Jump to content

Neanderthal locomotion


norseman
 Share

Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Doesn't matter. Proves nothing scientific beyond gullible stupidity. Flat footedness or non flat footedness proves nothing either. In fact, very little proves anything regarding the Sasquatch, and what Neanderthal locomotion has to do with the Sasquatch, or not do with it, is beyond me. May as well be discussing nose shape or ear positioning as far as I'm concerned. The end result will be the same.

 

 

I agree with norseman (crazy right?) I think all scientific inquiry regarding sasquatch is useful I mean what if we find out how thicc Sasquatch is? Wouldn't that make it all worth it?

Edited by MonkeMan
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


What else in the fossil record besides Sapiens has a hyoid bone? And the FoxP2 gene? Neanderthals!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously animals dont talk. And evidently neither did Erectus……🤣🤣🤣

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19149203/

 

I’ll rephrase my statement. What other species besides Sapiens had a functional hyoid bone and used the Foxp2 gene for speech? Neanderthals….

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, norseman said:

Homo or no. Im all for protecting the creature and its habitat AFTER discovery. Homo genus or no…. It doesn't matter.

 

I think protecting habitat BEFORE its discovery is even more important, but that's not for here. As for trusting Osman's story? It cannot be proved that it was true. And it may or may not be important to some that he never mentioned orbs, shapeshifting, portal jumping as opposed to simply being carried inside his sleeping bag (along with his gear? LOL), and no cloaking. Would science believe his story? Nope. Then why should I or anyone else? The Sasquatch? Elements of Homo, elements of Great Ape. It doesn't sound like either is a distinction one can make in a rifle scope. BUT one can make the distinction if a dead one or a skeleton is found, or DNA from a valid source is obtained. Neanderthal locomotion won't make the distinction either. Body on a slab, as you say, or a bag of bones, or a vial of DNA will work though. Also, a non-divergent toe doesn't make the creature Homo. It only places its foot morphology, along with the mid-tarsal break, in the primate evolutionary line somewhere in the 6-7 million year gap between Pan Troglodytes and Modern Humans.

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, hiflier said:

 

 And it may or may not be important to some that he never mention orbs, shapeshifting, portal jumping as opposed to simply being carried inside his sleeping bag (along with his gear? LOL), and no cloaking. Would science believe his story? Nope.

What does this have to do with the conversation at hand?  There were complaints earlier about 'shape shifting sorcery' that didn't really flow with the rest of the thread.  Kind of an odd thing to bring into a spirited discussion about Neanderthal locomotion. 

7 minutes ago, norseman said:

Obviously animals dont talk. And evidently neither did Erectus……🤣🤣🤣

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19149203/

 

I’ll rephrase my statement. What other species besides Sapiens had a functional hyoid bone and used the Foxp2 gene for speech? Neanderthals….

 

 

A key 2002 paper found that humans carry two mutations to FOXP2 not found in any other primates3. When the researchers looked at genetic variation surrounding these mutations, they found the signature of a ‘selective sweep’ — in which a beneficial mutation quickly becomes common across a population. This change to FOXP2 seemed to have happened in the past 200,000 years, the team reported in Nature. The paper has been cited hundreds of times in the scientific literature.

 

The idea that uniquely human changes to FOXP2 led to language development has not gone unchallenged. One study found that Neanderthals carried the same mutations4. This suggested that the modifications to FOXP2 happened before the two groups split, more than half a million years ago.

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05859-7

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I think protecting habitat BEFORE its discovery is even more important, but that's not for here. As for trusting Osman's story? It cannot be proved that it was true. And it may or may not be important to some that he never mention orbs, shapeshifting, portal jumping as opposed to simply being carried inside his sleeping bag (along with his gear? LOL), and no cloaking. Would science believe his story? Nope. Then why should I or anyone else? The Sasquatch? Elements of Homo, elements of Great Ape. It doesn't sound like either is a distinction one can make in a rifle scope. BUT one can make the distinction if a dead one or a skeleton is found, or DNA from a valid source is obtained. Neanderthal locomotion won't make the distinction either. Body on a slab, as you say, or a bag of bones, or a vial of DNA will work though. Also, a non-divergent toe doesn't make the creature Homo. It only places its foot morphology, along with the mid-tarsal break, in the primate evolutionary line somewhere in the 6-7 million year gap between Pan Troglodytes and Modern Humans.


