, or else we would not have anything to talk about on the forum, now would we?

I've never bought the "infallable woods ninja" argument. They're obviously smart and elusive, like many other critters in the woods, but they make mistakes sometimes, or circumstances make it unavoidable for their presence to be made known.

Humans get caught on game cams all the time. It's the Bigfoots that don't.

Oh? Is it that they don't, or are all the photos that ARE taken dismissed as hoaxes out of hand in accordance with the Skeptical playbook?

Please provide an example of a human tribe or community that eats only raw food.

Every hominid tribe and community prior to the introduction of cooking some 300-500,000 years ago.

"Raw food" advocates today.

Added failure in your argument: nothing says sas has to be "modern human". Not even Ketchum's results said that.

The biggest drawback to raw food diets would be the amount of time needed to forage in order to obtain the amounts of food needed to overcome the caloric efficiency deficit. BF, not having anything else to do, would have plenty of time to devote to foraging. It is interesting that BF are said to be particularly fond of high-caloric density organ meats (liver, etc) from large herbivores (deer, etc). This would be important in a raw food diet.

Would the natural breaking down of tissues by putrification accomplish the same thing as cooking? Rotted meat is a smell that is often associated with BF.

The Innuit make much use of fermented (ie, rotted) meat. Guar (fermented fish paste) was a valuable and valued commodity in the Roman Empire. Kimchee is fermented/rotted cabbage.

[Guest BFSleuth]

Speaking of fermented meat, I watched a documentary that showed how an Innuit tribe would catch small birds (Puffins?) with nets by laying down near their nesting areas then hosting the nets when the birds flew by. They would collect hundreds of birds, then sew a hundred birds or so into a seal skin and use fat to cover the needle holes to make a complete seal. At the end of the season a typical village would have dozens of seal skins filled with these birds, which would then "ferment" for months. This was a delicacy for them, with a very strong smell when they opened a seal skin. The meat was almost liquid.

[Guest]

The article describes the discovery as part of a "first ever ape census in northern Congo" and one reseacher is qouted as saying "We knew there were apes there, we just had no idea how many". It's not like it was being explored for decades and the gorillas weren't found. When the scientists went into the remote area, they found them.

In much larger numbers than anyone ever dreamed. Which was the point. Large numbers of animals can go UNdetected by man for considerable periods of time.

[Guest]

In much larger numbers than anyone ever dreamed. Which was the point. Large numbers of animals can go UNdetected by man for considerable periods of time.

Not if people go looking for them or the areas where they are at are scientifically surveyed.

[Cotter]

Hi Jerry, I'm not so sure about the former of your statement, I think skill and experience play an important factor in 'looking for them'.

And the latter of your statement, I don't believe a scientific survey has been undertaken in the US in recent years that targeted BF.

[salubrious]

Every hominid tribe and community prior to the introduction of cooking some 300-500,000 years ago.

"Raw food" advocates today.

Actually the paleontologists seem to think that humans have only controlled fire within the last 100,000 to 200,000 years. Cooking does not seem to show up until about 60,000 years ago. It takes about 50,000 years for a gene mutation to spread through an entire population; its a good bet that most humans today do not have the enzyme mutation to allow us to digest cooked food without an autoimmune response.

I have a number of 'edible wild foods' books published in the 1930s to the 1950s or 60s; all of them have a preface that speaks with alarm due to all the diseases showing up in the 20th century due to processed foods. IOW, its not as if raw foods are a new idea

[Guest]

And the latter of your statement, I don't believe a scientific survey has been undertaken in the US in recent years that targeted BF.

But there are surveys of possible bigfoot habitat by biologists attempting to document what species live there and their numbers. Not all species are discovered by people attempting to look for them. The mountain gorilla was "discovered" by German colonists exploring the borders of their territory.

[Guest]

@salubrious - what you say is true. I've read a good deal of information suggesting many modern health issues became more abundant with the practice of refining flour alone. Heaven only knows what will come of what we call food today.

[Cotter]

Very true Jerry. However, that does not necessarily mean that a BF would just hang around to be discovered, right?

