Giganto: A True Biped?

[Guest LAL]

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.

Only 8000 years? The Tsalagi were living on their land 13,000 years ago.

[Guest wudewasa]

Only 8000 years? The Tsalagi were living on their land 13,000 years ago.

That sort of punctuated equilibrium doesn't jive with long term macroevolution. For a primate to become bipedal in 8,000 years and hippity hop across the Bering land bridge is hard for me to accept. Besides, we don't have evidence that Gigantopithecus even resided in the Americas. Just because this species lived on one side of the Pacific doesn't mean that it made it here, even if other species crossed over.

[Guest]

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?

Not quite. I argue that Giganto evolved and adapted to mountainous forest in Asia, including bi-modalism, then migrated to similar climes in the Americas. The modern sasquatch (if it is related to Giganto, and not Homo) would be essentially a refinement and further advance on the original Giganto stock.

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?

As I indicated above, I feel that Giganto may well have had most if not all of the necessary traits of Sasquatch at the time of migration, including bi-modalism. I am perfectly comfortable with reports of bi-modalism in sasquatch, a trait carried over from the original Giganto stock, though perhaps a bit lessened over time.

That is to say, I am comfortable saying that sasquatch appears to still be adapted physically towards being bi-modal, but that it's behavoir may perhaps not be as exclusively bi-modal as Giganto may have been, leaning towards full bipedalsim.

I note also that bi-modalism seems to be related more strongly with reports coming out of the Midwest and South, perhaps indicating regional variations in behavior.

[Guest]

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.

Allowing for and acknowledging that we have no definitive physical remains that show exactly what Giganto looked like, I would say yes, what I saw conformed closely, if not exactly, to estimates I've seen of how Giganto appeared. Closely enough that the differences I saw (mostly size and slightly different proportions) could easily be explained as either age or individual variation.

[Guest]

That sort of punctuated equilibrium doesn't jive with long term macroevolution. For a primate to become bipedal in 8,000 years and hippity hop across the Bering land bridge is hard for me to accept. Besides, we don't have evidence that Gigantopithecus even resided in the Americas. Just because this species lived on one side of the Pacific doesn't mean that it made it here, even if other species crossed over.

There were a number of mass crossings of the Bering land bridge stretching back millions of years. Nothing says Giganto had to cross in the last one.

And evidence of contemporary species crossing DOES show that the passage was possible, and that the climate was appropriate.

The Red Panda in America IIRC is represented by 1 or 2 teeth and maybe a half-handful of other bone fragments.

Given that, it is not unreasonable that we have not (yet) collected or identified a Giganto fossil. Other threads have gone into this at great length.

[Guest LAL]

That sort of punctuated equilibrium doesn't jive with long term macroevolution. For a primate to become bipedal in 8,000 years and hippity hop across the Bering land bridge is hard for me to accept. Besides, we don't have evidence that Gigantopithecus even resided in the Americas. Just because this species lived on one side of the Pacific doesn't mean that it made it here, even if other species crossed over.

If they were already bipedal in Asia and adapted to the more northerly forests there is there any reason they couldn't have crossed the Bering Land Bridge much earlier than another habitual biped? Modern grizzlies migrated from Asia to North America and have been here about 60,000 years. Beringia was a thousand miles wide when sea levels were at their lowest. There were groves of hardwoods and the climate was much more temperate than now.

I think you misunderstood my question. I didn't propose 8000 years and I think that's way too short a time

A brief history of Beringia;

http://weber.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/arch/beringia.html

Evidence for human migration through the Mackenzie Corridor is lacking and any archeological evidence left in the Coastal Corridor would be under water but it seems migrations happened..

[Guest Knuck]

Why does this gigantopithicus deal keep popping up? This species is not what Sasses are. They are a people, not justan ape. Bipedal or otherwise.JMEO-Knuck

[Incorrigible1]

People could not remain hidden for this long. People use tools, and tools cannot remain hidden. JMO.

