The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well, that has to be the tack.  I mean, not dissing Sykes or anything, he's put himself out there.  But that's not the avenue that is gonna lead to confirmation.  I get the feeling NAWAC is more on that road.  Unless you have plans to beat them to it. 

[norseman]

Project Grendel is like a pro kill coffee club. bipto is a member so the NAWAC is represented there. But it's about like minded people sitting down and discussing ideas. As well as planning expeditions......guns, gear, vehicles, etc

It's not a super team of Bigfoot hunters at this point and time.

So for now it's just me, and small groups across the country going out and trying stuff. We are not a non profit group or anything like that. Nothing that organized at present.

So I fully support the NAWAC mission and wish them the very best!

Edited February 5, 2014 by norseman

[Guest DWA]

Well, it's strictly my preference that

 

1) Sykes stays honest, and one day soon we get a "...look, I know what I'm doing, and we have an unlisted hominoid's hair here...";

2) Todd Disotell stakes out Natalia Reagan in a clearing and rolls vid, with ...well, hoped-for results...;

3) Some habituator sends so much video that after looking at it 'man in suit' would be the bet of two out of 360-odd million Americans

 

...is the route to discovery.

 

But, you know, I'm into guilty pleasures, and in the end, I'd rather know than not.  Selfish?  Heck yeah.

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

 

You spoke the truth humbly and candidly. Yes, the NAWAC team for the time being is the big dog on the block and they're learning all the time. And too they are passing what they discover in methodology back to us. We've all learned a lot from their experiences and I wish you the best too if and when you decide to take that knowledge to the hunt.

Edited February 5, 2014 by hiflier

[salubrious]

Well, bring em in.

There are some problems

 

Chimps have been here for about 8 million years but the only fossil evidence is something like 4 teeth.

For a while, the Denisovans existed entirely out of a tooth and a finger bone. Stuff like that is pretty small and not that easy to find.

 

It takes a while for fossils to form. Actually, a really long time. If you are ever in Hot Springs, South Dakota, visit the Mammoth Site http://mammothsite.com

 

There you will find out that 60,000 years is not enough time to make a fossil, buried as they were. So the idea of a 'fossil record' might well be a Red Herring.

[Guest DWA]

^^^No.

 

The idea of a fossil record IS A RED HERRING.  One cannot use it to debunk evidence of a thing living now, for reasons copiously laid out across these forums.

 

Never mind that - once again - we have a bare minimum of two likely fossil progenitors.

[bipedalist]

Apparently the witch trials had a lot to do with ergot fungus infecting the rye harvest.  That was going on in Europe too.

Whales were for a long time. They finally found whale fossils in Egypt. Not sure if they have turned up in N.A. yet, but of course whales aren't 'in' N.A...

 

As I understand it, a Neanderthal was considerably more powerful than an average human, with about 6x more muscle power. That's pretty significant, enough to make me think about that possible BF connection.

 

We should keep in mind though that we do need more than 50,000-60,000 years for a fossil to form. So if BF has arisen recently as a distinct species, there may not have been enough time for a fossil record.

A new finding about how the Neandertal spine differed from Homo sapiens, might suggest that the more erect posture and straighter spine may have resulted in some of this better strength when applied to certain tasks.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/04/16/1405138111.abstract?sid=c8a8fbf0-2839-472a-a894-e79fd41c59ca

Some interesting theories and thoughts in the comments ^ too.

[Guest WesT]

I found this article the other day. Interesting indeed....

 

Brutish and short? DNA 'switch' sheds light on Neanderthals

How can creatures as different in body and mind as present-day humans and their extinct Neanderthal cousins be 99.84 percent identical genetically?

[WSA]

What's the expression?  It isn't what you have, but how you use it that counts? Exactly.

[Guest WesT]

If someone turned in a Neanderthal blood sample to a DNA testing lab, and the lab found it to be 99.84% human, the test results you would get back would say what?

 

I'll put my money on human.

[Guest]

^^^Neandertals ARE humans. or WERE. So too were Homo erectus, Homo denisova, Homo heidelbergensis and perhaps Homo floresiensis. I'm still debating the Homo status for floresiensis. All members of the genus Homo are by definition human.

 

As much as Neandertal bones are robust and the musculature they supported were powerful, most of us would not notice one if he was dressed in a suit with a nice haircut. 99.84% is not a big difference between us because we aren't quite so different. Chimpanzees are 96% "identical" with humans and look how different they are.

 

http://www.livescience.com/7376-human-family-tree-tangled-messy-bush.html

 

For those science deniers, this article above mentions the ever changing nature of the human family tree. It is not unexpected because scientists do in fact expect to be surprised and they actually like it when they are. It's part of the process of science. It is in fact a sign of the diligence and honesty of the scientists involved and not incompetence.

