norseman Posted May 18, 2019 Admin Author Posted May 18, 2019 1 hour ago, Pteronarcyd said: An extreme example of an 8-ft Homo sapiens (a species that has existed for only about 200,000 years, and only departed the Sub-Sahara about 70,000 years ago, ignoring earlier departures that died out) says little about an apparent hominid that seems to be about 9-ft tall on average. Your point may provide fuel to an argument for possibility, but provides little fuel for high probability.I The Homo heidelbergensis you link to are a limited temporal and spatial exception to the average height for this species, which is below 6-ft. Besides, H. heidelbergensis is not H. erectus. I doubt bigfoot would be a species of Homo, simply because all known species of Homo made and used complex tools and fire, while I know of no seemingly reliable reports of bigfoot doing either. Seems? Average? Patty is slightly taller than Jim McClarin at 6 ft 6 inches. This we have a fairly good lock on. Definitely not 9 feet tall. But we have no way of knowing what height the species averages on anecdotal accounts. The vote is out on heidelbergensis size average. But the fossils speak for themselves. And Erectus gave rise to heidelbergensis and the hobbit and other species of Homo. Ive struggled with that myself. But the more I dug the more I understood that Erectus was at the cusp. Some populations flaked stone tools and some seemed to have lost it. Same goes with fire. The Ebu Gogo myth on Flores Island talks about them eating anything raw. In fact the name means “grandmother who eats anything”. They also reportedly had their own form of murmuring language and could parrot native islander words back to them. They also stole children. The descriptions are actually quite uncanny. Bigfoot I agree exhibits neither tool making or fire use. But they also seem to be more intelligent than an orangutan, which arguably would be in the range of Gigantopethicus. They also reportedly have some rudimentary language. They also are bipedal which the only bipedal genus outside of Africa to date is Homo. I now think its easier to believe that a form of Homo Erectus walked to North America on two legs and got bigger and lost technology along the way. Than to believe that a giant ape possible related to the orangutan and ate bamboo in SE Asian jungles somehow parallel evolved bipedalism and made the trek to North America. It would seem that Gigantopethicus was a specialist while Homo Erectus was a generalist. My bet has shifted on which horse I’m backing in the race. But of course I’m open to further debate. 1
MIB Posted May 19, 2019 Moderator Posted May 19, 2019 (edited) It seems there is challenge to the "out of africa" theory of human origin, mostly considered scientific / academic heresy. To that end, I ordered a new book, "The Forgotten Exodus: the Into Africa Theory of Human Evolution". Can't comment yet since I haven't received or read it. Anything that connects dots better with fewer excuses made has to be considered very seriously. I'm looking forward to this one .. should be here in a week or so. MIB Edited May 19, 2019 by MIB
norseman Posted June 4, 2019 Admin Author Posted June 4, 2019 https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2017/04/29/the-first-humans-in-america-may-not-have-been-homo-sapiens 1
norseman Posted June 4, 2019 Admin Author Posted June 4, 2019 https://evolutionnews.org/2012/08/homo_erectus_a_/ 1
SWWASAS Posted June 4, 2019 BFF Patron Posted June 4, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, norseman said: https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2017/04/29/the-first-humans-in-america-may-not-have-been-homo-sapiens This is already outdated by the human evidence in South America over 20,000 years ago. I think the latest date from a recent South America dig finding is 26,000 years ago. That migration route had to be different than the route during the ice age. The ice age migration was one of the later ones. I think the sweep of humanity out of Asia into Polynesia through the Pacific is one of the more remarkable spreads of humanity. That required boats and long distance voyages out of sight of land. The distances in the Pacific are huge. The early European pre Columbian explorations are far less remarkable because they simply followed the ice sheet from Europe to NA or island hopped using Iceland and Greenland . If you look at structures and building alone, it is fairly obvious that humanity has been global for a very long time. Pyramids on both North and South America pretty much point to some sort of link in monumental construction back to Egypt. Edited June 4, 2019 by SWWASAS
MIB Posted June 4, 2019 Moderator Posted June 4, 2019 Thanks for the links!! Seems like the more we know, the less sure we get about the things we thought we knew. MIB 1
norseman Posted June 4, 2019 Admin Author Posted June 4, 2019 5 hours ago, SWWASAS said: This is already outdated by the human evidence in South America over 20,000 years ago. I think the latest date from a recent South America dig finding is 26,000 years ago. That migration route had to be different than the route during the ice age. The ice age migration was one of the later ones. I think the sweep of humanity out of Asia into Polynesia through the Pacific is one of the more remarkable spreads of humanity. That required boats and long distance voyages out of sight of land. The distances in the Pacific are huge. The early European pre Columbian explorations are far less remarkable because they simply followed the ice sheet from Europe to NA or island hopped using Iceland and Greenland . If you look at structures and building alone, it is fairly obvious that humanity has been global for a very long time. Pyramids on both North and South America pretty much point to some sort of link in monumental construction back to Egypt. The mastodon bone find at San Diego is 131,000 years old.
