Jump to content

The Oldest Dna Evidence Yet Of Humans With An Interesting Twist

NathanFooter

By NathanFooter
in General Bigfoot Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

norseman Sasquatch

norseman

Posted
Posted

That's fine and all, but, since none of us has ever seen a living breathing Neanderthal, all any of us can do is speculate. I may be right, and I may be wrong, and likewise, you may be right, and you may be wrong. The way I see it, a Bluejay and a Robin are both a species of bird, but I know the difference between the two when I see one or the other. Even if dressed in identical tuxedo's...... but I could be wrong, and lord knows it wouldn't be the first time.

 

I think part of the problem is the variations within Homo Sapiens and Homo Neanderthals.

 

If I saw this guy running through the forest with a bear skin and a spear? My first thought would be Neanderthal.

 

_55383295_008245135-2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest ChasingRabbits

Guest ChasingRabbits

Posted
Posted

So...back on topic.

 

The article was interesting. Could someone explain the Bigfoot connection? As far as I can tell we're talking about extinct populations:

 

It is possible, for example, that there are many extinct human populations that scientists have yet to discover.

 

How does that get to undocumented giant ape-men in North America?

 

If you watch Henry Louis Gates' PBS show  Finding Your Roots,  he does DNA analysis on his subjects. They usually show a shot of the pie chart. Sometimes, there is a fraction of a percent labelled "Other".

 

Granted "Other" is probably Neanderthal DNA but could it be some other human population? Interesting thought. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cotter Sasquatch

Cotter

Posted
Posted

WOW! This is huge.

 

I find it odd though that some scientists are trying to describe this find as deformed homo sapiens, and others are leaving the homo erectus hypothesis for something even more primitive.

 

It would certainly explain the size.

 

Wow!  That is crazy! 

 

I thought we had already discovered all of the previously known upright walking hominids?  ;-)

 

I find it hard to believe a species like this went extinct in the last 17,000 years. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is normal as far as I can see from my readings. No one hypothesis fits to an exact degree which is why there is so much disagreement. I have thought floresiensis was an australopithecine for some time now. Convergence is not an unknown or impractical explanation for the facial features of floresiensis. Floresiensis as an australopithecine would not necessarily look like the classic version of Lucy. There were likely many varying populations of Australopithecus. I've often thought that an Eurasian offshoot of Australopithecus could have evolved into a larger form much like reports of yeti, bigfoot, almas etcetera.


Neandertals were usually pretty short. This guy is supposed to be pretty huge and tall right? Not neandertalish I think. Titanthrops perhaps though :) although they're supposed to be hairy heheheh

Edited by antfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Divergent1

Guest Divergent1

Posted
Posted (edited)

He looks like Patty without the hair to me.

 

I think they should go back and re-evaluate all of the known fossils once methods improve for analyzing ancient DNA, I'm sure we have the family tree all wrong.

Edited by Divergent1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
norseman Sasquatch

norseman

Posted
Posted

His face is too flat for neandertal too though. Neandertal faces protruded a lot more muzzle like.

 

I think what your seeing is the lack of a pronounced chin. From the brow to the upper lip is fairly flat.

 

r-neanderthal-large570s.jpg

 

Compared to say a Australopithecus.

 

australopithecus%20robustus.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...