The Johor Bigfoot could be a Homo erectus that had undergone "reverse evolution". Homo erectus ("upright man") is a hominid species that is believed to be an ancestor of modern humans. It is a large-brained species which lived from approximately two million to around 400,000 years ago.Sean Ang, a scientist from Kuala Lumpur who had analysed the prehistoric Perak Man excavated by Universiti Sains Malaysia in 1994, said based on evidence compiled about the creature by biodiversity researcher Vincent Chow, he thought the creature might have been in existence for more than 65,000 years."I concur with Chow’s findings that this could be an unknown species that went through reverse evolution to end up as a less intelligent creature than Peking Man, who could use fire and tools."Reverse evolution can take place when there is an abundance of food and the species group is small and totally isolated, as in the case of the Johor Bigfoot," said Ang, who holds a masters degree in palaeoanthropology from Sheffield University in England.Ang was invited by Chow to discuss evidence that the latter had compiled, including clear photographs of footprints.

Acknowledging that the evidence was "believable", Ang said scientists were excited about the Johor Bigfoot as they would have a chance to come face-to-face with a living species of prehistoric man.Ang, who used to work at the National Museum, said he had decided to team up with Chow to write a research paper on the Johor Bigfoot, for publication in a scientific journal for the benefit of other researchers."At present there is a lot of confusion among Bigfoot researchers all over the world as there are new hypotheses every other day. "There is also no clear photograph or evidence to guide researchers."

View: Full Article | Source: New Straits Times

This is what I dont understand ..... If this creature has been seen by so many people in this village then why does it now seem to be so hard to capture it on film. I understand that the people there are very poor and cameras are not abundant but with all the media attention and sight seers it looks like someone would have a pic / video by now.

Does anyone know of any recent sightings of the Johor bigfoot?

Mabye all the attention has driven it to migrate.

I wonder what ever happened to the man who claimed to be in contact with these creatures?

There is no such thing as de-evolving/reserve evolution, its biologically impossible. An animal can only evolve, it can't jump back. What these idiots mean is its evolutionary track might have made it evolve to a more hairy form that didn't use tool which might which was less human in appearance than its previous form, but it is impossible for it to jump back species.
If a comet struck the Earth, wiped out our technology and put humans back in the grip of nature and the environment, its quite possible that to adapt to our environment humans could evolve into a four legged, unintelligent animal over millions of years because the genes leading to that form would survive where others would be taken by predators etc However, just because we might end up looking like mice, does not mean we have de-evolved or been subject to 'reverse-evolution'.

Indeed there is.

Certainly not imposible.

It certianly can. it just requires a mutation the opposite of the one causing the first evolutionary step.

Of corse not. What they mean by reverse evolution, is that there is no selectiononal pressure requiering organisms to 'stay ahead' and therefore there is nothing holding them from getting a mutation that puts them back to where they were before. They would be just as able to survive with or without the good mutation, and therefore they wont be selectioned against, and therefore survive.

I thought I was paying attention and following the details of this ongoing Johor Bigfoot saga. Didn't I read fantastic claims earlier of actual detailed and up-close photos of the beast itself in an advertised forthcoming book? Now it's just "clear photographs of footprints"?

Perhaps I was drunk when I first heard of it.

reverse evolution is very rare. i myself do not bleive in bigfoot however i do belive in the yeti. nor do i belive in nessie all of my belifs are based on actualy scientific evidence i have gained since becoming a zoologist

Reverse evolution very rarely happens...and is truly not "reverse"...It's just a coincedence of gaining the same feature/ability that was lost before..

that is what I was thinking, it is not really reverse. because you cannot ungrow.... this case would be simply evolving, and as said above, gaining characteristics that were lost.

That would be evolution. If chimps changed over the next few million years to a four-legged creature that cat’s would find a nice mouthful it would be by evolution.






If there is no selectional pressure to 'stay ahead', then a species will barely evolve at all. Crocodiles for example evolved during the dinosaur-era, their environment has barely changed since then meaning they have no pressures that would result in certain mutation getting the edge and spreading throughout the species over the generations to eventually become new races, and eventually species. As such modern day Crocodiles are very similar to those of 65 million years ago, they have no because of lack of pressure to ‘stay ahead’ changed.
Even the reverse evolution is impossible, what a species has evolved from is gone, in past, over… they can’t return to that form. They can only evolve. The environment might well favour genes which make them appear more like something they looked a few stages back, but it wouldn’t be that species they were, it would be a new one simply formed by the same evolutionary pressures (like how Dingo’s and wolves look the same even though, Dingo’s aren’t related at all to wolves, both species were simply evolved by the same environmental pressures). Reverse evolution/ de-evolution is the process of back-tracking down the evolutionary chain, but it’s universally accepted in biology that evolution can only go forward not back.
What these people should be saying is that evolution might have favoured mutations which resulted in Homo erectus evolving into something hairy that may have looked more like our common ancestor which came out of the African forests 3 million years ago, but it cannot de-evolve into that same species which is what reverse-evolution implies.

Can I also point out evolution doesn’t mean becoming ‘superior’ or necessarily ‘better’, only adaptation. From our prospective a larger animal might be more impressive than a smaller animal. But if the smaller size leads to better survival in the wild, then evolution will favour that smaller size even if by human-perspective that smaller size looks less impressive.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/devolve.html




Personally I think there is more evidence for Bigfoot’s existence given the number of sightings over the last few hundred years and that the forests it lives in has already proven itself to have enough food to sustain another large mammal species i.e. bears. The Himalayas may be able to support snow leopards and bears because they live on the lower slopes, but I’m not so sure it has enough food to support apes as well. That said, I’d like to believe in it.




I’d say even less than rare. But yes, its just evolution only were the new traits taken up by the species are similar to those their ancestors may have, but its still evolution. Humans might well become more hairy in a future ice age, but it doesn’t mean the hair is evidence of back-tracking to an earlier form. De-evolution and reverse-evolution is a myth, its always Evolution.

thought so also

What the hell are you talking about? This article must be false. No real scientist would believe in reverse evolution. The notion is ridiculous and is at complete odds with the natural world.
The whole point of evolution is to adapt to one's environment, to reverse that change would mean extinction. So Talon is right about that. Have you no basic grounding in Anthropology?
It's funny because I googled these topics and the only kind of websites this article appeared on were cryptozoology sites, and very obscure news sources. That should tell you something right there.

There are variations in genes, (which is called mutation and how we evolve) which might explain your confusion, but it's not like our DNA goes "whelp, we're on top of the food chain boys, lets jump back a million years. It'll be just like old times." That's just silly.
Please read up on your physical anthropology.