Guest Stan Norton Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) If you read the full article (which is frankly ridiculous in content and hyperbolic in style) and in particular the enlightening comment below from Steve Churchill you will see this...Nothing about giants here. I'm not so sure about them being routinely more than 7 feet tall. The estimation of mass and stature from skeletal remains can be problematic, but my efforts to do so suggest that in the African Middle Pleistocene, the average adult male stature was 182.5 cm (6'3") and the relatively lean mass (maybe 10% body fat) averaged 91.2 kg (200.6 lbs) Edited May 31, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Coonbo: re: your last post, page 10. (Having a can't-quote-can't-copy issue...) I've seen worse SWAGs than yours. Ape is a significant possibility to me; Homo, not so much; a separate branch of the primate family tree - sort of like the robust australopithecines, only with an extant species ...just might be. Edited May 31, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Australopithecines would have over two million years to evolve into a larger size and to colonize outside of Africa which is much more time than any of the Homo species would have. This makes them a much better fit with bigfoot, especially since they already look like most reports of bigfoot just smaller. Two million years is plenty of time while neandertal's mere fifty thousand years would not be a lot of time and would require far more changes physically and behaviorally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Ultimately it comes down to the number of chromosomes. Coonbo, I was a little confused about what you said regarding interbreeding. You said that they can interbreed with us, or that they "think" they can, then you said that the interbreeding stories were just stories. Seems one third on one side of yes/no and two thirds on the other. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 This is a great thread. I'm going to start handing out plusses to everyone until I run out, except for Wag. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Well, we have zero evidence that any australopithecine hominins left Africa so it appears they were a genus restricted to that continent. Given their known distribution it is actually Neanderthals (or their forebears) that may have the claim to being to most obvious candidate, besides ourselves, for reaching easternmost Asia and then on into the Americas...but we have no evidence of any such distribution and sasquatch descriptions do not for the most part indicate such. Not sure Coonbo was stating the interbreeding thing as fact, but postulating that because there are stories (unverified naturally...) of dalliances then it may be that some sasquatch might think a feel is on the cards. We literally have no idea if that is true or what the outcome might be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Well, when I say "sort of like" I don't mean that the robust australopithecines are a necessary candidate. Gigantopithecus is about as good. But given that recent estimates indicate the possibility that 95% or more of extinct primates have left no remains, it could be something for which the line hasn't appeared in the fossil record to date. And of course, "not found" always means "not found yet." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Well, when I say "sort of like" I don't mean that the robust australopithecines are a necessary candidate. Gigantopithecus is about as good. But given that recent estimates indicate the possibility that 95% or more of extinct primates have left no remains, it could be something for which the line hasn't appeared in the fossil record to date. And of course, "not found" always means "not found yet." Correct! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Rather like the old Merrill Lynch commercials, when BobZenor speaks, I listen. agreed, but was it Merrill lynch or E.F Hutton? either way, those are some big teeth in BobZ clip.....hard to picture those in a little human sized head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) Ok, here's the real deal...one of the most important prehistoric sites in the world (that's me in pink, several years ago...was mostly birding)... http://archaeology.huji.ac.il/NMO/index.htm And some good stuff nearer home...perhaps the last Neanderthals in Europe?? http://quaternaryjersey.wordpress.com/la-cotte-de-st-brelade/ Anyway, this species is very well understood. Much more fascinating stuff to learn though! Edited May 31, 2014 by Stan Norton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 Well, we have zero evidence that any australopithecine hominins left Africa so it appears they were a genus restricted to that continent. Given their known distribution it is actually Neanderthals (or their forebears) that may have the claim to being to most obvious candidate, besides ourselves, for reaching easternmost Asia and then on into the Americas...but we have no evidence of any such distribution and sasquatch descriptions do not for the most part indicate such. Not sure Coonbo was stating the interbreeding thing as fact, but postulating that because there are stories (unverified naturally...) of dalliances then it may be that some sasquatch might think a feel is on the cards. We literally have no idea if that is true or what the outcome might be. We have no fossils of coelacanths after the KT boundary (unless something new has shown up recently). I find it easier to believe that australopithecines migrated into Eurasia and then later into North America over the last few million years and grew large and robust than that Neandertals grew into oversized beasts and lost all of their previous civilized ways in the much shorter interval of about fifty thousand years. If australos stayed in the mountainous and forested regions then we might not expect to find many fossils anyway. Gigantopithecus have also left little fossil evidence and are another candidate but not my favorite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 This is a great thread. I'm going to start handing out plusses to everyone until I run out, except for Wag. Just paypal me my $$$, that'll be fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stan Norton Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 In a most fortuitous evening, I happen to have one of the UK's most active researchers on Neanderthals staying at mine tonight. Apparently an anthropologist from Oxford university is currently undertaking a study into scientific attitudes towards Neanderthals (how these have changed over time: 90s hulk to 00s sophisticate) as part of a wider investigation into the way scientists interpret their findings. In other words, looking into the often subjective nature of human ancestry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Hmmm, well, I am not allowed to comment on that here, but will be happy to in the tar-pit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Coonbo Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 Ultimately it comes down to the number of chromosomes. Coonbo, I was a little confused about what you said regarding interbreeding. You said that they can interbreed with us, or that they "think" they can, then you said that the interbreeding stories were just stories. Seems one third on one side of yes/no and two thirds on the other. JDL, I personally believe that they can probably interbreed with us (meaning they're pretty close to us genetically, certainly closer than the great apes). There is also a fair amount of anecdotal evidence (stories) out there supporting my belief that they can interbreed with us. And by this, I mean stories of human women being violated by BF and producing viable offspring. And even one well known story of an almasty (Russian/northeast Asian BF) female coupling with a human male and producing viable offspring. Now suppose that these stories of BF/human offspring are all false and really are just stories. Even then, there is more anecdotal evidence (more stories) of human females being violated by BF and no offspring resulting - hence my statement that the BF think they can interbreed with us and try to do so. HOWEVER, after thinking about it since I made that earlier post back on page 10 of this thread (which I did in quite a hurry), I remembered that they violate other animals as well (cattle and horses, that I know of), so my statement that they think they can interbreed with us may be wrong, and all they're doing, even with humans, is just getting their rocks off. I'm sorry that I confused you, and I hope this has cleared up my earlier post. If not, PM me and I'll try to 'splain it mo' better. To the mods: I know I'm walking a tightrope here in this post and I've tried to use the verbiage that you have used in one particular earlier thread. So, if I've fallen off that rope, please forgive me and edit this post accordingly. Sincerely, Coonbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts