The case for Homo Erectus

[Twist]

If agree, if BF has fire there should be more signs of it.

[Willystyle]

My only point was that Bigfoot may have used fire in the past with a more regular frequency but has probably only regressed away from that in recent years as a means of better concealing itself from modern Homo sapiens.

[Arvedis]

1 hour ago, Willystyle said:

How can you say that Bigfoot is definitively not Homo erectus despite all the evidence we’ve laid out for you?? The protruding brow ridges, the conical shaped head, the evidence of Homo erectus in the N. American fossil layer. I admit all hominins seem to be nothing but a melting pot of other species but I think the evidence is much stronger for it being the 2nd most successful hominin in human history than it is a type of giant bamboo eating gorilla.

 

My only point was that Bigfoot may have used fire in the past with a more regular frequency but has probably only regressed away from that in recent years as a means of better concealing itself from modern Homo sapiens.

 

If you call that evidence then I genuinely fear for your scholarly future, my forum friend. Please do not go anywhere near that in your PhD pursuits as all of your time and money will go down in a ball of flames.

[Willystyle]

6 minutes ago, Arvedis said:

of your time and money will go down in a ball of flames

If a skull is ever recovered I believe I’d have no problem defending that in my thesis. However my PhD work deals primarily with spatially explicit habitat usage models. Tell me, what is your theory on the origins of Bigfoot? You obviously have much knowledge and expertise on the topic. 

[hiflier]

This looks to be a summing up a few things: https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/earlyhum/earlyman.htm

 

And then there's this from a couple of years ago for those new to the find. It puts forth a scenario that is well within the span of existence for Homo Erectus: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-evidence-human-activity-north-america-130000-years-ago-180963046/

[hiflier]

There is a point that needs to be made here. It involves the e-DNA samples from the Olympic Project's Olympic Peninsula "nesting" site. It was claimed that the samples were too degraded to show any DNA from a novel primate. The results did, however, find Human DNA amid all the other DNA of the typical large and small animals in the region. He key words here are "novel primate". NOT Homo Erectus. Homo Erectus isn't technically a novel primate. But it is apparently it's own species since it isn't Homo Sapiens sapiens.

 

If the samples were to degraded then maybe they weren't good enough to pick out the markers that would say Homo Erectus? I'm just tossing my two rocks into the camp on this. I'm not saying such a thing is true or even possible although would it be fair to say anything I possible? Denisovans are different as are Neanderthal as are Flores as are Naledi as are the Red Deer Cave people. And so it is with Erectus. Are any of them closer to Homo Sapiens than another. In other words is Home Erectus as close as it gets to us? So close that a degraded DNA sample would be able to hide the subtle markers that would distinguish Homo Erectus from us to the point where the results would look to be just basic Human DNA?

 

I guess what has me wondering is if a novel primate is that close to us then would even a slight bit of degradation hide the differences? Maybe like having the differential markers be more susceptible to degradation than the stronger Human marker segments? ould someone please answer this so I can get some sleep?   

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Willystyle said:

My only point was that Bigfoot may have used fire in the past with a more regular frequency but has probably only regressed away from that in recent years as a means of better concealing itself from modern Homo sapiens.

 

I’m curious to know why you think it was recently? Modern humans crossed the land bridge 15000 years ago? And I would surmise that it encountered other Homo species in Eurasia as well long before.

 

I don’t think this is some sort of conscious choice. I think it goes way way back.

 

Heck this thing could be something completely new to our understanding as well. With nothing in the fossil record to indicate it was ever there.

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

This looks to be a summing up a few things: https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/earlyhum/earlyman.htm

 

And then there's this from a couple of years ago for those new to the find. It puts forth a scenario that is well within the span of existence for Homo Erectus: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-evidence-human-activity-north-america-130000-years-ago-180963046/

 

I posted the mastodon dig and calico site in the original post. And while I find them significant I would trade them for one Bigfoot skeleton.... just one.

