This Is A Neanderthal.

[Guest]

This kind of puts two theories at odds with one another in that modern humans can show a 100k year separation and Neanderthals were 500k years separated yet are portrayed to be so human more recently.

 

I see no inconsistency.  Some populations of Hs have been seperated for 100K years, but such reproductive isolation did not result in speciation.  Hs and Hn populations were seperated for 500K years, and such reproductive isolation resulted in a degree of speciation -- not enough to prevent hybridization, but enough to impair it.

 

Truth is they were very different and almost incompatable biologicly. If BF has 100% modern hss mtDNA, they are us and probably the ugly cousins of our hybrid origins.

 

But, credible DNA analysis indicates they were biologically comparable enough to interbreed with some success, which preserved about 20% of the Hn genome in us.  If bigfoot exists, it does not have 100% Hs mtDNA.  Neandertals and Denisovans, our closest relatives, don't have 100% Hs mtDNA.

[Guest]

That article only suggests they might have been making sophisticated clothing because of some bones found that may have been used to work leather. They still don't have evidence of sewing. No needles.

 

 

More hairy than us generally, meaning thicker and longer on average.

Needles aren't absolutely needed for sewing. An awl can be used to push leather strips, sinew or fibers through holes also punched into the leather by the awl. Slow work.

[southernyahoo]

 

This kind of puts two theories at odds with one another in that modern humans can show a 100k year separation and Neanderthals were 500k years separated yet are portrayed to be so human more recently.

 

I see no inconsistency.  Some populations of Hs have been seperated for 100K years, but such reproductive isolation did not result in speciation.  Hs and Hn populations were seperated for 500K years, and such reproductive isolation resulted in a degree of speciation -- not enough to prevent hybridization, but enough to impair it.

 

Truth is they were very different and almost incompatable biologicly. If BF has 100% modern hss mtDNA, they are us and probably the ugly cousins of our hybrid origins.

 

But, credible DNA analysis indicates they were biologically comparable enough to interbreed with some success, which preserved about 20% of the Hn genome in us.  If bigfoot exists, it does not have 100% Hs mtDNA.  Neandertals and Denisovans, our closest relatives, don't have 100% Hs mtDNA.

 

 

Neandethals and Denisovans didn't have 100% Hs mtDNA prior to hybridization correct. However since we don't have theirs, then we can conclude that it was likely Neanderthal men mating with Hs females. The hybrid offspring would  have 100% Hs mtDNA which most Europeans have with an admixture of Hn in the nuclear DNA. The hybrid offspring would have varied contributions to nuDNA in the hybrids which could have split off again with potential speciation on the horizon with enough isolation.

[Incorrigible1]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAiHhueI3M8

[BobZenor]

The main point of the giant tooth and other features of meganthropus aren't really meant to indicate that I think it is a likely direct ancestor of sasquatch.  What they point out is that a relatively recent member of genus Homo that lived in Asia apparently had features that aren't really compatible with a technological hominid.  There is a strong bias of "erectus first" out of Africa and that line of reasonings has the basic theme that all of the erectus were the same population.  There was a huge difference in at least one of the  very early Georgia fossils and they recently found habilis living at the same time as erectus at about that time. It is strong evidence that there have been multiple populations of hominids for at least 1.5 million years.   I don't know why multiple species of ancient hominids in Asia is still a hard concept to accept.  They didn't all evolve into modern humans and it is very likely that none of the Asian erectus are in our lineage besides more recent ones starting about 800,000 years ago.  Some of the later ones are very likely descended from the group that included the ancestors of heidelbergensis,  neanderthals and modern humans.  That population probably occupied most of Africa, Europe and Asia roughly 800,000 years ago.   There are teeth studies that supposedly indicate an extremely fast evolution or more likely a replacement of hominids in Asia about that time.  The reference I am thinking of was second hand from Mike Morwood's book A New Human I read several years ago by the way.  Those older Java fossils are larger at least in teeth size.  It seems likely to me that our ancestors basically conquered the globe about that time and became the dominant hominid.   Technology also seemed to have a huge advance about that time.

