Guest JoelS Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Joel, I think a lot of people come to that conclusion... and I embrace it sometimes, others I think..we can do this, this time, right...and not wipe them out, or miss knowing altogether...and then...there are days when I don't! I've had a few experiences, coupled with all the reports, that leave me convinced that they exist. The only thing I really want to see before I die is one of them. In many respects, they're much better off as things are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Tool use is thought to have began late in australopithicines and erectus was most definetly was a tool user. If Bigfoot was creating hand axes it would have left several behind along with obvious sites of their manufacture. Another problem with Bigfoot evolving off erectus is arm length. Erectus arm to leg ratio is almost identical to modern humans and if the pgf is to be a real Bigfoot the arm is longer. If Bigfoot evolved off homo I can't understand why give up fire and stone tools while increasing in mass by a factor of 4 to 6. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Australopithecus was built more like an ape. It had curved shoulders, flared pelvis, long arms, short legs, small brain, the carpal bones were more like chimps and showed the lack of ability to manipulate items as humans do, they had no chin and though they were bipedal they had bigger feet for their size and wouldn't have walked like a human. They were also tree climbers and the food particals they found between the teeth were fruit, leaves ,bark, and some grasses. They found sticks and some rocks that looked like they were chipped pieces. That was extent of anything they thought could be tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 (edited) This interactive fossil to climate timeline is pretty cool http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive I would think Smithsonian represents the conservative CW of sceince, the generally accepted view.. or identifies where controversies/lack of data exist? I don't know, archeologists are notorious, like BFers really, of filling in huge gaps of knowledge based on miniscule finds..Leaky case in point. And eventually proven wrong, although contributions still important, but in perhaps undesired roles. But, what has really changed these views...(these CARTA lectures discussing that ) and our typing of early hominids as "apelike" (http://carta.anthropogeny.org/events/sessions/tba-7..) are the new fossils and techniques to image, even while still encased in rock...(and software to analyze many points on these for quantifying and comparing) along with..and really blowing a lot of old theory out of the water, genetics..and the ability to trace back at the molecular level the path of DNA passed from generation to generation....although the neanderthal genome is not perfect, it's a good window, and the Denisova is too.. and also geologic data has advanced..it is pretty exciting really.. Youtube is phenomenal and the documentary type programs seem to be allowed - just plug in any topic... "neanderthal tool use" or such and a half dozen BBC docudrama type will come up, several lectures or symposiums, and so on...everything... I am blown away how much youtube has grown in just the past four or so years, Try "animation of messenger RNA" and pick the one that looks high end computer generated...man. Harvard's undergrad biology lectures are there..and that includes basic genetics... It is possible with the internet to learn just about anything. Sheri, they may have "de-evolved culturally" for the same reasons Ishi did...his small band, then family's, then his own lonely life depended on it.. they had to.minimize environmental signs, use of fire was limited to very small and hidden. Tools hidden and small caches, etc. Or, say they are an erectus type line and diverged 1Mil ago, and at that time only the simplest flaked tools..one or two breaks really, use of fire, but not command, and proto-speech or such.....? They don't have to have followed the floresiensis development or even Denisova... But, it does seem they had to follow generally the homo genus line b/c they have a big toe in line with four other ones! Our evidence of BF hands also points to very human like, or Neanderthal even...in that the thumb is clearly much more forward than modern apes..(or ape fossils?) Edited September 20, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I've had a few experiences, coupled with all the reports, that leave me convinced that they exist. The only thing I really want to see before I die is one of them. In many respects, they're much better off as things are now. Agreed Joel ," In All respects they are better off as things are now. I cant imagine dragging one back to this Inhumane place we call civilzation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Urkelbot Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 Australopithecus was built more like an ape. It had curved shoulders, flared pelvis, long arms, short legs, small brain, the carpal bones were more like chimps and showed the lack of ability to manipulate items as humans do, they had no chin and though they were bipedal they had bigger feet for their size and wouldn't have walked like a human. They were also tree climbers and the food particals they found between the teeth were fruit, leaves ,bark, and some grasses. They found sticks and some rocks that looked like they were chipped pieces. That was extent of anything they thought could be tools. Not true look to to recent scientific literature. Late Australopithecus had hands more similar to modern humans