Giganto: A True Biped?

[Guest]

So you are not a proponent of the concept of "convergent development" I take it?

I get all mixed up with all the newest sub-sub-sub-sub-divisions in genetic mapping and species identification, but I don't support the idea that the putative sasquatch came out of the human line, and certainly not after the establishment of bipedalism. Observed sasquatch traits suggest (arm structure, reported "bi-modal locomotion", etc) a LESS evolved creature in those terms, one still partially adapted to arboreal pursuits at least during part of it's life cycle.

This would be much more in keeping with a creature descended from a creature of the rain/temperate forest, such as Giganto, rather than a plains-dwelling pure biped such as the human line.

Obeserved by some. I would like to see a numerical breakdown of observed apelike traits from a database of reports, particularly overly long arms and bi-modal locomotion. I think that assigning these traits to Sas based on some of the reports is jumping the gun a bit, as it were. And we really don't know where Sas evolved, though now it seems to prefer montane forests. I think that this preference has more to do with these areas being sparse in human habitation.

[Bill]

Mulder:

"So you are not a proponent of the concept of "convergent development" I take it?"

Actually, I'm a big fan and strong supporter of convergent evolution. Same stimulus will result in repeated evolution of a feature again and again.

The problem I have with bipedalism evolution is that just about every theory I've read doesn't make sense to me, and I really got heavy into this back in the 80's and 90's, when I was making my hominid head reconstructions and developing an exhibit with the San Diego Museum of Man on human evolution.

So my thinking is that the bipedalism thing was not linear in that one stimulus caused one response (bipedalism) but rather there were some function shifts creating steps which collectively resulted in hominid bipedalism. Since a function shift sequence requires several steps in a row to occur, the probability of that sequence occurring again is lower than a more linear cause/effect evolution. So I think it is less likely to occur by convergent evolution and so I tend to suspect bipedalism in hominids occurred once and anything that's bipedal branched off after the bipedalism was achieved. "Patty", being clearly bipedal, would this have branched off the hominid linnage sometime after the bipedalism occurred, in my opinion. That should rule out Gigantopithecus as an ancestor.

Bill

[Guest Roland]

Mulder:

"So you are not a proponent of the concept of "convergent development" I take it?"

Actually, I'm a big fan and strong supporter of convergent evolution. Same stimulus will result in repeated evolution of a feature again and again.

The problem I have with bipedalism evolution is that just about every theory I've read doesn't make sense to me, and I really got heavy into this back in the 80's and 90's, when I was making my hominid head reconstructions and developing an exhibit with the San Diego Museum of Man on human evolution.

So my thinking is that the bipedalism thing was not linear in that one stimulus caused one response (bipedalism) but rather there were some function shifts creating steps which collectively resulted in hominid bipedalism. Since a function shift sequence requires several steps in a row to occur, the probability of that sequence occurring again is lower than a more linear cause/effect evolution. So I think it is less likely to occur by convergent evolution and so I tend to suspect bipedalism in hominids occurred once and anything that's bipedal branched off after the bipedalism was achieved. "Patty", being clearly bipedal, would this have branched off the hominid linnage sometime after the bipedalism occurred, in my opinion. That should rule out Gigantopithecus as an ancestor.

Bill

I totally have to agree with you Bill, as you state, but in laymen terms, it really is the only likely scenario that had to have occurred within the realm of what we know scientifically...

[Guest]

Also,all giganto fossils have been found in Asia,none in North America.Because of the evidence pointing to the paranormal,giganto couldn't be the origin of the creature.

1) "Paranormal" evidence in no way precludes the creature coming from Asia. There are many "paranormal" animals said to be from Asia and in Asia.

2) The Red Panda, a temporal and climatological neighbor of Giganto HAS been found in N America, definitively establishing that Asian animals from that time period DID midgrate to this continent.

[Guest]

Mulder:

"So you are not a proponent of the concept of "convergent development" I take it?"

Actually, I'm a big fan and strong supporter of convergent evolution. Same stimulus will result in repeated evolution of a feature again and again.

The problem I have with bipedalism evolution is that just about every theory I've read doesn't make sense to me, and I really got heavy into this back in the 80's and 90's, when I was making my hominid head reconstructions and developing an exhibit with the San Diego Museum of Man on human evolution.

So my thinking is that the bipedalism thing was not linear in that one stimulus caused one response (bipedalism) but rather there were some function shifts creating steps which collectively resulted in hominid bipedalism. Since a function shift sequence requires several steps in a row to occur, the probability of that sequence occurring again is lower than a more linear cause/effect evolution. So I think it is less likely to occur by convergent evolution and so I tend to suspect bipedalism in hominids occurred once and anything that's bipedal branched off after the bipedalism was achieved. "Patty", being clearly bipedal, would this have branched off the hominid linnage sometime after the bipedalism occurred, in my opinion. That should rule out Gigantopithecus as an ancestor.

Bill

Assuming your theory about "one development" is correct of course.

