Squatchy: Giganto Or Not?

[Guest wudewasa]

Careful, as some of you are putting the cart before the horse. Except for neanderthal and "x-woman" we don't have DNA of any other extinct bipedal primates to compare with modern humans. You can "bet" bigfoot arose from whatever species that you choose, but untli we have the evidence to link the DNA profiles as closely related species, it's just conjecture.

Edited February 19, 2011 by wudewasa

[Guest vilnoori]

I did notice that the Nature article on the nuclear DNA of Denisovans (associated with "X-woman") mentioned the extraordinary large size of the molar from which the DNA was extracted. We do not have DNA from erectus to compare Denisovan DNA to. Yet.

Edited February 19, 2011 by vilnoori

[Guest ajciani]

Giganto or what, that is the question, which can only be answered via morphological analysis at this time.

The evidence provided by witness accounts and suspected hair samples:

• General body structure - very similar to humans, but short legs and long arms.
  
• Feet - Almost human, but presenting a fallen arch.
  
• Face - Almost human.
  
• Hair - Almost human.
  
• Boobs - Female biggies seem to have them, and many of the ones with bouncies were observed to have infants, indicating permanent boobs at sexual maturity.
  
• Eat meat.
  

What we know (or suspect) about the Gigantopithecus genus is that they were apes. Very solidly apes descended from Sivapithecus. They are essentially cousins of orangutans. They probably had an ape body plan, ape feet, orang-like hair, and boobs apparent only when lactating. Giganto (all species) were very solid plant eaters.

So Giganto they are most certainly not.

Given how morphologically similar they are to humans (so many attributes are "almost human"), they must be somewhere near the human lineage.

[Guest Sallaranda]

A species is defined by the ability for two individuals to successfully breed in the wild and create viable offspring. I'm not sure how easy it is for modern science to depict species based solely on DNA evidence, but from the examples provided it seems as though they can be fairly successful with it. I'd be willing to be that Bigfoot, therefore, is not the same species as us humans. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that we have evolved convergently, not divergently. It doesn't seem likely that a common ancestor has spawned both humans and bigfoot, due to fossil records in PNW (or lack thereof).

[Guest]

Do you guys feel squatchy is Giganto, a proto homonid, or something else? And why?

First neat answers. Personally, I do not feel enough evidence is in for a number of reasons.

My reaction is:

1) I am not convinced that we are talking about one species throughout North and (if the reports are true, I think they are), South America.

2) The size difference suggests adults from a range of height between approx 2 meters to possibly 5 but much more likely 4 meters or less. Since evidence collection is variable, and questions abound regarding what is real and what is not I

do not know what to accept as maxiumum size. (For now approx 4 meters maybe.)

3) The human fossil record is fractional of what it may turn out to be so what are we missing? (At least this is my current take)

4) There are many reports of apelike loaded up massive individuals with full traps (trapezius muscle) which have characteristics like modern tropical great apes (2 gorilla spp, bonobo, chimp,and orangutan). These do not seem particularly humanistic, except for facial features and perhaps some bits and pieces depending on who you talk to.(*AND it may very well be that the offspring before maturation have a LOT more human characters). But there are many reports of something else, either a variant of some sort or possibly a different spp. that I have been told is a cave man or definitely a human species.

SO I would have to say.. I simply do not know but would be surprised if it is Gigantopithecus. From what I have read about that just seems too easy.. even though Krantz took special pains to describe why this species could walk erect or hunker down on all fours like SOME of the reports we receive today. With the other circumstances, I would be surprised if it is something we know as well.. but I guess my stance is just surprise.. at every turn lol.

5. On the other hand, if you look at the variabiity of Homo sapiens, us, then that may suggest that whatever it is may be represented by just one species. Especially so when considering maturation, older adults, and recessive characters that may arise to certain local populations that may be inbred. For me at this point, it is conjecture as mentioned before, and I just want more first hand experiences. Someone else can play doctor.. lol.

Edited February 19, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest]

A species is defined by the ability for two individuals to successfully breed in the wild and create viable offspring. I'm not sure how easy it is for modern science to depict species based solely on DNA evidence, but from the examples provided it seems as though they can be fairly successful with it. I'd be willing to be that Bigfoot, therefore, is not the same species as us humans. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that we have evolved convergently, not divergently. It doesn't seem likely that a common ancestor has spawned both humans and bigfoot, due to fossil records in PNW (or lack thereof).

Interesting comments..

Edited February 19, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest Sallaranda]

Sallaranda, the problem with that definition, although technically correct is it does not allow for exceptions: Closely related spp can sometimes or often hybridize with no problems and that is one of the ways that new species occur. Example: Eastern coyotes with wolf blood, wolf dog hybrids and the red wolf with coyote blood. Many other examples occur as well particularly in the lower vertebrate sections.. Just thought I would throw this in simply because sometimes things are not as cut and dried as some of the science texts make it out to be whatever the level of student directed at. Some apparently depends on politics and opinion unfortunately..