Willystyle Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 On 3/27/2019 at 4:09 PM, norseman said: The more I read the more I change my mind. The debate over what Bigfoot could be is a lot like the game clue. What was present in the past, that was at the right place and the right time to make the jump to North America? I’ve often argued against Homo Erectus as being too advanced to be a candidate....maybe not. 1) Topography Homo Erectus was the most wide spread species of human to ever roam the Earth before modern Homo Sapiens left Africa roughly 100,000 years ago. They were as Far East as China and Indonesia and even built rafts and sailed to Flores Island. We have no evidence of them in North America, other than a recent mastodon butcher site in California 130,000 years old. Along with other controversial sites like Calico site. 2) Technology It would seem that how good your technology was as a Erectus was based on where you lived in the world. Oldowan technology was the beginning technology that was replaced in Africa by Acheulean technology. But not in Eurasia. So it would seem this new technology was developed after part of the population left Africa. The farther away Erectus got from Africa it seems the more primitive tools became. Hobbit tools on Flores Is are very primitive by comparison. The Hobbit lived on Flores Island from 1 mya to 50k ya. Fire making too seemed to have fits and starts concerning Erectus. Evidence goes back 600,000 ya that Peking man a eastern variant of Homo Erectus used fire. So for almost 500,000 years Homo Erectus in Asia did not use fire. Or at least we see no evidence for it. Is it possible that if Homo Erectus made it to North America that it arrived without the knowledge of fire? And only the most rudimentary knowledge of stone tools? And if separated from others of its kind for 1 million years? It could have even regressed further? 3) Morphology Homo Erectus for the most part was roughly the same size and shape as modern humans. Although it seems they had a faster growth than modern humans as shown in the Turkana boy. But there was vast variances between sub species of Homo Erectus with the most glaring one being the hobbit on Flores Island that had evolved within 300,000 years much smaller known as “Island dwarfism”. Is there a possibility that this may have had an opposite affect for Homo Erectus going North over the Berengia land bridge? Bergmann’s rule is observed in many species including modern humans. 4) Evidence in North America The best evidence we have is a partial brow ridge found in Chapala lake area in Mexico. Although it’s largely been ignored. Other evidence includes the mastodon butcher site and various controversial tool sites claimed to be 200,000 years old or more. 5) Cannibalism We know Erectus practiced cannibalism. We know that legends about the Ebu Gogo on Flores Island claimed they would steal and eat human babies. I was recently reading Indian accounts in the premium section of the BFF written by Kathy Strain in which she documented Indian legends of Sasquatch stealing and eating children. It’s an uncanny parallel. 6) Gigantopethicus vs. Homo Erectus It would appear that Gigantopethicus was mostly a vegetarian, and primarily ate bamboo. It was also very very large. And there is some controversy as to whether it was bipedal or not? Is it the best fit to make such a trek to North America? Or would Homo Erectus be the better fit? The “Ebu Gogo” literally means the “Grandmother who eats anything”. Again the Yakima tribe has similar tales about Bigfoot eating things they would not touch. 7) Hammer and anvil Just like the mastodon butcher site, I found a Elk femur that had been cracked open to get to the bone marrow. And while I cannot rule a hunter messing around I find it unlikely. It was found in NE Washington very close to Canada and Idaho in the Selkirk mtns. 8 ) Not too hot, not too cold. Homo Erectus had a brain case about half the size of a modern human. So while they are not putting rockets on the moon? They would be considered a brainiac in the animal world. As a modern Chimp is much smaller braincase than Erectus is. And I would consider Chimps to be very smart. Is this why we cannot find one? Do they attempt to cover the evidence of their passing? Do they ritualistically eat their dead and bury the rest? Can they pick and choose when to start a fire or flake stone? Or have they evolved to not longer need them. A regression? Resources: http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/monster-week/monster-articles/the-legend-of-the-ebu-gogo/ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-03-adfg-bones3-story.html http://calicoarchaeology.com/ https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-americas-first-humans-20170426-story.html http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub360/entry-2754.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule I don’t think I could have summed your case up better myself. I’ve long said that Homo erectus was the most likely ancestor for Sasquatch. The large brow ridges on both species, the pointed domed heads could easily be explained by the saggiest keel Homo erectus had, the Homo erectus brow ridge uncovered in Lake Chapal, the Cerutti Mastadon site, the very human like dna being recovered in some sites. Individually it is all quite circumstantial. When you piece it altogether the only thing that makes any sense is a Homo erectus or a Homo erectus X Homo sapien hybrid. Really makes you wonder how anybody ever bought into the Gigantopithecus rubbish.