and are thought to have constructed Oldowan stone tools. http://www.profleeberger.com/files/hand_Science_2011.pdf http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=fY0eAAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA289&dq=australopithecus+oldowan&ots=EV1irhTmnd&sig=kCvRqfQ8tsKUSyICrvLK2uKOy1Q#v=onepage&q=australopithecus%20oldowan&f=false Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheri Posted September 20, 2013 Share Posted September 20, 2013 I have looked at all the literature. That tool use were assumptions, not fact. I also did read about the hand use. That's why I said what I did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Are you sure about that? From both the fossil record of the various hominids and also what we think we know of BFs? I don't think the fossil record of erectus tool use is that defined, as the branching off of any shoot from erectus ..say much earlier than florenis, or even us, would necessitate that conclusion. Nor, is it clear that erectus and habilis are "in line" but may be separate "twigs" of the same branch/bush of Homo or even Robustus. In contrast, what fossil, (other than these jaw/teeth extrapolated to a bi-pedal gigantico) of apes lead to a BF track?...It's the supposition of mid tarsal break in BF tracks today that leads to an ape theory, not the other way around...as it should in the fossil record...all ape fossil have quadrupedal features...right?... And, I think there are credible reports of BFs with clubs, using rocks, and sticks, and making shelters, I think even some with stick spears.. even a few reports of skins, or torn up human clothing...(Clothing was apparently taken on by us about 100K YBP) and lets don't forget reports of what seems to be a type of speech, or communication with possible speech...so if one accepts "BF evidence" it's looking stacked...really to me anyway/... It is also possible that BFs may have even culturally de-evolved, in that even fire alerted past humans to their location and certain death, b/c that is what we do well...band together, make cool weapons, etc...and they don't..erectus didn't. neanderthal did though, more......but still it is possible that was crushed in some bottleneck of evolution and they just can't advance... Why didn't we make the "great leap" till 40,000 ybp? Also, it is not clear erectus had control of fire making...or when...and where....so many sites in Asia..etc So, if one can prove some ape lineage...great, it just seems the weight of evidence leans heavily genus homo Joel, I think a lot of people come to that conclusion... and I embrace it sometimes, others I think..we can do this, this time, right...and not wipe them out, or miss knowing altogether...and then...there are days when I don't! Flaking stone is well over one million years old............so if Sasquatch is truly a member of the genus Homo? That's a lot of devolving to do. Picking up sticks as tools or placing some branches over your head when it rains, is well documented Ape behavior. Flaking stone to make tools is something much different. I'm afraid I don't see the evidence for Sasquatch being a member of our genus as you do.........other than bipedalism. Which could be a parallel adaptation as well. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Yes, stone flaking goes way back, right in line with bipedalism...almost.... the question arises then, do BFs flake stones? Or use any type of stone tool? How would we know? If we find any flaked stone we assume NA, and dating if on the surface not really possible, except by type. I can't think of any accounts of using a stone to cut meat..can you? We do have reports of rock throwing, and using to crush items, and perhaps stacking..not much more. And of course what BF reports do you find credible? So, yes I understand. But, where in the fossil record can you point to bipedalism? That we do know....and so far, all of those past ancestors are included in the genus homo. Will they change the phylogeny for BFs? Humm, dpends on the DNA...and how far we can push back a common ancestor I suppose...they could not acieve that with Denisova or the Hobbit.... but they are extinct...and BF is not..we may work harder to de humanize... But, Norse, I have a personal data point too, and that's excellent whislting, like I have not heard from a human, even the best...although close. That "serenade" included the accurate and speedy and loud execution of perhpas 20 differnt forest birds all strung together in a melody..really...just stunning and..honestly, put me in orbit for a few weeks... so..they whistle, walk on two legs with that big toe in line with four others, have hands closer to ours than any great ape....aand facially look like us..humm. You know Shaq is 7'1" weighs about 325lbs and has a shoe size of 22...wow..that is more than the average 15" BF print... and taken with the average height (I am using Henner's run down of Green's data..yes old!) of a BF at about 7'5" I think they do fit, morphologically, within erectus or even human standards...and not any living ape...or ape fossil... If we stretch further, to include the long history of NA oral tradition, or even white settlers, those reports usually refer to them as a type of person...although wild and hairy... Fortunately our opinion doesn't matter...and not enough data to say what is the truth....I really hope Sykes comes up with something...if not? Ouch! it may be Habilis is the ancestor candidate..although named "handy man" it seems that tool use for Habilis is still in debate? Or maybe Robustus...but both still homo line..... and..if BF split from erectus early (they were around 2million y) .? It does