The case for Homo Erectus

[Willystyle]

Yes I was in that camp as well for a while til I took a Human Evolution class and read a few books which had many holes in the theory. Take the thousands of footprint castes themselves. They look exactly like a giant human. As you said, Gigantopithecus was a bamboo eating specialist. There’s no proof of it being a biped. Homo Erectus on the other hand was a very successful generalist and fossil evidence is starting to pop up. Not too many hominins had the saggital crest but erectus does have the saggital keel. Perhaps the most convincing thing to me though is that there was really no reason for a species as evolutionarily successful as Homo erectus to go extinct in the first place other than that they were probably slowly displaced by the more social Homo sapiens. Mountain tops, mosquito infested swamps, and boreal forests would seem to be the final hold out areas for a cold adapted species which has been squeezed out of its habitat everywhere else.

[MIB]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

As far as DNA? They should have no problem making the distinction between Homo Erectus descendants and modern humans.

 

I'm not convinced that is true.  Might be, but most DNA testing which is intended to distinguish one species from another looks at a specific subset of gene locii where we know we can distinguish one known species from another.   Since modern humans are distinct from other species, we only have to check one of those known locations to tell us from chimp from gorilla, etc.   In other words, when we are doing species identification, we do not look at the entire mitochondrial gene set and we do not look at the nuclear DNA at all.   All we are trying to do is show the sample is human by eliminating KNOWN alternatives.   If Homo erectus is 99.5% identical to us and chimp is 98% identical, it stands to reason that the "earmarks" for human DNA are shared by Homo erectus.    After all, those tests are looking for things all humans have in common, not the differences one human has from another.   It is only when you get beyond species ID testing that differences between H. sapiens sapiens and H. erectus should show up.  That means the only way we see the oddity in the DNA is if we ignore the appearance of human contamination in the initial testing and forge onward "wasting money" testing seemingly contaminated samples.    If we were to do the level of testing necessary to prove paternity or something of that nature, I think we'd begin seeing incredible differences that the species identification tests gloss over.    

 

During Sykes study, if I recall right, there was one sample tested which came back as a very rare eastern European genome found in the US desert SW.   Ok, maybe it was a rare human migrant.   But maybe it wasn't. It was noted as an oddity and to my understanding no further followup was done.   Should have been if it was that odd and seemingly that out of place.  Yet another opportunity squandered to assumption. 

 

That's why I want that good enough sample .. probably have to see the thing bleed on something and KNOW, through observation, rather than just hope, that it is bigfoot, then go ahead and spend the money for full mtDNA and nuDNA workup no matter how irriational and wasteful it seems to anyone who wasn't there to see what left the blood.

 

Or, y' know, in your case, have the body on a slab and know that the sample you're paying to have tested IS ... ****IS**** ... bigfoot, 'cause there he is right there.   When you have that certainty, not just a hope, then you do the test despite all the logical reasons why you shouldn't because whatever the test says, it is going to be the truth.

 

MIB    

[hiflier]

Easy to acquire knowledge and wisdom reading such a post. Thank you, MIB. All we have to do now is figure out how a midtarsal break fits in with Homo Erectus. Something typically seen in a foot with a divergent big toe more suited to arboreal climbing activity.

Edited August 6, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

12 hours ago, MIB said:

 

I'm not convinced that is true.  Might be, but most DNA testing which is intended to distinguish one species from another looks at a specific subset of gene locii where we know we can distinguish one known species from another.   Since modern humans are distinct from other species, we only have to check one of those known locations to tell us from chimp from gorilla, etc.   In other words, when we are doing species identification, we do not look at the entire mitochondrial gene set and we do not look at the nuclear DNA at all.   All we are trying to do is show the sample is human by eliminating KNOWN alternatives.   If Homo erectus is 99.5% identical to us and chimp is 98% identical, it stands to reason that the "earmarks" for human DNA are shared by Homo erectus.    After all, those tests are looking for things all humans have in common, not the differences one human has from another.   It is only when you get beyond species ID testing that differences between H. sapiens sapiens and H. erectus should show up.  That means the only way we see the oddity in the DNA is if we ignore the appearance of human contamination in the initial testing and forge onward "wasting money" testing seemingly contaminated samples.    If we were to do the level of testing necessary to prove paternity or something of that nature, I think we'd begin seeing incredible differences that the species identification tests gloss over.    

