For Those Of Us Who Don't Think Sasquatch Is Genus Homo...

[WSA]

What is also astounding about new discoveries of fossils in the hominoid tree is how we go from 0% awareness to 100% in an eye blink. Should a BF fossil be found, our leap in awareness won't be (or shouldn't be) nearly that great.  A body should be excused for not exactly predicting the prior existence of H. nadali, exactly... although paleontologists shouldn't be that surprised at something within a certain range of morphology.  What I keep emphasizing around here is how proving the existence of BF is a small leap from all that we know about the state of life on this planet, past and present. It is flat-out consistent with so much of what we know, and the higher probability of it keeps getting confirmed by finds like this one here. 

[Drew]

No.  finding another human species ALIVE on the planet would be far greater than this discovery.

 

Finding a living Bipedal Primate ALIVE on the planet would be far greater than this discovery.

 

Our leap in awareness at finding a living bipedal primate, ALIVE on this planet, living in close proximity to humans, would rival this discovery by leaps and bounds.

[Guest DWA]

I actually don't think it's a matter of which one would be more astounding.  The actual discovery of something still living is, sure, going to hit us in ways no fossil ever could.

 

I think, though, that what WSA is saying is:  bigfoot's not all that improbable, given all we know and all we continue to find out.

[norseman]

 

Finding a living Bipedal Primate ALIVE on the planet would be far greater than this discovery.

 

So how closely are you following the whole Hobbit/Ebu Gogo pursuit?

You have a basis of myth on the island of a bipedal primate living along side of humans very recently. And you have fossil evidence to back it up. Pretty compelling no?

[WSA]

We all seem to have this weird idea that the world 2 million years ago had more evolutionary potential than it does now. The source of this kind of erroneous thinking is the belief that the species we currently share the planet with are less exotic, and more probable than a T-rex or a H. nadali. There is absolutely nothing to back that up but a subjective belief based on familiarity and conditioning to what is "normal."  Although we've long since grown complacent of the fact of the platypus, the idea of a modern creature that looks remarkably like us tends to boggle the typical mind, like the first time we saw a picture of a dinosaur.  But, each is equally probable, according to evolutionary theory.

 

Given that we've already proven that evolution has already crafted multiple examples of  creatures remarkably similar to us, the idea of BF is a pretty tame idea.  Each new hominoid we pull out of the ground is bound to chip away at the idea that it is something exotic we're sighting, and at the idea that the probabilities are greater for ALL of them going extinct but us.  

[Guest DWA]

Just as one example:  I'm a biologist from another galaxy, studying up on Earth evolution, I know about humans, and about their sordid history...and I run into australopithecines, and gorillas, and organgutans.

 

No WAY!, I would tell you, that the latter two survived us.  Just not equipped to do it.  But those australopithecines...they'd be my pick to still be around on Earth if any higher primate besides humans was.

 

And the sasquatch...is...most...like...

 

And *then* I find out the history of non-human bipedal higher primates indicates presence in Asia...Africa...Europe...there's this gaping hole...the Americas...which have a history of prosimians...nothing identified higher than that...but *thousands* of people report something that *is leaving tracks*...I don't think a conclusion would be hard to come to.

An open mind would be impossible *not* to have.

[Guest DWA]

And while I'm on utterly blinkered thinking, another quote from the article:

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Archaeologist Sonia Harmand of Stony Brook University dropped an even bigger bombshell—the discovery of dozens of crude stone tools near Lake Turkana dating to 3.3 million years ago. If stone tools originated half a million years before the first appearance of our genus, it would be hard to argue anymore that the defining characteristic of Homo was its technological ingenuity.  (emphasis added)

---------------------------------------------------------

Um.  Precisely why?

 

There is apparently no evidence of the species with which the tools can be associated.  What does this mean?  One doesn't have to be a Ph.D - one does not have to be a high-school graduate - to answer:  The toolmaker is unknown.  Which means:  it *might* not be Homo.  Or...OR...Homo might go back further than our finds indicate.  Gee.  Imagine that.

 

With this kind of thinking rampant in the mainstream, it's pretty obvious why one must take all its findings with a big helping of salt.

[Drew]

I'd have to see what kind of tool she is referring to.

 

a hammer and anvil rock combo is not necessarily stone tool fabrication, in the sense that flaking flint, or chipping the edges of a stone to make a meat scraper, sharper is.

 

 

I mean some populations of chimps crush stuff on an anvil don't they?

Edited September 11, 2015 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

And from an article linked to the one sparking this thread:

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whatever the verdict on Berger’s claims, Malapa and Rising Star have turned fresh eyes to the South African caves, and with each new find there, the scenario of our origins grows more intricate and complex. Meanwhile, some 97 percent of the continent has yet to be investigated by fossil hunters.