MIB Posted August 5, 2019 Moderator Posted August 5, 2019 17 hours ago, Willystyle said: Really makes you wonder how anybody ever bought into the Gigantopithecus rubbish. Because that's what they wanted to find, a north american version of african / asian apes, definitely not an almost human. Reflects the mindset of the time. And because of that "certainty", they threw out a very great deal of evidence that contradicted their assumptions without giving it a serious look. Imagine if we had the raw samples they had in the past, like the blood at Snelgrove Lake or the hairs Henner Fahrenbach cataloged still uncontaminated to process with today's DNA technology. I think we'd have answers, instead we squandered the evidence. It's important today to test what we have but try to preserve some of it as well for testing in the future when technology has progressed even further. MIB 1
norseman Posted August 5, 2019 Admin Author Posted August 5, 2019 17 hours ago, Willystyle said: I don’t think I could have summed your case up better myself. I’ve long said that Homo erectus was the most likely ancestor for Sasquatch. The large brow ridges on both species, the pointed domed heads could easily be explained by the saggiest keel Homo erectus had, the Homo erectus brow ridge uncovered in Lake Chapal, the Cerutti Mastadon site, the very human like dna being recovered in some sites. Individually it is all quite circumstantial. When you piece it altogether the only thing that makes any sense is a Homo erectus or a Homo erectus X Homo sapien hybrid. Really makes you wonder how anybody ever bought into the Gigantopithecus rubbish. Thanks! Well I bought into the Giganto “rubbish” because.. 1) Its much much bigger than a modern human. 2) It doesn’t seem to use tools or fire. 3) It seems to have stayed a distinct population separate from modern humans. Meaning that interbreeding with viable offspring was probably impossible. Its only been since I started learning more about Homo Erectus that I saw that it could still tick all of the boxes. Conventional wisdom of Homo Erectus is that it’s our size, our basic shape, used fire, manufactured stone tools and lived in family groups inside caves. Essentially quintessential cave men.... As far as DNA? They should have no problem making the distinction between Homo Erectus descendants and modern humans.
Willystyle Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 19 minutes ago, MIB said: Because that's what they wanted to find, a north american version of african / asian apes, definitely not an almost human. Reflects the mindset of the time. And because of that "certainty", they threw out a very great deal of evidence that contradicted their assumptions without giving it a serious look. Imagine if we had the raw samples they had in the past, like the blood at Snelgrove Lake or the hairs Henner Fahrenbach cataloged still uncontaminated to process with today's DNA technology. I think we'd have answers, instead we squandered the evidence. It's important today to test what we have but try to preserve some of it as well for testing in the future when technology has progressed even further. MIB Snelgrove Lake was a huge missed opportunity. Had that sample not been allowed to sit and become so degraded they may have been able to do a full sequencing on it. I’ve talked with Dr. Meldrum over the phone and he’s still not ruling out that Gigantopithecus could have been the source of it but I think at this point it’s just wishful thinking. There’s just no physical evidence other than the large size (which could very easily be explained by a population of cavemen which experienced Bergmann’s rule) and all the other dna work everyone is doing is coming back Homo. The other possibility is that the hybridization process could have produced a mutant giant similar to when you cross a lion and a tiger if they truly are an erectus/sapien crossing.
hiflier Posted August 5, 2019 Posted August 5, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, norseman said: Well I bought into the Giganto “rubbish” A lot of us did mostly because of what MIB said: 38 minutes ago, MIB said: Because that's what they wanted to find, a north american version of african / asian apes, definitely not an almost human. Reflects the mindset of the time...... 18 minutes ago, norseman said: As far as DNA? They should have no problem making the distinction between Homo Erectus descendants and modern humans. CORRECT! They should have no problem at all.......so what IS the problem? As I said in another thread, a pile of money the size of Rhode Island? Is anyone just about "fed" up with all of this? (see what I did there?) Edited August 5, 2019 by hiflier
Recommended Posts