Supposedly these creatures have intelligence between chimp and human - and a knack for the outdoors that are not rivaled. It wouldn't be be difficult for a pod of these things to easily outflank a loud, slow moving scientific survey.

If one happened to be spotted by FLIR or the like from the air. What would keep the person evaluating the data from dismissing it as a person on the ground? That would be the most logical explanation, correct?

There have been thousands of alledged 'discoveries' of this creature by folks not looking for them. It's that pesky proof that hasn't been able to surface for science to acknowledge it.

[Guest]

If one happened to be spotted by FLIR or the like from the air. What would keep the person evaluating the data from dismissing it as a person on the ground? That would be the most logical explanation, correct?

Presuming you mean "person in an ape suit", nothing. But if they detected multiple hairy walking bipeds on a certain area, than they probably would look further.

[Guest]

Not if people go looking for them or the areas where they are at are scientifically surveyed.

It took 20+ years of dedicated searching to document the giant squid in the wild. That was with major funding for full-on professional investigation.

Actually the paleontologists seem to think that humans have only controlled fire within the last 100,000 to 200,000 years. Cooking does not seem to show up until about 60,000 years ago. It takes about 50,000 years for a gene mutation to spread through an entire population; its a good bet that most humans today do not have the enzyme mutation to allow us to digest cooked food without an autoimmune response.

I have a number of 'edible wild foods' books published in the 1930s to the 1950s or 60s; all of them have a preface that speaks with alarm due to all the diseases showing up in the 20th century due to processed foods. IOW, its not as if raw foods are a new idea

http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_4.htm

The first reasonably good evidence of cooking is in the form of burned bones and fire altered stones at the Chinese site of Zhoukoudian dating sometime between 780,000 and 400,000 years ago.

[Guest]

It took 20+ years of dedicated searching to document the giant squid in the wild. That was with major funding for full-on professional investigation.

Actually it took two years assuming your referring to the Japanese study and physical remains of the squid were documated since the 1860s. Also, its easier for an animal to avoid humans in the deep ocean depths.

Edited October 30, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[southernyahoo]

This appears to be a good paper on the topic. Animal foods and fatty acids are proposed as most important to brain encephalization among early hominids. It covers the full range of factors which plays a part in energy conservation vs expenditure vs. energy rich diets.

http://www.pinniped.net/Snodgrassenergetics2009.pdf

In addition to requiring an energy-dense diet, the human brain has additional demands

for essential fatty acids (e.g., long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids, such as arachidonic acid

[AA] and docosahexanoic acid [DHA]) that are critical for optimal neural development and

functioning (Fernstrom and Fernstrom, 2003). As reviewed by Cordain and colleagues

(2001), evolutionary increases in mammalian brain size are apparently constrained by the

limited dietary availability in plants of certain fatty acids (i.e., linoleic acid and a-linolenic

acid) that are necessary for conversion to AA and DHA. Certain carnivorous species,

however, circumvent constraints on endogenous synthesis by directly ingesting AA and DHA

in prey species. Limitations in the availability of AA and DHA could have been a barrier to

encephalization in australopithecines if they consumed only limited quantities of vertebrate

foods. However, early members of the genus Homo would have markedly increased their

consumption of AA and DHA by direct consumption of these fatty acids in the tissues (e.g.,

brain, muscle, fat, and liver) of terrestrial mammals (Cordain et al., 2001). Brain tissue is a

particularly rich source of both AA and DHA, while liver and muscle are good sources of AA 14

and moderate sources of DHA (Cordain et al., 2001).

[salubrious]

http://anthro.paloma...homo/homo_4.htm

An interesting article, but not conclusive by any means. The site mentioned could have had burned bones for other reasons. However its not that important- the fact of the matter is that raw foods were much more common in our diets up until about 100 years ago when food processing really started to take off. One of the most common myths about food these days is that we need to cook it to digest it.

At any rate one of the big reasons BF does not control fire is that its hair, while making it unnecessary, also makes it dangerous!