[Guest LAL]

People could not remain hidden for this long. People use tools, and tools cannot remain hidden. JMO.

Tools and weapons can vanish completely if they're made of perishable materials. It's thought Homo erectus used bamboo spears. I personally believe the earliest writing may have been in dust giving directions to hunting parties or pointing the way to a new campsite. There would be no trace left after a few days.

All the Great Apes have been observed not only using tools but making them. I'm not sure where the dividing line is anymore. Fire use? Clothing? IQ? Even if sasquatches are in our genus would that make them "people"? I don't think so either.

<ETA a word I left out.>

Edited August 14, 2011 by LAL

[Guest dennisw]

We know that North and South America were inhabited by megafauna such as huge sloths, bears, tapirs, and beavers which disappeared soon after man came over the land bridge. We don't know why they evolved into such large creatures. Some would argue that BF came over the land bridge at the same time as early man. What if BF was already here? Maybe he had come over an earlier land bridge and evolved into a giant along with the other mammals. Maybe BF ancestors in Asia were not so big after all thus we don't need Giganto to explain their size.

[Guest KentuckyApeman]

People could not remain hidden for this long. People use tools, and tools cannot remain hidden. JMO.

Allow me to jump in. I believe we are dealing with a hominoid that is well established.

No, they do not have MIT or Harvard teachers to lead them. Niether does a Grizzly. Yet, there could be a anthrological template that does not require a public school system, an established media, or a government that relies on the latest facts from acadamia.

[Incorrigible1]

People make, manufacture, and use tools. Even if sasquatch manufactures their tools from plants and vegetation that wouldn't leave fossil remains, where are the recently manufactured tools?

If the creature exists, it's not homo.

[Guest]

People make, manufacture, and use tools. Even if sasquatch manufactures their tools from plants and vegetation that wouldn't leave fossil remains, where are the recently manufactured tools?

If the creature exists, it's not homo.

If these recently manufactured degradable tools were actually found, they MAY/most likely would not even be identified as tools, and would most likely be attributed to modern humans (i.e. just "some kids in the woods"), and thus disregarded by 99% of people. Regarding stone tools, how does one identify a tool as "modern make" without extensive testing? Likely. any modern stone flake or ground tools would be unidentified, disregarded, or assigned to having been made by native peoples. We don't know about tool use among sasquatch. We can only suspect that it is either minimal or non-existant. Many people attribute wood and rock knocking to Sas. That is tool use. Perhaps they have specialized tools that they prefer for these activities. We just don't know enough to say it's not Homo based on perceived lack of tool use, in my opinion. Reports of possible language, along with their bipedal upright posture, clannishness, communicative structures, and other Homo traits point more in the direction of Homo IMO. I see where you are coming from, equating tool use with Homo, but considering Sas abilities, why would it need tools? Perhaps it is part of the Homo line genetically, but because of its natural survival gifts (size, strength, speed) the need for tool development has been unnecessary or tool development has been retarded.

Edited August 19, 2011 by notgiganto

[Guest KentuckyApeman]

People make, manufacture, and use tools. Even if sasquatch manufactures their tools from plants and vegetation that wouldn't leave fossil remains, where are the recently manufactured tools?

If the creature exists, it's not homo.

Quite the quandry, ole chum. Yes, no tools(not even a phillps head screw driver).

But do they need manufactured tools and mechanically forged hammers, axes, etc, to exist?

Surely grizzley bear or a moose do not.

[Incorrigible1]

Bear and moose do not, it's true. (This from the most dedicated Bullwinkle and Rocky fan you sorta know.)

Bear and moose leave ample trace of their daily search for food. Bigfoot? Not so much. That's the real quandary. How to be a large mammal with enormous calorie requirements and not leave trace of joint food processing efforts, nor tools, nor other than rarely observed gathering food. The mystery is afoot!