|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 7, 2013 14:54:11 GMT -5
Although it appears to have been overlooked by all media for several years the material presented below will inevitably become one of the greatest news stories of the century.
---------------------
Sometimes it pays to be not a scientist.
Dr. Aaron Filler, in his 2007 book “The Upright Ape,” presented ample evidence that all higher primates have been bipedal, walking upright on two feet, for over 20 million years.
You don’t have to be a spine surgeon, which Dr. Filler is as well as being a PhD anthropologist, to see that a fossilized lower back vertebrae from an African site dated at 21 million years is almost identical to the corresponding vertebrae of a modern human.
Although there are fossil bones, and fossil footprints, showing that primitive higher primates throughout the ages have walked upright, and there are no fossils that suggest that any were quadrupeds, scientists who have been taught, and teach, that human ancestors invented bipedalism after they came down from the trees and split off from the chimpanzees do not seem able to get the message
In a special edition of Scientific American dated Winter 2013 and titled “What Makes Us Human” none of the 16 authors showed any awareness of Dr. Filler’s book, and several had things to say based on the old mistaken consensus.
But are not chimpanzees quadrupeds? They are plainly trying to be, but they can not really do it because they have the spines of upright animals. With their backs at an angle of about 45 degree's, they get around very well using the knuckles of their hands for front feet but they can not ever be normal quadrupeds because their spines do not have the proper attachments to keep them from buckling under load in a horizontal position.
And what Dr. Filler does not say, even though he has presented the facts that establish it, is that there is now no shred of evidence that recent human forbears ever lived in trees.
To quote something that Dr. Filler does say, most eloquently: “In questioning and rejecting scientific orthodoxy, no mass of credentials will convince a spurned scientist that he or she should give way and accept that they have spent a career believing, teaching, and publishing in error.”
------------------
Two thirds of Dr. Filler’s book presents an historical overview and then outlines a new look at the origin of species which will undoubtedly be controversial, but the material regarding the origin of human bipedalism contained in the last two chapters is simple to understand and rock-solidly based on physical evidence.
And an interesting sidelight to the proof that all higher primates have been bipeds:
Until perhaps as recently as 100,000 years ago there lived in China, as established by three fossil lower jaws and a thousand fossil teeth, a giant ape twice the size of a gorilla. Since as a higher primate it must have been upright it matches perfectly the huge, very heavy, manlike footprints which human ingenuity is unable to duplicate, and the immense hair-covered bipeds that thousands of people claim to have seen in Canada and the United States.
It follows that the many people who investigate Bigfoot/Sasquatch reports need to realize that their quarry isn’t likely to be some unknown creature sure to be a close human relative because it walks upright, but a proven animal that lived near the land bridge to North America and that already has a scientific name, Gigantopithecus blacki.
John Green
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Feb 8, 2013 23:36:48 GMT -5
Huge leap to go from three lower jaws and teeth and state you have a higher bipedal primate
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Feb 9, 2013 13:39:33 GMT -5
I still don't think that one can predetermine the origin of bipedalism based on fossil spinal columns. I think all Pleistocence Hominoidea were all transitional species between arboreal and terrestrial adaptation. It is extremely dangerous to generalize the whole superfamily with primary bipedal locomotion. Using Carl Zimmer's (1998) example, Ichthyostega and Ambulocetus both had very similar body plan and they were both transitional species; however, they had very different origins. It is exactly how chimpanzees were used as an example in the article; it was not a good indicator of the origin of bipedalism. Without further discovery, we must not assume Gigantopithecus as bipeds.
|
|
Richard
Really into this!
Thinking I should be out in the bush ...
Posts: 562
|
Post by Richard on Feb 9, 2013 23:35:05 GMT -5
Frankly I have always said that to assume in the 4 billion years of life being present on this planet, that we are the highest level of intelligence ever created is a rather bold claim. In fact there is evidence to support the theory (DNA sequencing oddities) that there have been several intelligent life forms on earth - possibly 500 millions years apart. In fact we would never even know about it, save a few traces of oddities in our and other DNA found on the planet.