 

During Sykes study, if I recall right, there was one sample tested which came back as a very rare eastern European genome found in the US desert SW.   Ok, maybe it was a rare human migrant.   But maybe it wasn't. It was noted as an oddity and to my understanding no further followup was done.   Should have been if it was that odd and seemingly that out of place.  Yet another opportunity squandered to assumption. 

 

That's why I want that good enough sample .. probably have to see the thing bleed on something and KNOW, through observation, rather than just hope, that it is bigfoot, then go ahead and spend the money for full mtDNA and nuDNA workup no matter how irriational and wasteful it seems to anyone who wasn't there to see what left the blood.

 

Or, y' know, in your case, have the body on a slab and know that the sample you're paying to have tested IS ... ****IS**** ... bigfoot, 'cause there he is right there.   When you have that certainty, not just a hope, then you do the test despite all the logical reasons why you shouldn't because whatever the test says, it is going to be the truth.

 

MIB    

 

I would think that it would be very obvious from a DNA labs perspective that if your testing a supposed bipedal ape mans DNA? That you may have to chase it all the way out to rule out modern human. Unless of course it’s a Bear sample or some glaring unrelated species from the get go.

 

We have no idea what Bigfoot is. But it’s almost guaranteed that it will be between Chimps and Humans.

 

If the lab is just throwing out samples based on the preliminary first look that it’s a modern human? Then we should be sending Bigfoot samples to 23 and me.... a lab that’s going to tell you exactly what it is or what it is not.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

If the lab is just throwing out samples based on the preliminary first look that it’s a modern human? Then we should be sending Bigfoot samples to 23 and me.... a lab that’s going to tell you exactly what it is or what it is not.

 

That's actually a pretty good idea. Why haven't any of the "primate" labs so far done their work? Degraded samples seems to be a common excuse even though Human DNA can be obtained along with just about everything else. Yes, I understand about "markers" and all but I also think more samples can be obtained from the nesting site at any time until next May 2020. In truth I think that ha already been done because it's inconceivable to me that anyone would simply close the door on any additional chances to get a good sample. I mean, what? Five samples and that's it? No revisits? Makes no sense. I'm pretty serious when I say that the process is still ongoing. 

[bipedalist]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I would think that it would be very obvious from a DNA labs perspective that if your testing a supposed bipedal ape mans DNA? That you may have to chase it all the way out to rule out modern human. Unless of course it’s a Bear sample or some glaring unrelated species from the get go.

 

We have no idea what Bigfoot is. But it’s almost guaranteed that it will be between Chimps and Humans.

 

If the lab is just throwing out samples based on the preliminary first look that it’s a modern human? Then we should be sending Bigfoot samples to 23 and me.... a lab that’s going to tell you exactly what it is or what it is not.

 

If you are going to pick a genealogical dna or genetic genealogy facility go with familytree DNA in that case.   Just my read on things from a strength or weakness standpoint.   If you want ancestrydna, they are doing saliva in tubes.   Familytree dna does cheek swabs apparently.  What you put on the swab or liquid in a vial is going to get tested.  Multiple facilities could be used.  Submit results to gedmatch then like this https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073819302014

Edited August 6, 2019 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

Hmmm, sounds easy enough. Okay, Patty. Say "Ahh". Maybe instead of plaster for footprint casting I should be carrying a DNA swab kit  I have actually been turning over the idea of trying to see if I could maybe volunteer at my F&W to do soil and water e-DNA sample gathering.