seem erectus left Africa as soon as they could walk out... and were waiting for us..in our first waves, and then later, after the 75,00 ybp mark..the super volcano of India (?) In that one lecture Norse is a method to photograph tracks and then analyze via computer...pretty cool and looks within reach of every BFer... and the manner in which the paleontologist examined pressure and ratios...pretty cool...and he seemed as frustrated by the possibilities as any BFer! One more idea, a little off, but perhaps not.... if they are very similar to us, then in death, as skeletons they may have been overlooked as human..and now with NA laws to protect remains of ancestors..it may be hard to get at....and until better ancient DNA techniques arise..or a new fossil find that does have decent DNA.. it remains a big question..but, isn't it odd we have no BF fossils or skeletons? Unless, they are misidentified? Edited September 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Oh, one more idea..and this arises in just the last few years..maybe 2010..we now believe humans began to wear clothes about 100,000K ybp...so...prior we were naked too and probably hairy...the switch to clothing is assumed tied to loss of hair..and that data via louse genetics..I am suggesting that Homo sapiens were the first really hairless line (and that includes right now per DNA Neanderthal) and so...if we could look at all genus homo as hairy..and us the exception, BFs might not seem so apey? Most reports do distinguish BF hair as hair, not fur... p.s. I never know if to use Neanderthal or Neandertal....I see it both ways in recent papers..anyone? Edited September 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) typo above...100,000 years ago we adopted clothes (or 100K ybp) sorry! Edited September 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted September 21, 2013 Moderator Share Posted September 21, 2013 I believe Neadertal would be more correct. Neander is a river in France, "tal" refers to a river valley. The fossils first identified were in the Neander river valley and the name refered to the people who had lived there. The NeanderTHAL is sort of a mistake in the english-ization. At least, so I'm told. I've been told wrong before, though. The insistence on equating tools to genus Homo is wrong. We develop tools to offset physical attributes we lack ... clothes to protect us from the cold because we don't have a lot of insulating hair, pointy rocks to make up for a our lack of claws and sharp teeth, and so on. There's no reason for a being of genus Homo that had more hair and either (teeth + claws) or sufficiently greater strength to get by without them to develop the same sort of tools we do. They might find tools made sufficient by their greater strength available on location and not need to invest so much effort into production of better tools. Beng able to stay warm enough without shelter, being able to obtain food without complex tools changes EVERYTHING. It means the assumptions about what makes us human are only a specific subset of a bigger picture instead of the whole answer. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Yep, and that CARTA/MOCA website really geared to addressing those refinements. Language is huge and although there are indications Neandertal (Green author of their genome does use neandertal..i do understand the history, and wondering if PC is decided....I prefer the use of geographic spelling too) there are some indications that erectus may have as well. But, it seems more complicated than the capacity physically to form the right sounds...brain development seems a part of it as well. What did cause us to begin sophisticated art? This stuff is so fascinating, and the reason I got interested in BFs...very late in life, totally unaware until about the 2000's....but, I was already in love with prehistory...locally especially as the SW deserts offer so much for the looking. BF reports do seem to lack any art or body decoration...and no way yet of knowing if any cave art attributable to them..but the stuff in Brazil makes one wonder..the pre Amerindian wave..pre ice-age migrations to the New World may well be within the BF "type." the finds in Tierra del Fuego also are interesting early human type. So, it seems like the atlatl was an innovation that put us on par with them...b/c now we could encounter at a greater distance? or was it the bow? It sure wasn't strength..unless, we kept separate lives always, as we do now? The NA say they were here...and never successfully integrate (at least the PNW myths) with us, never quite speak our language....but a people still....and that then points to those earlier than 9000ybp human fossils in the New World? It makes me want to go fossil hunting...! I also give some weight to the reports of the 7' NA skeletons....I know none seem to be available for study...but, it is possible IMO that at one time..when we were all stone age..BFs were integrated...before we "were enlightened." Or, lost our hair? Can you imagine the first mutant man, hairless..ha, what ridicule he may have put up with?...and it does seem like we really don't like hairy on humans...so if he/they were exiled for being hairless. Did his mother follow him and make a skin covering...?.