Agreed. But you cant put the cart in front of the horse. As Ive said all along? I don't want to kill it. Its simply what science requires to get the ball rolling. One and done.

 

Except your explanation of why you dont believe the Ostman story can easily be applied to the whole subject of Bigfoot? So if you have never seen Bigfoot? How do you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe?

 

And I never intended for this discussion to PROVE the existence of Bigfoot.

 

Its simply discussing similarities between archaic extinct species in the genus Homo and Purported traits of Sasquatch. Thats it. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, norseman said:

Obviously animals dont talk.

 

 

LMAO you're joking right? The hyoid bone and FoxP2 genes are causal as far as vocalizations occur and they are the only requirement to produce something like the sierra sounds.

 

11 minutes ago, norseman said:

And evidently neither did Erectus

 

Yes they did, their capacity for speech was just not as developed as later hominins, which is expected.

 

14 minutes ago, norseman said:

What other species besides Sapiens had a functional hyoid bone and used the Foxp2 gene for speech?

 

Australopithecus, Erectus, and most other mammals. Speech is not a a binary trait. It exists on a spectrum.

 

Furthermore, genes don't work like that. They are not sufficient causal forces for the expression of phenotypes.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

There were complaints earlier about 'shape shifting sorcery' that didn't really flow

 

Is English your second language? I was making fun of your sophomoric attempt to downplay the relevancy of scientific discussion to the discussion at hand on the grounds that the "scientific establishment" (LOL) doesn't take the discussion seriously. Which it's kind of obvious why when people are literally evoking shapeshifitng to explain why we haven't found a Bigfoot yet.

 

13 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

A key 2002 paper found that humans carry two mutations to FOXP2 not found in any other primate

 

Yeah, the study I cited mentioned that. Though neither of the functional amino acid substitutions are really a requirement to produce complex vocalizations, at least those presented by norseman. Think song birds for example.

 

16 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

One study found that Neanderthals carried the same mutations

 

Indeed so the mutations probably did occur earlier than the original study indicated.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

What does this have to do with the conversation at hand?  There were complaints earlier about 'shape shifting sorcery' that didn't really flow with the rest of the thread.  Kind of an odd thing to bring into a spirited discussion about Neanderthal locomotion.

 

Norseman brought up Ostman and asked why I didn't believe his story. I said I didn't and didn't know why others should believe it either. I broadened the people that should not believe the story to include the paranormal folks since elements of that belief weren't reported by Ostman. The Neanderthal locomotion aspect was about the mid-tarsal break and other things not being part of his story.

 

34 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

This suggested that the modifications to FOXP2 happened before the two groups split, more than half a million years ago.

 

And? Sorry, BRB, just waiting for the other shoe to drop here. Namely that people say Sasquatch has language.......didn't they read about FOXP2? Or are you suggesting that the Sasquatch has the FOXP2 without scientific data to back it up? Even the supposed Samurai Chatter claim has no proof.

 

31 minutes ago, norseman said:

Its simply what science requires to get the ball rolling.

 

Yes, agreed, but this is a new scientific age and new species are now being found in other ways. If science get solid physical proof in a way that they accept without dispatching the creature first? I'd be all for it, and I think you would be as well. If science really needs a body after that then they can just go get one themselves at no risk to you or anyone else. 

Edited by hiflier
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, norseman said:

Except your explanation of why you dont believe the Ostman story can easily be applied to the whole subject of Bigfoot? So if you have never seen Bigfoot? How do you pick and choose what to believe and what not to believe?