"If you imagine our human origins as a 500-piece jigsaw puzzle,†says paleontologist Patricia Kramer, “then today we have maybe eight pieces near the east edge and four pieces from the south. We can grasp a bit of the pattern, but we're nowhere near seeing the whole picture. And neither the east nor the south are more important than each other. We need both.â€
----------------------------------------------------------------

And that's how a scientist thinks about stuff.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2015 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

Over my scientific lifetime, human and prehuman origins have been pushed further and further back. Not much I was taught in college is even valid any more. Nothing in human history would really surprise me because of fragmented, and huge gaps in the fossil record, and the fact that most of what we know about human history is constantly found to be wrong. Beyond that the Sumerian culture was supposed to be the dawn of civilization and before that mankind was groups of wandering hunter gatherers. Fast forward to now, and we know that complex civilizations predate the Sumarian's by thousands of years. Gobekli Tepe, a complex megalithic site in Turkey, may date back to as much as 14,000 years ago. Those structures of massive monoliths adorned with modern looking sculptures were hardly thrown up by hunter gatherers. Either known human history is wrong, or we have been sharing the planet with alien intelligences. I have to think that we are pretty much clueless about human origins and even more clueless about the history of other primates on this planet.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

If Bigfoot is alive and lacking classification, the focus should not be on fossil digs in Africa.  the Focus should be on collecting a specimen from anyone of the 48 States, 7 Provinces and Northern Mexico, in locations accessible to any person with a pick up truck or a jeep.  This is all just window dressing to the fact that a Live large mammal, is far easier to classify and obtain a type specimen for, than a new Genus of human, from southern Africa.

 I absolutely agree  as  I eluded to that.  I plussed your post.

[Guest DWA]

True.  If you're actually talking about finding the North American ape.  But that isn't why I posted this.  I posted this to show people that scientists who were "right" just yesterday can be dramatically wrong today...and all because they hadn't been seeing stuff that was right under their noses.

 

This also shows both the very good and the very bad of the way scientists think about stuff, and how much their beliefs and assumptions color and indeed determine what they are willing to accept.  The thing to note carefully is that the very best of the way scientists think is exemplified by the Lee Bergers of the world...and the very worst by the ones who are sure the Lee Bergers are wrong.  The latter keep us from getting places.

[Guest DWA]

(Oh.  Oh.  Actually the *real* reason I posted this:  to show how taxonomy might surprise people - particularly those of us who have been thinking that an ape is the most likely thing we are gonna call that North American primate when all is said and done.  But the more I read it and think about it...the more important the above become.)

[JustCurious]

I found the presentations in this symposium: http://carta.anthropogeny.org/events/bipedalism-and-human-origins

to be interesting.  I'd suggest starting with Jeremy DeSilva's presentation just because he's a good presenter and gives a bit of an outline that makes the rest of the presentations make more sense.  I will caution that the segment on Body Fat and Bipedality may not be suitable for young viewers since it involves some nudity.

 

The discovery of A. sediba had already complicated "the family tree" and this discovery of H. naledi  probably just raises more questions than it answers.  Viewing these presentations though gives some idea of various schools of thought on various topics and highlights that what is known today is only as valid as the current fossils available.

[Doc Holliday]

They always show the model with very little hair.  I suspect it had large amounts of hair like an ape.  Look at that picture again and imagine thick black hair.  Looks like a small Sasquatch! It's more evidence in my mind Sasquatch is a relic Homo population.

 

fwiw, there was a  neanderthal thread some time ago where the hairy / not so hairy debate raged on ..... just in case the guilty parties decide to circle back on this one you'll know why.

 

 

Not to be a Debbie Downer ,but this is still not evidence in North America.

True, but it is evidence we don't know it all and the fossil record remains open.

 

 

exactly..... there is much to learn , as swwas mentions below.......

 

Over my scientific lifetime, human and prehuman origins have been pushed further and further back. Not much I was taught in college is even valid any more. Nothing in human history would really surprise me because of fragmented, and huge gaps in the fossil record, and the fact that most of what we know about human history is constantly found to be wrong. Beyond that the Sumerian culture was supposed to be the dawn of civilization and before that mankind was groups of wandering hunter gatherers. Fast forward to now, and we know that complex civilizations predate the Sumarian's by thousands of years. Gobekli Tepe, a complex megalithic site in Turkey, may date back to as much as 14,000 years ago. Those structures of massive monoliths adorned with modern looking sculptures were hardly thrown up by hunter gatherers. Either known human history is wrong, or we have been sharing the planet with alien intelligences. I have to think that we are pretty much clueless about human origins and even more clueless about the history of other primates on this planet.

 

Plussed for honesty and a point well made.......

 

science loves to champion today's expert  theories and teach them as fact , yet sooner or later tomorrows next "expert" comes along and proves them wrong..... then the next guy may prove that wrong and it goes on an on....

 

iow, hypotheses ( usually defined as educated guesses) are just that , and not the solid fact they are presented and taught as......... funny how they can't seem to nail it down once and for all........ hairy or not.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Doc Holliday