My thinking is this:

We know from other evidence (per Meldrum) that Giganto came from an ecological niche that was very similar to our montaine (sp?) forests, cooler and a bit drier than the rainforests their immediate predecessors lived in, with different types of flora

Such an environment is not really suited for an exclusively brachiating species (not enough big, broad limbed trees, vines, etc). This would be the spur towards first ground quadrapedalism, then bi-modalism. Given the presence of an advantage to retaining some brachiating features in a forest, as opposed to the open plains of our human ancestral line, the convergence would have stopped in a late bi-modal stage w/o progressing into outright full bipedalism.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Mulder, have you ever actually seen a Sasquatch? Just curious.

[Guest Kerchak]

More data is always good, but bipedal giganto is the best hypothesis that fits the facts to hand.

Yes, I too always thought that the evidence of the jaw spread points towards Giganto being a biped more than it points towards it being a quadruped.

[Guest]

Mulder, have you ever actually seen a Sasquatch? Just curious.

Yes, I have. At a range of about 30', from behind for about 3-5 seconds (long enough to get a pretty good look) as it walked behind a friend's house.

[Guest LAL]

Just to confuse things, what about the Orang Pendak? Bipedal orangutan? If a small one, why not a large one? If it's true bipedalism was first wouldn't all the Great Ape lines have had to have been bipedal at some point? Was it the norm 6-9 mya? Seems to me there was plenty of opportunity for divergence but even with all this splitting going on our species is only about 5% (of DNA) away from orangutans. Maybe we need to rethink the definition of "hominid". Perhaps we get too hung up on the idea that bipedalism is "manlike".

Gigantopithecus, whether an ancestor or not, at least shows primates can, and did, reach a relatively enormous size.

[Guest]

Flores man (whatever it is) seems a likely candidate for Pendek, IMO. Some sort of mini- erectus?

Assuming your theory about "one development" is correct of course.

My thinking is this:

We know from other evidence (per Meldrum) that Giganto came from an ecological niche that was very similar to our montaine (sp?) forests, cooler and a bit drier than the rainforests their immediate predecessors lived in, with different types of flora

Such an environment is not really suited for an exclusively brachiating species (not enough big, broad limbed trees, vines, etc). This would be the spur towards first ground quadrapedalism, then bi-modalism. Given the presence of an advantage to retaining some brachiating features in a forest, as opposed to the open plains of our human ancestral line, the convergence would have stopped in a late bi-modal stage w/o progressing into outright full bipedalism.

So, Mulder, you would argue that Sas is possibly a Giganto descendant that evolved and adapted specifically to mountainous forest, and as you put it, is currently in a late bi-modal stage? I just want to get the Sas connection straight, here. Do you feel that Sas is bi-modal or fully bipedal? Or did you mean that Giganto was possibly in a late bi-modal stage?

Edited August 6, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest KentuckyApeman]

Very interesting replies. I noticed many seem to focus on the eating habits and other factors(based on natural terrain, etc).

My approach has been deduced from eye witness accounts of BF, and the descriptions given, especially in regard to cranium shape and facial features.

Giganto's skull seems to be more in line with the contemporary gorilla. Low sloping forehead/protruding jaw.

http://www.yog2009.org/index.php?view=article&catid=46%3Agorillaspecies&id=70%3Amgspeciesinfo&option=com_content&Itemid=70

Whereas many BF descriptions(and film/photo evidence) render a more human-like skull development.

[Bill]

KentuckyApeman

Keep in mind the skulls are simply estimates based on the known jaw. Krantz did a skull visualizaion, and people I worked with did one, and they were pretty different in result. So skull shape is really a guess at this point.

Bill

[Guest KentuckyApeman]

KentuckyApeman

Keep in mind the skulls are simply estimates based on the known jaw. Krantz did a skull visualizaion, and people I worked with did one, and they were pretty different in result. So skull shape is really a guess at this point.

Bill

So....Giganto vs BF? It could be BF is an evolved Giganto, which has adapted to the North American continent.

And then, over 8000 years, became a fully upright biped, along with other behavioral traits.

Edited August 6, 2011 by KentuckyApeman

[Guest]

KentuckyApeman

Keep in mind the skulls are simply estimates based on the known jaw. Krantz did a skull visualizaion, and people I worked with did one, and they were pretty different in result. So skull shape is really a guess at this point.

Bill

Bill, I did not know that your Giganto skull model differed from Krantz's...is there some link that you can provide where you have detailed your work on the Giganto model (particularly the skull), and your collaboration with scientists in creating it?

edited to clarify who I was asking...

Edited August 6, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest HairyGreek]

Yes, I have. At a range of about 30', from behind for about 3-5 seconds (long enough to get a pretty good look) as it walked behind a friend's house.

And do you feel that by what you saw and the eyewitness reports that these creatures could actually be descendents of giganto? This may seem like a redundant question based upon your prior posts, but I would just like to clarify. Thank you for answering.

Edited August 6, 2011 by HairyGreek