 

Not that easy for sure but I gave you my reasons for why I don't believe the Ostman account. As far as what I choose to think is true or not? It goes to the heart as why I've gone the scientific route regarding DNA for the past two years. It is an avenue that will do an end run around just about everything I've read, and nearly ALL of the discussions I've partaken in for the last eight years. Including this one. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MonkeMan said:

 

Is English your second language? I was making fun of your sophomoric attempt to downplay the relevancy of scientific discussion to the discussion at hand on the grounds that the "scientific establishment" (LOL) doesn't take the discussion seriously. Which it's kind of obvious why when people are literally evoking shapeshifitng to explain why we haven't found a Bigfoot yet.

 

 

Yeah, the study I cited mentioned that. Though neither of the functional amino acid substitutions are really a requirement to produce complex vocalizations, at least those presented by norseman. Think song birds for example.

 

 

Indeed so the mutations probably did occur earlier than the original study indicated.

Lol.  "Is English your second language? I was making fun of your sophomoric attempt..."  Who said anything about shapeshifting here? 

 

Between this post and that weird post earlier (thicc?), I think that Kiwakwe is on to something here.  Anyway, carry on toeing the line with personal insults.  This will be a self-correcting issue.

4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Norseman brought up Ostman and asked why I didn't believe his store. I said I didn't and didn't knw why others should believe it either. I broadened the people that should not believe the story to include the paranormal folks since elements of that belief weren't reported by Ostman. The Neanderthal locomotion aspect was about the mid-tarsal break not being part of his story.

 

 

And? Sorry, BRB, just waiting for the other shoe to drop here. Namely that people say Sasquatch has language.......didn't they read about FOXP2? Or are you suggesting that the Sasquatch has the FOXP2 without scientific data to back it up? Even the supposed Samurai Chatter claim has no proof.

 

 

I gotcha.  It just struck me as odd since it was the second time something like that was brought up. 

 

I am not suggesting that Sasquatch does or doesn't have FOXP2.  It would be a wild guess to hazard an opinion either way.  You are right, the Samurai Chatter is odd...if it is actually Sasquatch, why hasn't it ever been duplicated?  Recording technology has gotten better, cheaper, and more widely available.  But, we don't have anything approximating the Sierra Sounds since Morehead recorded it.  It's another odd thing in a field of odd things.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlackRockBigfoot, I have to admit, you're a real straight shooter. Gave you a plus for that one, my friend. Gotta go back and revisit Norseman, he needs a couple as well :)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Who said anything about shapeshifting here? 

 

LOL I take that as yes? Do I really have to explain it again? See you made the assertion that approaching the topic of Sasquatch in a scientifically rigorous manner was ridiculous because science itself doesn't even take the subject seriously.

 

I pointed out that one of the reasons for this is because there are advocates that literally use shapeshifting as an excuse for why we can't find a Sasquatch.

 

It's pretty simple logic. Are you purposefully feigning ignorance?

 

11 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Anyway, carry on toeing the line with personal insults.

 

No personal insults buddy, I'm just curious as to why you're confused about something so incredibly simple. 

 

13 minutes ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

Between this post and that weird post earlier (thicc?)

 

It was a joke. Nothing really weird about it unless you literally think I'm into sasquatch like that LOL. Do you know what "thicc" means? How old are you?

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MonkeMan said:

I think all scientific inquiry regarding sasquatch is useful I mean what if we find out how thicc Sasquatch is?

 

Inquiry is one thing. "finding out" is quite another. My goal is in pursuing the methodology required for securing the finding out part. That, to me, is THEE most important endeavor. I other words, in the on-topic sense, inquiry will only take one so far on the subject of Neanderthal locomotion and then folks move on. Pursuing a methodology that may scientifically address the issue (along with so many others) isn't a bad goal to have as far as time spent. The alternative is a few more decades of hoaxes, scientific inquiry, and discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • gigantor locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...