(.haha...we need a new Clan of the cave Bear book!) say even 100,000ybp The genome project is identifying human specific areas in fast leaps...and there are genes associated with hairlessness as a kind of disease, and genes associated with color..red (neandertal shares)...and genes of skin cells and sweat glands...that show marker variations in humans to apes....so it may be we will be able to say just when and in what stages we became hairless... And all that is available for us to search...and look at and consider..all the genomes and browsers are open access.... now, if I can just make sense of it! But, I want to try..running a BLAST is as easy as cut and paste a sequence into the browser online at either the Gov or USCS websites. It's the analysis (just reading the report output) that makes it tough! But, a fun project...and one I think geneology buffs do. Edited September 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 Yes, stone flaking goes way back, right in line with bipedalism...almost.... the question arises then, do BFs flake stones? Or use any type of stone tool? How would we know? If we find any flaked stone we assume NA, and dating if on the surface not really possible, except by type. I can't think of any accounts of using a stone to cut meat..can you? We do have reports of rock throwing, and using to crush items, and perhaps stacking..not much more. And of course what BF reports do you find credible? So, yes I understand. But, where in the fossil record can you point to bipedalism? That we do know....and so far, all of those past ancestors are included in the genus homo. Will they change the phylogeny for BFs? Humm, dpends on the DNA...and how far we can push back a common ancestor I suppose...they could not acieve that with Denisova or the Hobbit.... but they are extinct...and BF is not..we may work harder to de humanize... But, Norse, I have a personal data point too, and that's excellent whislting, like I have not heard from a human, even the best...although close. That "serenade" included the accurate and speedy and loud execution of perhpas 20 differnt forest birds all strung together in a melody..really...just stunning and..honestly, put me in orbit for a few weeks... so..they whistle, walk on two legs with that big toe in line with four others, have hands closer to ours than any great ape....aand facially look like us..humm. You know Shaq is 7'1" weighs about 325lbs and has a shoe size of 22...wow..that is more than the average 15" BF print... and taken with the average height (I am using Henner's run down of Green's data..yes old!) of a BF at about 7'5" I think they do fit, morphologically, within erectus or even human standards...and not any living ape...or ape fossil... If we stretch further, to include the long history of NA oral tradition, or even white settlers, those reports usually refer to them as a type of person...although wild and hairy... Fortunately our opinion doesn't matter...and not enough data to say what is the truth....I really hope Sykes comes up with something...if not? Ouch! it may be Habilis is the ancestor candidate..although named "handy man" it seems that tool use for Habilis is still in debate? Or maybe Robustus...but both still homo line..... and..if BF split from erectus early (they were around 2million y) .? It does seem erectus left Africa as soon as they could walk out... and were waiting for us..in our first waves, and then later, after the 75,00 ybp mark..the super volcano of India (?) In that one lecture Norse is a method to photograph tracks and then analyze via computer...pretty cool and looks within reach of every BFer... and the manner in which the paleontologist examined pressure and ratios...pretty cool...and he seemed as frustrated by the possibilities as any BFer! One more idea, a little off, but perhaps not.... if they are very similar to us, then in death, as skeletons they may have been overlooked as human..and now with NA laws to protect remains of ancestors..it may be hard to get at....and until better ancient DNA techniques arise..or a new fossil find that does have decent DNA.. it remains a big question..but, isn't it odd we have no BF fossils or skeletons? Unless, they are misidentified? German's do not pronounce the "th" like we do........that seems to be a Viking trait in modern English as they did and so does modern Icelandic. So a German would pronounce Neaderthal as "Neanduh taal", dropping the "h" in English seems to be a way of recognizing this pronunciation. Proper Queen's English drops the "r" already.........unlike us Americans. A couple of thoughts..........first, if Sasquatch was flaking stone tools and using them to butcher prey? We should find this evidence today. We can see evidence of stone tools being used to butcher prey on fossilized bone. So we should be running across animal carcasses today in the forest butchered with the same tell tale signs as the ones archaeologists find. We don't find that. Two? One of my favorite tests for species recognition for us is thus.........would you date Patty? As a male Homo Sapien do you watch her in that film and whistle to yourself that she is one hot babe? Me neither........... While certainly not a super model? This reconstruction of a Neanderthal woman I think certainly puts her within our parameters of attraction and species recognition: http://www.daynes.com/en/hominids-reconstructions/neanderthal-saint-cesaire-24.html What I see walking across the screen on the PGF is definitely more ape like in appearance. And would not be any more attractive than dating a female Gorilla. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 21, 2013 Share Posted September 21, 2013 (edited) Well, I am talking genus and you are talking species... and I am a female, but her male equivalent? Haha, you guys overrate yourselves! So, ya, if she were a he.. I think I married one. It doesn't much matter what we think really Norse, whether taxonomically an ape or not, they continue to outsmart us! Edited September 21, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts