Jump to content
Cryptic Megafauna

What Branch Of The Family Tree Does Patty Belong?

Recommended Posts

Cryptic Megafauna
On 8/24/2016 at 1:04 PM, MIB said:

I'm not on the bandwagon ... but I'm curious and I can sure "table-top" the thing.

 

Could you check the timeline of past glacial maximums / sea level minimums and see if, and when, there were land bridges existing at times where either candidate species could have crossed into N.A.?    I somewhat doubt they persist into modern enough times, competing directly with us / recent ancestors, to have survived in Asia or Africa but if a few had gotten to North America and our immediate ancestors did not so there was a period without direct competition, then we might have a whole new ballgame.

 

MIB

 

 

Multiple ice free corridors arose along the coast about every 10000-15000 years going back at least 200,000 years.

There were inter glacial periods during the 2.5 Pleistocene ice age as well as glacial advances every 40,000 to 100,000 years or so.

There are also other cyclic drivers to consider.

 

The cycles of earlier ice free corridors (before 200,000) may not be well understood as ice erases a lot of evidence.

Anything could have come over before 2.5 million but that is a bit early for a hominid as advanced as BF.

Since the Australopithecus and Homo Habilis during which a BF may have developed and left Africa was probably in the 2 million to 1 million up to about a half million years ago I (and others) speculate that a BF had started to evolve that was in strict competition with our immediate ancestors.

 

Seeking alternative environments to avoid modern human ancestors they moved into remote dense high altitude forests and due to new toxins in the vegetation they had not adapted to evolved gigantism as an adaptation to help process and absorb and buffer the toxins through a larger biomass, this could have happened at a point before or after leaving Africa or a separate adaptation in multiple locations such as Eurasia, Indonesia, and/or the Americas.

 

They could have been here a half million to 200,000 years ago although I would say even more certainly 50,000 to 12,500 years ago.

It is thought by the more advanced thinkers about human migration into the new world that that happened 200,000 to 55,000 years ago.

I would think that BF would have been here as early as our earliest modern humans and as he was retreating before us he may have been driven to cross the land bridge in advance of modern humans.

 

If he is really a subspecies of Homo Erectus (another possibility) then he arrived at the same time as he was a primitive human (BF is a bit too primitive looking with ape proportion; limbs, smaller brain to really support this, but he may have been close to this since Homo Habilis would have been close to this).

 

If he arrived as an Erectus then did we evolve from Erectus from this lineage or a more branchy explanation of arising from Erectus generally over time through gene transfer over the whole scope of Eurasia, Africa, and possibly the new world?

 

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I was doing research and thought this was interesting and could point to BF leniage with respect  to dimorphism.       

"The reduced degree of sexual dimorphism is visible primarily in the reduction of the male canine tooth relative to other ape species (except gibbons) and reduced brow ridges and general robustness of males. Another important physiological change related to sexuality in humans was the evolution of hidden estrus. Humans and bonobos are the only apes in which the female is fertile year round and in which no special signals of fertility are produced by the body (such as genital swelling during estrus).

Nonetheless, humans retain a degree of sexual dimorphism in the distribution of body hair and subcutaneous fat, and in the overall size, males being around 15% larger than females. These changes taken together have been interpreted as a result of an increased emphasis on pair bonding as a possible solution to the requirement for increased parental investment due to the prolonged infancy of offspring.  

Along with the common chimpanzee, the bonobo is the closest extant relative to humans. "    Wikipedia  

http://www.bonobo.org/bonobos/

 

Could it be that our known apes are pointing to where BF comes from?    The bonobo is the last of the great apes to be discovered.   It is known as the make love not war ape.       I do not recall any mention by witness reports of obvious fertility signs in female BF other than full breasts at times (presumably during nursing).       Here we have two known species,  humans and bonobos, which are the only two species of apes without obvious visible fertility signs.    If BF does not exhibit external signs of fertility,    that points to BF being part of the human/bonobo ancestral line.       Anecdotal evidence suggest pair bonding with apparent family groups has been reported by witnesses which is related to bimorphism.    I may be reading a lot into this but it looks somewhat like a smoking gun to me pointing to where BF comes from.   

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

SWWASAS It seem to me that BF diverged from man at the 1- million mark so it's social and sexual predilection would be about 6 million years closer to us than a bonobo. So I think I might agree with the exception that BF probably is not fertile year round as I think it lives in a cold habitat where that would not be the best evolutionary survival adaptation. Perhaps they are able to suppress their ovulation cycle but with an underlying pattern that is more like our genus but modified and adapted. Besides pair bonding it's a glue for socially complex groups so it makes me wonder why I don't think BF has socially complex groups.

Perhaps they have socially complex small groups. It is thought that Australopithecus had social groups of smaller size (than Homo Habilis) due to brain size.