Ever watch the show "Life after Humans" - that postulates that if we were to suddenly leave the earth "as-is", that in only 25,000 years there would be little to no proof we were ever around.
Think of what 100,000 years, 1,000,000 or 1,000,000,000 years would show. Richard.
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Feb 10, 2013 0:32:29 GMT -5
My problem is that vertebral columns are very similar in vertebrates. Whales' vertebrae are very similar to elephants' in sections, and yet they have very different locomotion. Without having pelvic bones or the bases of the skull (the location of Foramen magnum), erect posture and bipedalism are pure speculative.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Feb 10, 2013 2:08:11 GMT -5
Exactly What does a lower jaws tell you about an animals method of locomotion
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 10, 2013 11:01:28 GMT -5
Has anyone here, but John Green even read Filler's book?
Filler's position, if I understand it correctly, is that there is evidence that chimps and Gorillas started out walking upright and evolved into a quadruped. If what he discovered is true, then the Sasquatch (according to Occams Razor) is most likely the Gigantopethicus blacki thought to be extinct.
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Feb 10, 2013 16:41:14 GMT -5
If I understand correctly, Miocene till the beginning of Pleistocene had the highest Hominoidea species radiation. Meldrum even called this period the real "planet of the apes". There were multiple locomotion and adaptation. Filler's selected use of Oreopithecus and two other "suggested upright" species were just three examples of almost one hundreds extinct species. As we see today, Chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons have very different locomotion. Filler's argument was based on one section of lumbar vertebrates of technically one species of extinct ape. Generalization here is not particularly applicable.
Chimpanzee and gorilla's foot structure clearly shown that they are arboreal in origin. Again, I quote Meldrum's opinion that bipedalism in Gigantopithecus is an idea should be entertained; however, it is not a fact.
In order to connect sasquatch to Gigantopithecus, we must connect two bridges. First, we must connect any possible post cranial fossil remains of Gigantopithecus to the described type specimens (the three lower jaws). Second, we must connect sasquatch (modern species) to Gigantopithecus (as an extinct species). In any case, we need a mostly complete Gigantopithecus fossil and a dead or alive sasquatch; otherwise, all are pure speculative.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 10, 2013 22:53:39 GMT -5
Chimpanzee and gorilla's foot structure clearly shown that they are arboreal in origin. Again, I quote Meldrum's opinion that bipedalism in Gigantopithecus is an idea should be entertained; however, it is not a fact. In order to connect sasquatch to Gigantopithecus, we must connect two bridges. First, we must connect any possible post cranial fossil remains of Gigantopithecus to the described type specimens (the three lower jaws). Second, we must connect sasquatch (modern species) to Gigantopithecus (as an extinct species). In any case, we need a mostly complete Gigantopithecus fossil and a dead or alive sasquatch; otherwise, all are pure speculative. Oc·cam's razor noun \ˈä-kəmz-\ Definition of OCCAM'S RAZOR : a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities What Green points out is that it is a fact that a large ape did exist that fits the description of a Sasquatch. There is no other evidence of any other 7 to 9 foot tall apes to choose from. Occams Razor when applied - tells us that the Gigantopithecus is not extinct ... as people are reporting to see them even today. Filler makes his points - Krantz made his - and it is Occams Razor that says that it is most likely that both are one in the same.