I understand there are exceptions to this definition, but regardless that is how the definition of spp currently stands. Science has a way of making exceptions for the rules that we try to instill on it. That's just the way things go.

haha i quoted you before you could edit. nothing to be ashamed of here mate, just a good friendly discussion.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Sallaranda

[southernyahoo]

Nice link southernyahoo! Yes, DNA will defintely open up a new can of worms to ponder.

Here lies the debate amongst scientists regarding taxonomy. How much genetic variation exists to truly describe a population of reproducing individuals as a species?

There are taxonomists that have reclassified species based on genetic analysis alone, and not everyone agrees on their assertions.

For example, Burbrink's genetic analysis of the rat snake complex in this paper http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/698.pdf led to the reorganization of North American ratsnakes into three separate species by Dr. Joe Collins. However, not everyone believes that there are three distinct rat snake species, as it is difficult to test the hypothesis of geographic isolating mechanisms over such a large and inconclusive range.

In taxonomy, there are lumpers and splitters. The splitters argue that more populations must be recognized as distinct species, while lumpers tend to reduce the taxonomic complexity of related species, consolidating them together.

Designating or the revoking of an organism as a species can have serious effects on a culture, economy, conservation and legal ramifications. Ultimately,

with the discovery of genetics, more questions arise as the data is interpreted.

Thanks, Given that with the cases I gave where the morphological differences were so slight, it looks promising that DNA will be able to make the split between BF and whatever it is closest related to, atleast on the surface.

On the subject of faked DNA, I'm glad they were developing a test to detect faked DNA, that will come in handy. Another point though would be that faked DNA would come from a lab not biological samples where repeatable tests can be done on them.

[Guest]

I understand there are exceptions to this definition, but regardless that is how the definition of spp currently stands. Science has a way of making exceptions for the rules that we try to instill on it. That's just the way things go.

haha i quoted you before you could edit. nothing to be ashamed of here mate, just a good friendly discussion.

That is sneaky lol!!

Edited February 19, 2011 by treeknocker

[Guest TooRisky]

Proto-Hominid; descendant of early man... This is my best answer from the one clear, but brief observation...

[BobZenor]

I think they are cold adapted hominids that split from some early group that made it to Asia. They may have split from our lineage earlier in Africa.

Some of the big problems with Giganto have been mentioned. Another one is that Giganto were extremely sexually dimorphic or the males were very much larger. That seems rather unlikely to suddenly change.

You basically have two choices where one is for hominids to grow larger, which is easy, and the other requires all sorts of convergent evolution which isn't easy to justify. Sure that could possibly happen but there is no particular reason to need that to happen. Hominids are perfectly acceptable as ancestors of bigfoot no matter what your objection. Three million years ago, they all had brains about the size of a chimps. Some hominids survived until at least a million years ago that split from our lineage about 3 million years ago. There is no reason to assume that lineages became more human after they split from our lineage and there is in fact a reason to suppose they wouldn't. Our niche or lifestyle was already occupied. To split into a new species generally requires that they change niche or become genetically isolated. We know there were multiple lineages living at the same time and place so that leaves changing lifestyle in some significant way where they became genetically isolated.

The arguments against hominids relies on very dubious assumptions.

Assumptions:

1). All Asian hominids were technological.

There is a lack of stone hand axes in eastern Asia. Fire is generally assumed to have started about 800,000 years ago. Hominids have actually been in Asia for much longer. There is indirect evidence of hominid lineages arriving in Asia even before 2 million years ago. Even at the time of the earliest known Asian hominids, there were multiple species of hominids living in Africa. It is very dubious to assume that all hominids used significant tools. Assigning tools is not reliable when there are multiple populations. Stone tools survive much better than bones and there would be countless examples made from each tool maker. There is no reason to assume that different lineages are going to all become more technological or even become technological just because our lineage apparently did. There is no reason to assume that a hominid made a tool just because a tool was found nearby when we know there we multiple species. Tools get buried in geological time scales. Hunter gather types generally change campsites every few years. They are going to occupy all the sites in their larger territories before any fossil would become significantly buried.

Even some monkeys carry rocks for miles to use as tools to smash nuts. Some chimps make crude spears to hunt bushbabies in holes. All chimps don't make spears. Are we supposed to assume that bigfoot is dumber than a chimp because it doesn't make crude spears to hunt with. Are we supposed to assume that chimps that don't use spears just gave them up. It is obviously a culture issue or learned behavior and that potentially changes much faster than genes do. There are even examples of modern humans losing fire and significant technology and we have become rather weak with undersized jaws and teeth. If the ancestors of bigfoot exploited a niche that didn't require tools, they would lose them even if they ever had them.

2). Hominids were "hairless".

We have as many hairs as a chimp. Our body hair is just very fine. It wouldn't be surprising for them to grow more hair if they moved to a colder environment even if they had very little hair.

One of the arguments about when we became hairless involves hair lice that showed that humans lost their hair something like 3.5 million years ago. Basically, it goes something like this. We gained pubic lice from gorillas and those lice diverged from the gorilla lice that long ago. So far so good. They are actually different because the pubic hair is thicker. According to the theory, they needed the bare skin between them to isolate them from the head. All it takes to get lice from someone is to touch their hair. It should be obvious why lack of body hair should make no difference. They are obviously isolated because the hair is different and not because of some imagined impenetrable barrier of naked skin.

Then there is the so called DNA evidence of when one of the skin pigments changed. That is supposed to say when we went hairless. Faces of chimps have bare skin on the face. Changes in skin pigments probably only logically relate to latitude changes or possibly moving into a more or less forested place.

The argument about losing hair to allow cooling makes too many assumptions. It assumes that losing the protection of the hair equals the dubious benefit from increased cooling or evaporation. Arabs don't run around naked to cool off in the sun. The heat lost from evaporation doesn't change on naked skin relative to hairy skin. You also lose the shade from the hair. The assumption was also based on them living where the fossils happened to be found. That was logically purely because of the geology of the African rift that favored fossil formation and not because that is the only place that our ancestors lived.

Bottom line is there is no good evidence when we even became significantly hairless. Even if there were, growing hairy is what you would expect in a cold environment assuming they don't wear cloths. That likely happened about 150,000 years ago in Africa. Wearing skins obviously happened earlier in Neanderthals. They can tell by teeth wear that they stretched leather with their teeth. It would be quite a stretch,no pun intended, to extend that to hominids that arrived in Asia before a million years ago.

3). Size.

There are no hominids in the fossil record that are clearly as large as bigfoot is reported to be. If bigfoot exists, they obviously don't occupy the same niche as modern humans. For the size argument to be valid, you would need to explain what would prevent any hominid from simply growing larger over time. Bigfoot would obviously be cold adapted. That tends to make animals more hairy and much larger. Some of the meganthropus do seem to have been quite large and were almost as large as giganto based on teeth which is the same evidence some seem very willing to accept for giganto being large. Growing larger is simple from a biological perspective.

4). Social structure.

Some people argue that it is likely closer to orangutans because they both seem to forage independently. Orangutans are very social when they come together in large groups. They just need to gather their food separately because it is usually spread out. Female chimps also often need to find food on their own. That makes them more vulnerable to males and is the reason usually given to explain why bonobos females aren't dominated by males. There is enough food in the bonobo environment so the females could forage together. Social groups have more to do with finding food and the protection from predators or others of their kind.

It obviously aided us in passing on greater amounts of information and technology. We also are much more formidable when we attack in very large groups. That obviously doesn't apply to bigfoot so the argument of saying they are not socially like humans is not really a valid disqualifier or even a good reason to suppose some "ape" makes a better candidate for their ancestor. The word "ape" has to be quoted because the logic used to disqualify early hominids implies that early hominids were not apes. That is simply not valid objective science.

Edited February 19, 2011 by BobZenor

[Guest]

Found this:

file:///Users/Apple/Desktop/Tibet%20-%20The%20Yeti%20-%20Did%20it%20survived%3F.webloc

With a brief mention of Gigantopithicus maybe moving from the Himylains (sp) moving into southeastern asia. Which, in a wild conclusion-jumping theory would point to the yeren being an off-shoot of the almas. Wildly unsubstiantiated....but fun to ponder.

My 2cents...not only do I think they are a relic hominid, but for my own reasons I'm looking into a west to east circumpolar migration as opposed to the Russia/Alaska route. Also thinly supported by old finds in Greenland.

Edited February 19, 2011 by grayjay

[Guest]

Do you guys feel squatchy is Giganto, a proto homonid, or something else? And why?

something for everyone from "On The Track".

forteanzoology.blogspot.com/.../dale-drinnon-dissection-of-and.html

Edited February 19, 2011 by grayjay

[Guest]

Bob sums up my thoughts in post #26, better than I could put it. I also feel squatch is some form of a hominid, with the possibility of multiple types worldwide. Maybe even several variations, in N America.

[bipedalist]

something for everyone from "On The Track".

forteanzoology.blogspot.com/.../dale-drinnon-dissection-of-and.html

Thanks for that: http://frontiersofzoology.blogspot.com/

Tried to fix the link but found I lost my place among the blogs, got closer anyway.

Edited February 19, 2011 by bipedalist