 

 

[MIB]

9 hours ago, hiflier said:

If the samples were to degraded then maybe they weren't good enough to pick out the markers that would say Homo Erectus? I'm just tossing my two rocks into the camp on this.

 

Perfectly reasonable.  

 

Or the potential markers that would separate H. erectus from H. sapiens sapiens are not among the gene loci that are normally tested so the difference stays under radar.    You would really need to know what test was being used, what the primary / original / design purpose for the chosen test was, to know whether it would have the proper granularity in the proper locations to find what we think we are looking for.  

 

The interesting thing about H. erectus is that the timeline does seem to match.   A small population without much genetic diversity, cut off in North America, and driven by extreme selective pressures of ice age conditions, would seem to be subject to the factors necessary to drift from what we know of H. erectus to what we suspect of bigfoot within the time line.    I don't know if that's the right answer but it would seem to cover the necessary components of potential right answers.

 

MIB

[Arvedis]

This fishing expedition reminds me of the flat earth movement. Comes out of nowhere, completely off target, yet people somehow believe it.

 

Why not create a simple checklist of all the behaviors you know about Bigfoot. Now, dig into basic knowledge of what an early modern human might be like and their lifestyle and behaviors. See how the two sides of the page line up. 

 

Imagine you have the attention of a paleontologist doing their best not to laugh at your argument. Science always looks for new findings so there's a chance of this idea having some merit if you can make your case. 

 

What have you got?

[Arvedis]

14 hours ago, hiflier said:

This looks to be a summing up a few things: https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/earlyhum/earlyman.htm

 Be careful with this kind of content. It's kind of pseudo academics. Anything with Barry Fell is going to be way wrong. He was a Harvard professor who specialized in biology and then got it in his head that North American cave art is proof of a pre civilization in the Americas. H

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Arvedis said:

This fishing expedition reminds me of the flat earth movement. Comes out of nowhere, completely off target, yet people somehow believe it

 

No one "believes" it. People are just investigating the possibilities.

 

2 hours ago, Arvedis said:

. Now, dig into basic knowledge of what an early modern human might be like and their lifestyle and behaviors. See how the two sides of the page line up.

 

Not a bad suggestion. I think that's what's been going on here already though?

 

[MIB]

18 hours ago, norseman said:

Heck this thing could be something completely new to our understanding as well. With nothing in the fossil record to indicate it was ever there.

 

That absolutely has to be considered.  

 

The fossil record is a tricky thing.   Fossilization of an individual is unlikely under the best of conditions.  Fossilization of a low population species is even less likely.   And if a species evolves under less than ideal conditions, the probability o of finding it or its ancestors fossilized becomes vanishingly low.    Even if they exist, then, the fossils themselves could be so rare that they may never be located.   It becomes like guessing which haystack in many fields of many haystacks has the needle, then finding that needle.   

 

Under those conditions, bigfoot could have evolved from something very unlike what we think they evolved from. 

 

It's not my best / most probable guess but it's absolutely on my table for consideration as new evidence comes to light.

 

MIB

[Incorrigible1]

7 hours ago, MIB said:

 

That absolutely has to be considered.  

 

The fossil record is a tricky thing.   Fossilization of an individual is unlikely under the best of conditions.  Fossilization of a low population species is even less likely.   And if a species evolves under less than ideal conditions, the probability o of finding it or its ancestors fossilized becomes vanishingly low.    Even if they exist, then, the fossils themselves could be so rare that they may never be located.   It becomes like guessing which haystack in many fields of many haystacks has the needle, then finding that needle.   

 

Under those conditions, bigfoot could have evolved from something very unlike what we think they evolved from. 

 

It's not my best / most probable guess but it's absolutely on my table for consideration as new evidence comes to light.

 

MIB

Bill Munns long ago mentioned the possibility of something like the De Loy's ape as a possibility for a New World cryptid humanoid. I found that rather interesting.

 

 

Edited August 9, 2019 by Incorrigible1

[NatFoot]

Wheres that picture from and what is it supposed to be?

[hiflier]

It's a photo of Jacko: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacko_hoax