[norseman]

16 hours ago, hiflier said:

Easy to acquire knowledge and wisdom reading such a post. Thank you, MIB. All we have to do now is figure out how a midtarsal break fits in with Homo Erectus. Something typically seen in a foot with a divergent big toe more suited to arboreal climbing activity.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21829194-700-1-in-13-people-have-bendy-chimp-like-feet/

[MIB]

18 hours ago, hiflier said:

All we have to do now is figure out how a midtarsal break fits in with Homo Erectus.

 

Looking at it logically .. maybe not right, but logical .. I think the midtarsal break is a necessary adaptation to support the weight.    By my math, a bigfoot supports about 4-5 times as much weight per square inch of foot bottom as we do.  Without the midtarsal break to facilitate the compliant gait we see on film (thus no head-bob like we have as we do our pogo-stick walk) I don't think they could support their weight without breaking bones and tearing tendons.  

 

The pieces really do all do seem to fit in a consistent and comprehensive way.

 

5 hours ago, norseman said:

That you may have to chase it all the way out to rule out modern human.

 

No, because there's a big gap between chimp and human with clear identifying markers, so they only have to hit the markers, they don't have to do the exhaustive test.   The reason for not doing the exhaustive test is cost difference.   And, practically speaking, the only time that full test is needed is if you suspect something like bigfoot that's well over 99% and simultaneously unknown.     That was not the paradigm, not the assumption, back when those tests were done.    In the minds of the scientists of the time, there were no close relatives so there was no need to do that sort of testing.   Anything even closely human was **us** in their view, thus contamination, and not worth the cost of further testing.      

 

I don't really know why this is so hard to understand.

 

What we have to do is learn from their mistake and not repeat it.   It's all we've got.  

 

Changing gears a little, there are people who have hair from the original sample / source where Derek Randles got the hair he sent in.   While some of it has been contaminated by human handling (including by me, which is part of why I know about it), I would think some of the more recent developments in forensic cleaning prior to testing, and developments requiring much less DNA to replicate before testing, it should be worth re-testing.    

 

MIB

Edited August 6, 2019 by MIB

[norseman]

14 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

Looking at it logically .. maybe not right, but logical .. I think the midtarsal break is a necessary adaptation to support the weight.    By my math, a bigfoot supports about 4-5 times as much weight per square inch of foot bottom as we do.  Without the midtarsal break to facilitate the compliant gait we see on film (thus no head-bob like we have as we do our pogo-stick walk) I don't think they could support their weight without breaking bones and tearing tendons.  

 

The pieces really do all do seem to fit in a consistent and comprehensive way.

 

 

No, because there's a big gap between chimp and human with clear identifying markers, so they only have to hit the markers, they don't have to do the exhaustive test.   The reason for not doing the exhaustive test is cost difference.   And, practically speaking, the only time that full test is needed is if you suspect something like bigfoot that's well over 99% and simultaneously unknown.     That was not the paradigm, not the assumption, back when those tests were done.    In the minds of the scientists of the time, there were no close relatives so there was no need to do that sort of testing.   Anything even closely human was **us** in their view, thus contamination, and not worth the cost of further testing.      

 

I don't really know why this is so hard to understand.

 

What we have to do is learn from their mistake and not repeat it.   It's all we've got.  

 

Changing gears a little, there are people who have hair from the original sample / source where Derek Randles got the hair he sent in.   While some of it has been contaminated by human handling (including by me, which is part of why I know about it), I would think some of the more recent developments in forensic cleaning prior to testing, and developments requiring much less DNA to replicate before testing, it should be worth re-testing.    

 

MIB

 

Correct. I do NOT understand.

 

If your trying to prove a new species as real? Then why would you not pay the extra cost to run the sequence out completely?