[BobZenor]

SY,

What plants are they talking about that don't have the oils that are required for brains. They must be looking at herbivores like grazers and assuming hominids had the same diet if they were vegetarian. Otherwise what they say makes no sense at all. I doubt it makes any sense no matter how you look at it. Even most fruits have nutritious seeds. All ancient hominids are likely going to include seeds and nuts that are high in linoleic acid in their diets. The only possible exception that comes to mind is neanderthals since they were primarily carnivores.

It shouldn't really need an example of foods high in linoleic acid considering the number of cultures that are primarily vegetarian with no diminished brain size. That pretty much falsifies the theory by itself.

Linoleic acid

http://en.wikipedia....d#In_physiology

It is abundant in many vegetable oils, comprising over half (by weight) of poppy seed, safflower, sunflower, and corn oils.^[6

Even grass seed is probably high. I picked wheat for a random example.

http://www.mountainr...e/wheatgerm.php

Fatty Acids

Oleic- 12.1%

Palmitic- 17.1%

Linoleic- 58.4%

Linolenic- 9.2%

Humans populations that get the most ideal amounts of all required nutrients are going to be most successful. Practically every modern human population before modern times combined grains and legumes to get a better mix of the essential amino acids for example. It isn't hard to figure out why. Meat is harder to come by and less reliable as a source of protein so wasn't usually as available as the primary source of calories. It is logical that the ancient culture that uses a healthier combination of foods is going to increase since they compete better. Nutrition has a large effect on their fitness. That isn't going to change in ancient hominids. They still had culture. Even chimps have hundreds of different plants they learned to eat from their culture. Those that chose the best mix of plants sources of food are going to be healthiest. The point there is it isn't going to be hard to find raw plant sources with plenty of linoleic acid and that there was no environmental constraint on any early hominids due to lack of essential oils. Their culture would evolve to learn how to get all the nutrients needed if they didn't eat meat. Just because they ate meat isn't any reason whatsoever to assume that it was required since all the nutrients are abundant in the environment and clearly available from plant sources.

Humans require an energy dense food because we lack the digestive system and jaws required to process less dense food in greater quantity. It isn't the brain that requires energy dense food. It is our inability to chew large amounts of plant materials and digest rough food more efficiently. The only way they come to the conclusion that they required meat is to decide what plant sources they want the hominids to eat. There are plenty of plant sources that have all the nutrients in any land environment where ancient humans could have lived.

You could probably survive eating them raw but cooking makes it easier for us with our reduced jaws and shorter digestive systems. Carbohydrates in particular are made easier to digest. You get much more calories from well cooked onions which are rich in inulin. Many roots contain that so cooking greatly increases the number of foods available and calories available especially in many tubers if you use fire. We are especially well adapted to eat starch which is another primary storage carbohydrate in plants often stored in tubers. We could also eat those raw but cooking makes those easier to digest as well.

We happened to eat more energy rich food because we got smarter. That is a consequence of technology. Digging tools and hunting weapons are examples. We didn't get smarter because we ate meat or richer foods. The argument why we needed fire to increase brain size is just more of the flawed logic. It happened because the smarter ones were the ones to survive. There were no special requirement like diet or lack of a sagittal crest that allowed the brain to grow. It was a change in niche. The brain could have grown larger without fire and technology. All it required was the selection for it to happen. Some of those scientists don't seem to understand basic evolution. It is more like they are trying to force data to fit some predefined narrative. Any animal could grow a larger brain if the selection pressure allowed it. It is only difficult because of the great energy demand requires a great deal of extra return from the increased intelligence. It is an energy efficiency equation where the cost of the brain in extra energy required has to be paid by some special advantage. We happened to find it with technology and likely how much more dangerous that made us. None of that means that a bigfoot isn't smart because it doesn't use fire. It is all circular reasoning and flawed logic. They sound like people that look at evolution as goal oriented. They think higher intelligence is a goal. In reality it only evolves if there is a demonstrated benefit compared to the more energy efficient guy with a smaller brain. It is a hard hurdle to overcome.

Edited October 30, 2012 by BobZenor