 

There were apparently two populations in Asia when the wave out of Africa apparently happened 800,000 years ago.  I would accept that as the most plausible scenario.  Many of the features of the early "erectus" in Java including the enormous chewing apparatus weren't something you would expect in a technological hominid evolving into modern humans.  Starting about that time 800,000 years ago there was a rapid increase in the sophistication of tools and that logically means that one group was significantly more technological.  The other less technological populations would logically be persecuted  The old population would have to find a way to survive.  The question basically comes down to how does another population hominid survive in the presence of a more technological hominid. 

 

The niche that modern humans don't exploit is non-technological hominid.  We don't do especially well at night.  We avoid areas that are swampy and we avoid areas that are very steep.  It doesn't really take that much imagination to figure out how a species of hominids living in the wild could avoid us if they are adapted to live where we rarely go especially if they did things to avoid us like coming out at night.   There were apparently much more primitive populations living in Asia that apparently included the ancestors of floresiensis and possibly populations in Java that were more primitive than erectus.  They could be a much less technological population that diverged from other erectus.  It doesn't really matter.  Once they adopt the niche of non technological hominid their morphology would likely very quickly diverge from ours.  They would have different selection criteria that would produce different features like massive teeth and jaws. Pressure from the more technological hominids could have pushed other changes like bigger eyes and better night vision.  One interesting thing about neanderthals is the large eyes they had.  It exists as trait in hominid populations even though it may not have been fully developed in neanderthals. Better night vision even in neanderthals isn't out of the question.  Large size is also entirely possible and the assumption that hominids can't quickly grow to that size seems pretty silly to me from a basic biology point of view.  The bias against it is not based on rational biological reasons. 

 

I don't mean to be poking fun at this guys enormous size.  He is only 6' 2" but he was almost 800 lbs.  I think the song is one of the most beautiful voices I ever heard.  It makes me miss Hawaii even though I felt like a menehune when standing with a group of Polynesians.  Many of the Polynesians are extraordinarily large and strong.  I see modern humans changing size very rapidly so why not other hominids.  They aren't going to have the same selection pressure if they occupy a different niche.  Enormous size may have happened often.  I do think that sasquatch if they exist are far beyond what we have found in the fossil record.  It doesn't seem at all biologically implausible to me however.

Edited June 3, 2014 by BobZenor

[Guest]

Neandethals and Denisovans didn't have 100% Hs mtDNA prior to hybridization correct.

 

Correct.

 

However since we don't have theirs, then we can conclude that it was likely Neanderthal men mating with Hs females.

 

We do have their mtDNA, as the Neandertal and Denisovan mtDNA genomes are very similar to ours:

 

green: human-human; red: human-Neandertal; blue: human-chimpanzee

 

 

The hybrid offspring would  have 100% Hs mtDNA which most Europeans have with an admixture of Hn in the nuclear DNA. The hybrid offspring would have varied contributions to nuDNA in the hybrids which could have split off again with potential speciation on the horizon with enough isolation.

 

 

[southernyahoo]

We do have their mtDNA, as the Neandertal and Denisovan mtDNA genomes are very similar to ours:

 

 

The scientists do not report that Neanderthal contributed anything directly to our mtDNA, we share a lot from a common ancestor undoubtedly. The contribution from Hn is in the nuDNA from all that I've read on it.

[hiflier]

Hello Bob Zenor,

Thank you for the IZ Lives video. I've heard that recording many times over the last 6-7 years as I'm and acoustic player and love the genre. Beautiful voice on the video? Sure is. Big guy? Yep, in more ways than one with a super nice recording technique and sound. What can I say.

[Guest Divergent1]

I read an interesting article In Discovery from 8/2012 that states Native Americans and East Asians have the highest percentages of Neanderthal DNA. I don't know if further reseach has proven this wrong, I couldn't find any other research that mentions this fact. The statement is in the second paragraph up from the end of the article.