Perhasp they needed less constant sexual availability as well. The main sex organ is the brain, after all, at least as important as the glandular system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

You may be right but I am not sure how you have any idea of when and if BF diverged from man unless you have had a DNA sample to analyze.      I think it would take that to have any idea of a time line with respect to divergence if indeed that ever happened.    We just do not have any real data.     I think you are correct about the small family groups.     Those small groups have been reported fairly frequently by witnesses but no one has stumbled into a large BF village anyplace that lived to tell about it.    I make that distinction, because if such places exist, they might never let a human finder leave to tell about it.    Settlements are easier to find, even in dense forest, so I think if they exist, they are never very large or static.   Perhaps the Native American model of summer and winter camps for NA forest dwellers might be what is going on with BF?      Live someplace in the summer then move to winter camps in the fall.      Who knows but I think the NA model would probably be the best guess for a forest dweller Bigfoot.     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna
3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

You may be right but I am not sure how you have any idea of when and if BF diverged from man unless you have had a DNA sample to analyze.      I think it would take that to have any idea of a time line with respect to divergence if indeed that ever happened.    We just do not have any real data.     I think you are correct about the small family groups.     Those small groups have been reported fairly frequently by witnesses but no one has stumbled into a large BF village anyplace that lived to tell about it.    I make that distinction, because if such places exist, they might never let a human finder leave to tell about it.    Settlements are easier to find, even in dense forest, so I think if they exist, they are never very large or static.   Perhaps the Native American model of summer and winter camps for NA forest dwellers might be what is going on with BF?      Live someplace in the summer then move to winter camps in the fall.      Who knows but I think the NA model would probably be the best guess for a forest dweller Bigfoot.     

My opinion is morphology from the PG film tell you plenty.

What might be more interesting in what ways did descendants of Australopithines or early Homo change in the one or two million years between a likely divergence.

 

DNA would be good as you mention, why I say what I say is that perhaps you can lump a lot of gracile Australopithecines and early Homo Habilis into one species. The differences are not too significant. They just found another one (species) BTW for the right time period. The point is they had very similar proportions over all, the only real difference that amounts to anything are brain size. With the measure of brain size and the present classifications of species and looking at the highly recessed forehead you can tell BF has a smaller brains size and is so earlier and more Australopithecene like. 

 

Making them only slightly smaller brained than Homo Habilis and probably could interbreed if Native tales of human BF conjunctions are true then even more true for close cousins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

The speech reported in encounters and caught in recordings settles it for me. It confers sentience, and is the game changer philosophically.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
guyzonthropus

Southern-I'm with ya on that! The nature of their vocalizations clearly indicates a far more sophisticated level of cognition and perhaps abstraction.

 

You guys are forgetting about the Billi Ape, which I'm pretty sure was described in the journals well after the bonobo.

 

As for the issue of gigantism, the size may be the result of selective factors involved with crossing through the Bering region. They may not have done so at the "ideal" period, but rather when it was just barely passable, so as to minimize the interference of other species, or some other motivating reason. This may have put more stresses upon the travellers, and those with a larger body mass were the only ones to have made it in any numbers. Or perhaps this selection towards larger size occurred over a large number of generations as they moved north on the approach, as well as the crossing itself and the decent towards the forested regions to the south.

 

And who's to say, they may have been the smartest of the group when that migration or dispersion began, in that they saw those dwarves were going to become a problem, so they took off. Maybe that was the result of their whole avoidance thing...

"we gotta go!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
On August 30, 2016 at 7:15 PM, southernyahoo said:

The speech reported in encounters and caught in recordings settles it for me. It confers sentience, and is the game changer philosophically.

 

But what other evidence do we have that Sasquatch is a sentient being? Tools? Fire? Clothes? Art? Music?

 

The human brain is expensive and in evolution you use it or lose it. I just do not see evidence of Sasquatch using it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo
9 hours ago, norseman said:

 

But what other evidence do we have that Sasquatch is a sentient being? Tools? Fire? Clothes? Art? Music?

 

The human brain is expensive and in evolution you use it or lose it. I just do not see evidence of Sasquatch using it.

It mostly shows in their ability for tactical observation and avoidance of us. I don't necessarily think all sightings are accidents. It seems they are aware of their affect on us when we see them and they use that.  

 

Their having a language would be practically imperative for what they pull off daily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I've never understood the avoidance equals intelligence argument. 

 

If that were the case? Native Americans would still be wild, living in the forest.

 

And what about the cougar that made it from South Dakota to New Jersey undetected?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
southernyahoo

If they were just a another animal like a bear, there would be no mystery. 

 

Its that simple.  

 

Oh, and avoidance doesn't mean to keep a miles distance from humans. Just maintaining cover when it serves the purpose of not getting shot at.

 

I'm not familiar with the case of the cougar. It might have been seen but not reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
12 hours ago, norseman said:

 

But what other evidence do we have that Sasquatch is a sentient being? Tools? Fire? Clothes? Art? Music?

 

The human brain is expensive and in evolution you use it or lose it. I just do not see evidence of Sasquatch using it.

We do not have much evidence like you say but other than suspected nests I do not recall anyone claiming to have investigated a BF settlement, if they exist.      It is possible that tools etc exist but have never been seen.      Lewis and Clark's experience with clothing during their winter at Ft Clatsup sort of explains why BF does not wear clothes in the PNW.    Their leather clothing started to rot off their bodies in the dampness.    BF would be better off with their natural furry body and no clothes.  

 

As far as language, the media in the last few days have been talking about how dogs apparently understand most of what we say.      I know my last dog did.     They understand but cannot talk back.     They used modern technology to look at dog brains when they were being talked to.      Their brains light up in similar regions that human brains do when being spoken to.     So BF might be like dogs in that they can understand us but not speak.    Some habbers claim that some BF can speak pigeon English.     Of course a parrot can do the same thing so that is no big deal.      

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

I agree that if they acted like Bears there would be no mystery. 

 

But they also hunted Ishi's people to extinction who were very smart.

 

So in my opinion other factors must be at play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cryptic Megafauna

A new video, I think. By a scientist in anthropology and covers some of the points that I and others have been making over the last year regarding fossil hominids and ape behavior and Bigfoot. Looks like it will be good, I am just viewing it now so have nothing more to offer up yet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BC witness

Well presented, but no earth shattering conclusions. (sorry for the spoiler)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...