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Feb 10, 2013 23:49:51 GMT -5
John Green suggested Gigantopithecus as sasquatch is an educated guess; however, it isn't Occam's Razor. Gigantopithecus isn't the simplest explanation. If Occam's Razor is applied to every sasquatch report, the simplest explanation is either misidentification or hoaxing. Occam's Razor would be more effective, in this case, under two conditions:
1. There is a complete skeletal remain of Gigantopithecus.
2. Gigantopithecus fossil remain is discovered in North America.
John Green's suggestion, as the same as Grover Krantz, is a political solution in order to gain respect to the sasquatch research in the academic field. Ultimately, their goal is to incorporate sasquatch research as part of physical anthropology.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 11, 2013 1:58:04 GMT -5
Occams razor: A rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities The definition seems pretty straight forward to me, but that is just my opinion.
I know of no other proven existence of a large primate other than Gigantopethicus-blacki. Once another option is given by finding evidence of yet another giant ape, then any other alternative is to invent a primate that has no evidence to even support it ever existing. I find that appraoch asinine in the same way as attempting to debate Filler's work without having both read and understood it. I have only seen the passages that Green has pointed out to me. I take it that you have read it?
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Feb 11, 2013 17:50:03 GMT -5
There is nothing to suggest (physical evidence) that Gigantopethicus-blacki was bipedal There is nothing to suggest (physical evidence) that Gigantopethicus-blacki was ever in North America There is nothing to suggest (physical evidence) that Gigantopethicus-blacki has existed in the last 100,000 years
Speculating that G-blacki was bipedal based on the very few jawbone remains found, which are U-shaped and widen towards the rear or Dr. Filler's theory is not in my opinion using Occams razor
I would suggest that both Dr. Filler and Grover Krantz found and answer that they wanted and then tried to create a question to fit that answer.
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Feb 11, 2013 17:57:41 GMT -5
|
|
billr
Really into this!
Posts: 856
|
Post by billr on Feb 11, 2013 18:08:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Feb 11, 2013 19:36:09 GMT -5
sug·gest (sg-jst, s-jst) tr.v. sug·gest·ed, sug·gest·ing, sug·gests 1. To offer for consideration or action; propose
Other than the theory about the width of the jawbone and modern day witnesses describing seeing the Sasquatch which seems to match the descriptive size attributed to Gigantopethicus and when considering the other points mentioned below.
sug·gest (sg-jst, s-jst) tr.v. sug·gest·ed, sug·gest·ing, sug·gests 1. To offer for consideration or action; propose
The landbridge that connected Asia to North America suggest that the means was available.
sug·gest (sg-jst, s-jst) tr.v. sug·gest·ed, sug·gest·ing, sug·gests 1. To offer for consideration or action; propose
Considering that only three to four jawbones have been found, which I believe have wider time gaps of more than 100,000 years between at least one of them, there is no justification in thinking that the last jawbone discovered belonged to the last Gigantopethicus that ever lived. If anything, this shows that species to have had a thriving existence. Even if yet another such jawbone is found and time-stamped at 50,000 years ago ... it still wouldn't mean the species must have died off then. That line of reasoning was destroyed by the vast differences in ages between the earliest dated jawbone to the latest.
Thousands of witnesses reporting to see large bipedal ape-like creatures in North America seems to suggest something in my view. As it stands, we only have one large primate known to exist that fits the size and appearance of what witnesses in North America have described. Add the consideration that the Gigantopethicus could have crossed that landbridge as man and other creatures did, this seems to suggest what Occams razor says to do, 'apply a line of reasoning that says the simplest answer is often correct.'
Then add to the above the things that Krantz said about the jawbone of the Gigantopethicus' and what Filler says about spinal evidence of bipedalism going back as far as ?20million years? ... it seems to some that Occams razor proposes the lilkelyhood of this connection being correct.
Of course our even obtaining a Sasquatch body will not determine if the Sasquatch and Gigantopethicus are one in the same creature as I do not know of any Gigantopethicus DNA ever being collected. But what is implied is that if we look to what evidence we have to work with to date - we have no other larger primate known to exist that equals that of the Sasquatch. And because people migrated across the landbridge ... there is no reason to believe the Gigantopethicus didn't do the same. That is how I understand Green's letter to read.
|
|