Edited May 8, 2014 by antfoot

[Guest]

Curious,

 

I'm thinking about all of the European folklore and legends regarding wildmen, wodewose, schrat, giants, ogres, trolls, goblins, and the like.

 

These tales are as pervasive as evidence of other hominids contemporaneous with our distant ancestors seems to be becoming.

 

Certainly much of the detail has been corrupted over time, but the older source material must be available in various archives.

 

I think that it is naïve to believe that these tales do not indicate that competing hominids once existed within our cultural memory and that our folklore regarding them stems from that reality.

These tales can easily be distortions of tales about other ethnic groups. Nazi propaganda of Jews show how this can happen. So too do characterizations of African-Americans. Fairies, pixies, gnomes and goblins all plausibly have similar origins.

Does your explanation also work for unicorns, dragons, fairies, and mermaids?

Unicorns are almost certainly distorted descriptions of a rhinoceros (elasmotherium is most often mentioned) mixed with details from other animals as well. Dragons are most likely described from fossils of dinosaurs and other large animals. This is definitely the case with the Asian dragons but likely with European and Middle-eastern ones as well. Fairies can simply be distorted tales of other possibly older ethnic groups which could include an alternate human species. Mermaids could be descriptions of women bathing according to people who could not swim or they could, even more likely, be wishful thinking among lonely men at sea.

[Guest WesT]

^^^Neandertals ARE humans. or WERE. So too were Homo erectus, Homo denisova, Homo heidelbergensis and perhaps Homo floresiensis. I'm still debating the Homo status for floresiensis. All members of the genus Homo are by definition human.

 

So what you're saying is, yes, a sample would come back from a DNA lab as "human".

 

As much as Neandertal bones are robust and  would the musculature they supported were powerful, most of us would not notice one if he was dressed in a suit with a nice haircut. 99.84% is not a big difference between us because we aren't quite so different. Chimpanzees are 96% "identical" with humans and look how different they are.

 

The link I previously posted said the opposite of what you're claiming here (with the exception of the Chimpanzee). The articles date is April 17th. 2014. It explains that even though we are almost identical genetically, the reason why we look and act so differently.

 

http://www.livescience.com/7376-human-family-tree-tangled-messy-bush.html

 

For those science deniers, this article above mentions the ever changing nature of the human family tree. It is not unexpected because scientists do in fact expect to be surprised and they actually like it when they are. It's part of the process of science. It is in fact a sign of the diligence and honesty of the scientists involved and not incompetence.

 

Very well said. The study of mankinds past is quite dynamic.

[Guest]

Hi WesT, yes I'm basically agreeing with you but fleshing that out with a little more detail.

 

Neandertals simply were not THAT different from us. They are certainly not as different as chimpanzees. True one might recognize a Neandertal as a different looking human being but would not likely recognize his or her species as Neandertal as opposed to sapiens. Not that many people know the difference between them, alas. Most of our concepts of Neandertals are based on cartoons and artist's conceptions. I have a nephew with a receding chin and low forehead both of which are features of Neandertals. People don't really look at him as a different type of person. I've met people with heavy brows and protruding faces as well. Underneath a bulky suit, I doubt anyone would notice the massive muscles. Most of our relatives in the genus Homo would probably pass fairly well in modern garb. I do make an exception for Floeresiensis because I'm not convinced they belong in our genus. The skull I've seen on the internet looks less than Homo to me and more australopithecine. I am still having trouble finding depictions of the tools alleged to belong to them. Flores had at least two different bipedal species at one time. I have not read anything that convincingly makes the tools to be products of Floresiensis rather than Erectus or Sapiens.

[Guest WesT]

I would agree but,,,, Neanderthal skulls are twice the size of a humans with a brain capacity of 1600cc compared to humans at 1350cc.  I don't care how you splice it or dice it, or how you spit shine a Neanderthal and put him in a suit, I think he'd get noticed real fast.

 

Here's why....

 

 

I do realize after researching this that there is still a debate over this amongst the academics. But if I saw a person in a suit that was bow legged, short in stature, muscular, large hands, sloped forehead, prominent brow bridge, no chin, with a head twice the size of mine, yeah I'd take notice. Although almost genetically identical, the mental and physical attributes are controlled by genes that either turned on, or off. So being almost genetically identical doesn't mean looking or acting identical. On the surface that would be a logical conclusion, but in the end, science doesn't care about logical conclusions. Science only cares about finding the facts.

 

I'm very interested in Homo Floresiensis, When we get done haggling over Neanderthal I'd like to explore that.