 

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/mysterious-extinct-human-fossil-120830.htm

 

http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2012/03/american-indians-neanderthals-and-denisovans-pca-views/

 

Maybe someone with more experience in genetics can look at the PCA graphs and explain it.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Divergent1

[norseman]

The main point of the giant tooth and other features of meganthropus aren't really meant to indicate that I think it is a likely direct ancestor of sasquatch.  What they point out is that a relatively recent member of genus Homo that lived in Asia apparently had features that aren't really compatible with a technological hominid.  There is a strong bias of "erectus first" out of Africa and that line of reasonings has the basic theme that all of the erectus were the same population.  There was a huge difference in at least one of the  very early Georgia fossils and they recently found habilis living at the same time as erectus at about that time. It is strong evidence that there have been multiple populations of hominids for at least 1.5 million years.   I don't know why multiple species of ancient hominids in Asia is still a hard concept to accept.  They didn't all evolve into modern humans and it is very likely that none of the Asian erectus are in our lineage besides more recent ones starting about 800,000 years ago.  Some of the later ones are very likely descended from the group that included the ancestors of heidelbergensis,  neanderthals and modern humans.  That population probably occupied most of Africa, Europe and Asia roughly 800,000 years ago.   There are teeth studies that supposedly indicate an extremely fast evolution or more likely a replacement of hominids in Asia about that time.  The reference I am thinking of was second hand from Mike Morwood's book A New Human I read several years ago by the way.  Those older Java fossils are larger at least in teeth size.  It seems likely to me that our ancestors basically conquered the globe about that time and became the dominant hominid.   Technology also seemed to have a huge advance about that time.

 

There were apparently two populations in Asia when the wave out of Africa apparently happened 800,000 years ago.  I would accept that as the most plausible scenario.  Many of the features of the early "erectus" in Java including the enormous chewing apparatus weren't something you would expect in a technological hominid evolving into modern humans.  Starting about that time 800,000 years ago there was a rapid increase in the sophistication of tools and that logically means that one group was significantly more technological.  The other less technological populations would logically be persecuted  The old population would have to find a way to survive.  The question basically comes down to how does another population hominid survive in the presence of a more technological hominid. 

 

The niche that modern humans don't exploit is non-technological hominid.  We don't do especially well at night.  We avoid areas that are swampy and we avoid areas that are very steep.  It doesn't really take that much imagination to figure out how a species of hominids living in the wild could avoid us if they are adapted to live where we rarely go especially if they did things to avoid us like coming out at night.   There were apparently much more primitive populations living in Asia that apparently included the ancestors of floresiensis and possibly populations in Java that were more primitive than erectus.  They could be a much less technological population that diverged from other erectus.  It doesn't really matter.  Once they adopt the niche of non technological hominid their morphology would likely very quickly diverge from ours.  They would have different selection criteria that would produce different features like massive teeth and jaws. Pressure from the more technological hominids could have pushed other changes like bigger eyes and better night vision.  One interesting thing about neanderthals is the large eyes they had.  It exists as trait in hominid populations even though it may not have been fully developed in neanderthals. Better night vision even in neanderthals isn't out of the question.  Large size is also entirely possible and the assumption that hominids can't quickly grow to that size seems pretty silly to me from a basic biology point of view.  The bias against it is not based on rational biological reasons. 

 

I don't mean to be poking fun at this guys enormous size.  He is only 6' 2" but he was almost 800 lbs.  I think the song is one of the most beautiful voices I ever heard.  It makes me miss Hawaii even though I felt like a menehune when standing with a group of Polynesians.  Many of the Polynesians are extraordinarily large and strong.  I see modern humans changing size very rapidly so why not other hominids.  They aren't going to have the same selection pressure if they occupy a different niche.  Enormous size may have happened often.  I do think that sasquatch if they exist are far beyond what we have found in the fossil record.  It doesn't seem at all biologically implausible to me however.

 

It is not for certain that Meganthropus was indeed a member of the genus Homo...........there is much speculation and debate about this species. Including that it was much more related to Australopithecus.

 

The problem you have is that any species that is firmly planted in the genus Homo in the fossil record is not anywhere near the size of what is reported for Squatch. On top of that you have another problem, you have to show me in the fossil record where a species in the genus Homo devolved from fire use and flaking stone tools? To absolutely nothing...........zilch, zero, nada.

 

As for your large HS example? The largest and strongest people on the planet are northern Europeans........check out a strongest man competition some time.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariusz_Pudzianowski

 

 

Take for example Mariusz Pudzianowski, he has more strongest man titles than anyone and he is 6'1" tall and 313 pounds.......far from the 800 lbs of the Polynesian singer you referenced. Which means that the Polynesian singer is a bad example for species distribution. He is not running down wild hogs are swimming long distances to catch fish. He is a product of our modern life style. So show me a 800 lbs Mariusz Pudzianowski in the genus Homo in the fossil record and you would make a believer out of me.........

Edited June 3, 2014 by norseman

[BobZenor]

There was a Samoan in my platoon that was about 6' 6" and built like that guy.  What astonished me about him wasn't his size but strength.  Even for his size he was much stronger than any European I ever saw.  He didn't work out like that guy probably did to get that strong and he was far from the biggest Samoan I ever saw.  He was by far the strongest human I ever saw and I wouldn't know that except some guy in a bar finally got him angry after trying to pick a fight with the biggest guy in the room.  When he saw large groups of people flying to the side as my Samoan friend made his way through the crowd on a run to get him it was the most terrified look I ever saw on someone as he ran away.   I remain skeptical that any Caucasian would worry him but it would take a lot to get him to fight.  I learned something that day but it is just my opinion since you had to be there.  I still find it hard to believe what I saw that night.  He used to run 3 miles every day with us in under 20 minutes.  He could easily put on another couple hundred pounds and still get around well enough.  He had the natural strength to carry it.

 

The thing about the fossil record is that it is so incomplete.  The femur example is one of the very few examples of a leg bone where you could estimate body size.  None exist for Meganthropus. What they do have is some skulls that have indications of great size and like a nuchal crest on one for large neck muscles and the huge jaws on some of them and other features.  No fossils exist at all for the lineage the led to hobbits. They didn't just drop from the sky.  I am not arguing from ignorance in saying that the fossil record is incomplete so it might have been large.  I cited specific examples that indicated large size and explained why it was ignored.   Even in the femur example the bias exists that it couldn't be from a extraordinarily large individual because it isn't complete.  That bias is baseless from the perspective of biology.  The overheating hypothesis is just nonsense to put it nicely.  They just assume they weren't extra large and the argument is basically an an argument from incredulity.  I don't respond well to emotional arguments like that.  I am not accusing you of making it.  Your argument is reasonable that they don't exist as proof where you can definitely say they were approaching the size of a sasquatch.  I wouldn't argue with you about that.  I just pointed out the biological reasons that it isn't a valid argument to extend that to saying they couldn't grow as large as a sasquatch very quickly.  All they would need is selection pressure and a relatively small amount of time to do it.  Size isn't a valid biological argument against sasquatch existing or being a member of the genus Homo for that reason.  Assumptions that members of the genus Homo being "human" with the implication of significant technology is dubious at best.    The guy with the theory of the killer ape Neanderthal made great points but it should have been a parody.  It shows how much we don't know and how invested some anthropologists are in their constructed realities.  I found it pretty amusing myself especially the part about the cat eyes.  He really went overboard on that. 

 

There are few modern paleontologists that think the ancient Java hominids were australopithecines.  That would violate the "erectus first" hypothesis and the hypothesis has political power in the field.    It also violates conventional wisdom which is pretty much meaningless in the field where so much is interpretation and guesswork.  Tools don't tell you anything when there are multiple hominids by the way.  They also don't tell you how human something was contrary to popular opinion.  Thinking it does just points out another bias in the field.

 

The point of the Polynesians wasn't the weight of that guy.  That was just a nice song.  It was the size of Polynesians in general and how fast some populations of modern humans got larger.  We are talking like maybe less than 1 percent of the time that erectus had to grow that large, even the ancient ones.  There are also probably constraints to growing larger in most modern human societies once we reached a certain level of technology that may not have existed in ancient populations.  The baddest guy in the world is still vulnerable to a spear.  I don't think that particular constraint would exist to the same degree in a less technological hominid.  We also have to defend territory and I think 4 guys with spears is going to defend it better than one huge guy with a spear.  We may be adapted to basically be the size where a group of us is most deadly if you break it down to total weight.  Total weight of the population is a basic measure of the food supply in the environment they are protecting.  The size where you get the most effective fighting force is basically how big we are. That is my theory anyway but other forces no doubt tug at the edges like girls preferring larger males.There is also the fact that superior technology allowed us to kill the largest of animals so there is less need for us to grow larger.  There is no biological constraint for us growing much larger than Polynesians if we were subjected to different selection pressures. That is my main point.  The set of pressures on a non technological would logically be different than it is for us.  Most paleontologists simply have no reason to think along those lines.  They never had an experience like I did where I think I encountered an extremely large primate at Bluff Creek. 

Edited June 3, 2014 by BobZenor

[the parkie]

Is your experience written in detail anywhere Bob?

[norseman]

There was a Samoan in my platoon that was about 6' 6" and built like that guy.  What astonished me about him wasn't his size but strength.  Even for his size he was much stronger than any European I ever saw.  He didn't work out like that guy probably did to get that strong and he was far from the biggest Samoan I ever saw.  He was by far the strongest human I ever saw and I wouldn't know that except some guy in a bar finally got him angry after trying to pick a fight with the biggest guy in the room.  When he saw large groups of people flying to the side as my Samoan friend made his way through the crowd on a run to get him it was the most terrified look I ever saw on someone as he ran away.   I remain skeptical that any Caucasian would worry him but it would take a lot to get him to fight.  I learned something that day but it is just my opinion since you had to be there.  I still find it hard to believe what I saw that night.  He used to run 3 miles every day with us in under 20 minutes.  He could easily put on another couple hundred pounds and still get around well enough.  He had the natural strength to carry it.

 

 

 

Polynesians and Africans do not do well in strongest man competitions, why this is? I have no idea, but I have seen them compete and they don't seem to do well.

 

Check it out:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World's_Strongest_Man

 

The tiny Island of Iceland has more championships than any other nation at eight!!!\

 

Also, look at height of nations per capita:

 

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/05/denis-foynes/the-10-countries-with-the-tallest-people/

 

Top Four?

 

Netherlands

Sweden

Denmark

Norway

 

 

 

The thing about the fossil record is that it is so incomplete.  The femur example is one of the very few examples of a leg bone where you could estimate body size.  None exist for Meganthropus. What they do have is some skulls that have indications of great size and like a nuchal crest on one for large neck muscles and the huge jaws on some of them and other features.  No fossils exist at all for the lineage the led to hobbits. They didn't just drop from the sky.  I am not arguing from ignorance in saying that the fossil record is incomplete so it might have been large.  I cited specific examples that indicated large size and explained why it was ignored.   Even in the femur example the bias exists that it couldn't be from a extraordinarily large individual because it isn't complete.  That bias is baseless from the perspective of biology.  The overheating hypothesis is just nonsense to put it nicely.  They just assume they weren't extra large and the argument is basically an an argument from incredulity.  I don't respond well to emotional arguments like that.  I am not accusing you of making it.  Your argument is reasonable that they don't exist as proof where you can definitely say they were approaching the size of a sasquatch.  I wouldn't argue with you about that.  I just pointed out the biological reasons that it isn't a valid argument to extend that to saying they couldn't grow as large as a sasquatch very quickly.  All they would need is selection pressure and a relatively small amount of time to do it.  Size isn't a valid biological argument against sasquatch existing or being a member of the genus Homo for that reason.  Assumptions that members of the genus Homo being "human" with the implication of significant technology is dubious at best.    The guy with the theory of the killer ape Neanderthal made great points but it should have been a parody.  It shows how much we don't know and how invested some anthropologists are in their constructed realities.  I found it pretty amusing myself especially the part about the cat eyes.  He really went overboard on that. 