 

Obviously common sense tells us that all bipedal hominids on the planet share/shared a common ancestor. We have mapped Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes and then tracked segments of DNA back into modern human DNA. So to be able to parse out the differences between Human and Bigfoot DNA is perfectly within their capabilities.

 

So if a person can not afford a REAL test? Then save the sample! Wait until costs come down or opportunities arise. Better that than to destroy the sample by some half ass test that will prove nothing.

[MIB]

3 minutes ago, norseman said:

If your trying to prove a new species as real? Then why would you not pay the extra cost to run the sequence out completely?

 

Because they were absolutely ape-camp.   Nothing human-like could exist.   They were looking for DNA significantly matching chimp, gorilla, orangatan and NOT having human markers because there could be no near Homo sapiens sapiens left since Neanderthal went extinct 30-50K years ago.  The only conceivable possibility at the time was human like DNA was human contamination.     I am fairly sure if they'd found something akin to what they were expecting, they'd have opened the purse strings and spent the money, but not on presumed contamination.   

 

Remember, even though "academics" like Meldrum were involved, they were not spending university / gov't budgeted money, they were paying out of their own personal pockets.    The costs, at the time, of full testing, was many months pay for a full professor.  Money that wouldn't go to house payments, car payments, kids' educations, etc.  

 

That's where a Wally Hersom comes in.   Or a Tom Slick if he'd lived to the days of DNA testing.     Maybe that is where the gov't interference comes in, not at the labs, because there seem to be many fewer people with the resources to fund that sort of testing than there are labs capable of doing the testing.   Just a guess.

 

MIB

 

 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

Because they were absolutely ape-camp.   Nothing human-like could exist.   They were looking for DNA significantly matching chimp, gorilla, orangatan and NOT having human markers because there could be no near Homo sapiens sapiens left since Neanderthal went extinct 30-50K years ago.  The only conceivable possibility at the time was human like DNA was human contamination.     I am fairly sure if they'd found something akin to what they were expecting, they'd have opened the purse strings and spent the money, but not on presumed contamination.   

 

Remember, even though "academics" like Meldrum were involved, they were not spending university / gov't budgeted money, they were paying out of their own personal pockets.    The costs, at the time, of full testing, was many months pay for a full professor.  Money that wouldn't go to house payments, car payments, kids' educations, etc.  

 

That's where a Wally Hersom comes in.   Or a Tom Slick if he'd lived to the days of DNA testing.     Maybe that is where the gov't interference comes in, not at the labs, because there seem to be many fewer people with the resources to fund that sort of testing than there are labs capable of doing the testing.   Just a guess.

 

MIB

 

 

 

I find that bonkers...

 

They knew that their quarry is bipedal, with a foot that lacks a divergent big toe. We do not have the Gigantopethicus genome cracked. So have no real idea of our relation with it. Ape camp? Non ape camp? These are just words.... Patty’s limb proportions are some where between an Ape and a Human. So logically it’s between a Ape and a Human. Add to that confusion that science considers Humans as Apes? We are really really splitting hairs here.

 

Its all a dang crap shoot. Run the damn test.

 

If what your saying is true? That tells me just how confident these guys were in their own DNA samples. Not much!

[Twist]

1 hour ago, MIB said:

 

Because they were absolutely ape-camp.   Nothing human-like could exist.

 

You know this to be a fact that can be verified or just your opinion?    As Norse said, it would be bonkers to go into DNA testing with the mindset of ape only given whats speculated about BF which is darn near everything.  

[MIB]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

You know this to be a fact that can be verified or just your opinion?    As Norse said, it would be bonkers to go into DNA testing with the mindset of ape only given whats speculated about BF which is darn near everything.  

 

Try reading ... books, printed on paper.   I've found a lot there which I have not found on the internet, especially when it comes to older material.    Which, ironically, is exactly what we're talking about.

 

MIB

[Twist]

It was a simple question in regards to a statement you made being fact or opinion, feels like you purposely danced around what would have been a simple answer.