Jump to content
norseman

The case for Homo Erectus

Recommended Posts

norseman
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.

5D4CC81D-637B-4182-A335-D8448D9374FC.jpeg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

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 by MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
1 hour ago, norseman 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.    

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Thanks for the links!!  

 

Seems like the more we know, the less sure we get about the things we thought we knew.  

 

MIB

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...