 

 

He went overboard with alot of stuff IMO. But your saying a relatively short period of time? How short? And what about other morphology like being able to with stand cold without fire, even at night. Or eating raw meat without cooking it. Sasquatch exhibits morphology as well as a lack of traits that would kill a human being. And when I say a human being I'm including other archaic species as well. I would think if you were going back wards from the genus Homo to something more primitive evolutionary speaking? This would take some time. 

 

I mean I could one day decide that I'm going to eat my steak raw and sleep naked in a snow bank, but not sure how that is going to work out for me.And even if I managed somehow to toughen myself? My children would all wave from the window of the warm house............ having a hard time fleshing out how that would work.

 

 

 

 

 

There are few modern paleontologists that think the ancient Java hominids were australopithecines.  That would violate the "erectus first" hypothesis and the hypothesis has political power in the field.    It also violates conventional wisdom which is pretty much meaningless in the field where so much is interpretation and guesswork.  Tools don't tell you anything when there are multiple hominids by the way.  They also don't tell you how human something was contrary to popular opinion.  Thinking it does just points out another bias in the field.

 

 

I agree with you Bob, there is a Erectus first bias concerning human migrations. 

 

 

T

he point of the Polynesians wasn't the weight of that guy.  That was just a nice song.  It was the size of Polynesians in general and how fast some populations of modern humans got larger.  We are talking like maybe less than 1 percent of the time that erectus had to grow that large, even the ancient ones.  There are also probably constraints to growing larger in most modern human societies once we reached a certain level of technology that may not have existed in ancient populations.  The baddest guy in the world is still vulnerable to a spear.  I don't think that particular constraint would exist to the same degree in a less technological hominid.  We also have to defend territory and I think 4 guys with spears is going to defend it better than one huge guy with a spear.  We may be adapted to basically be the size where a group of us is most deadly if you break it down to total weight.  Total weight of the population is a basic measure of the food supply in the environment they are protecting.  The size where you get the most effective fighting force is basically how big we are. That is my theory anyway but other forces no doubt tug at the edges like girls preferring larger males.There is also the fact that superior technology allowed us to kill the largest of animals so there is less need for us to grow larger.  There is no biological constraint for us growing much larger than Polynesians if we were subjected to different selection pressures. That is my main point.  The set of pressures on a non technological would logically be different than it is for us.  Most paleontologists simply have no reason to think along those lines.  They never had an experience like I did where I think I encountered an extremely large primate at Bluff Creek. 

 

 

I'm not a expert on Polynesia.........but I take it your saying at one time in recent history they were very diminutive in size? I know a lot of Norse culture, and history, and I know that digs in England associated with Vikings produced femur bones that would not fit in the bone boxes given to the archaeologists by the university. 

 

Tacitus wrote about Germania in the third century AD and notes their "huge frames, fit only for a sudden exertion".

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=qZFJAAAAYAAJ&dq=Tacitus%20Brodribb&pg=PR6v=onepage&q&f=false

 

So, in the case of northern Europeans? They have been very large for a very long time, as long as written history. But written history is just a very short period of time in the overall scheme of things. So how long would it take for a Neanderthal to become a Squatch? 

 

I agree that our size is dictated somewhat by our technology, as well as other morphological traits. Such as Scandinavians have big torsos and shorter legs because they were a ocean going people and they rowed a lot and when they got to where they were going? They unloaded and rode small ponies. Where as an African has longer legs because the primary means of transportation was their own legs.

[the parkie]

Plenty of people eat their steak raw Norse, perhaps you could Google a good steak tartare recipe.

Also, it sounds like your children are sadists!!

[Guest]

Norseman, I've heard that the European body type of long torso and shorter limbs is an adaptation for heat conservation in the far north like Eskimos. Africans have longer limbs and shorter torso to help shed excess heat faster.