Personal opinion regarding hominid cryptids

[Carnoferox]

1 minute ago, Abramelin said:

I'll tell you what I think.

Gigantopithicus was a giant bipedal ape.

The Siberian ancestors of the Native Americans encountered that beast, and transmitted their stories about this beast to every next generation.

This story became legend, myth, whatever, and it became part of Native American lore.

What evidence do you have for such bold claims? Besides the evidence indicating that Gigantopithecus was quadrupedal and lack of evidence that it was bipedal, there is also no evidence that it lived in Siberia. Its distribution was restricted to southeast Asia (southern China, Vietnam, and Thailand) and it only ate plants found in the subtropical forests it inhabited. It would not have been able to survive in the boreal forests, steppes, or tundras of Siberia.

[Carnoferox]

2 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

But does it rule out Gigantopithecus was bipedal?

Orangutans walk on their hindlegs quite frequently.

Some of their cousins, like Gigantopithecus, might have walked bipedal more often.

Facultative bipeds and obligate bipeds are not the same thing. All living, non-human apes are facultative bipeds, meaning they can walk bipedally on occasion but are still primarily quadrupedal. Only humans are obligate bipeds, meaning they can walk bipedally all the time. Bigfoot is also alleged to be an obligate biped. Gigantopithecus was in the same weight range as the largest gorillas (~200-300 kg), so it would have been a facultative biped and quadruped.

[Abramelin]

6 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

What evidence do you have for such bold claims? Besides the evidence indicating that Gigantopithecus was quadrupedal and lack of evidence that it was bipedal, there is also no evidence that it lived in Siberia. Its distribution was restricted to southeast Asia (southern China, Vietnam, and Thailand) and it only ate plants found in the subtropical forests it inhabited. It would not have been able to survive in the boreal forests, steppes, or tundras of Siberia.

Your whole post is filled with best guesses and assumptions based an very thin evidence.

There is NO evidence Gigantopithecus was quadrupedal: that was based on its supposed relation to orangutans.

 

You know what it ate in one area. Do you, by that, also know what it ate further north?

The reason it was supposed to eat subtropical plants is because its remains were found in a region with subtropical forests.

But that doesn't prove it didn't move north and ate other plants.

 

[Abramelin]

3 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

Gigantopithecus was in the same weight range as the largest gorillas (~200-300 kg), so it would have been a facultative biped and quadruped.

That's another assumption, and based on, heh, nothing.

I think, because we have not discovered anything else but molars and a lower jaw,  we should not rule out anything.

 

[Carnoferox]

Just now, Abramelin said:

Your whole post is filled with best guesses and assumptions based an very thin evidence.

There is NO evidence Gigantopithecus was quadrupedal: that was based on its supposed relation to orangutans.

I already posted the evidence supporting Gigantopithecus as a quadruped: its similar morphology and relationship to Sivapithecus and orangutans, which are quadrupeds, and its similar weight to gorillas, which are also quadrupeds. That is evidence whether you like it or not. Where is your evidence for it being bipedal?

2 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

You know what it ate in one area. Do you, by that, also know what it ate further north?

The reason it was supposed to eat subtropical plants is because its remains were found in a region with subtropical forests.

But that doesn't prove it didn't move north and ate other plants.

We know that Gigantopithecus had specialized teeth for eating these subtropical plants in this region and that it died out specifically because it couldn't adapt to the cooling climate and more temperate plant life. Where is your evidence that it moved north and evolved to eat other plants?

[Carnoferox]

3 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

That's another assumption, and based on, heh, nothing.

I think, because we have not discovered anything else but molars and a lower jaw,  we should not rule out anything.

 

No, it's not based on "nothing". It's based on the evidence from fossils and living apes that I've already outlined. Your argument that "we should not rule out anything" is completely absurd and anti-logical. Do you think that Gigantopithecus had feathered wings and could fly just because its arms haven't been found?

[Abramelin]

Just now, Carnoferox said:

I already posted the evidence supporting Gigantopithecus as a quadruped: its similar morphology and relationship to Sivapithecus and orangutans, which are quadrupeds, and its similar weight to gorillas, which are also quadrupeds. That is evidence whether you like it or not. Where is your evidence for it being bipedal?

What you posted about Gigantopithecus is NO evidence; it's a best guess based on its supposed relationship with Sivapithecus and orangutans.

I have no evidence of it being bipedal, but you didn't post anything convicing to the contrary.

4 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

We know that Gigantopithecus had specialized teeth for eating these subtropical plants in this region and that it died out specifically because it couldn't adapt to the cooling climate and more temperate plant life.

"We know"? No, we don't know why it died out. It's just a best guess.

 

[Abramelin]

4 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

No, it's not based on "nothing". It's based on the evidence from fossils and living apes that I've already outlined. Your argument that "we should not rule out anything" is completely absurd and anti-logical. Do you think that Gigantopithecus had feathered wings and could fly just because its arms haven't been found?

Thank you.

[Carnoferox]

4 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

What you posted about Gigantopithecus is NO evidence; it's a best guess based on its supposed relationship with Sivapithecus and orangutans.

I have no evidence of it being bipedal, but you didn't post anything convicing to the contrary.

"We know"? No, we don't know why it died out. It's just a best guess.

I can see that you have no understanding what evidence and logic actually are, so it's not worth arguing with you any further.

Edited February 5, 2023 by Carnoferox

[Abramelin]

2 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

I can see that you have no understanding what evidence and logic actually are, so it's not worth arguing with you any further.

It's ok.

Apparently you are convinced by theories and scientific assumptions based on practically nothing.

 

[Resume]

https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/evolution-today/what-is-a-theory

Quote

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

A theory not only explains known facts; it also allows scientists to make predictions of what they should observe if a theory is true. Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected. The longer the central elements of a theory hold—the more observations it predicts, the more tests it passes, the more facts it explains—the stronger the theory.

Bolding mine.

[Abramelin]

Bonobos are chimps. Both carry very similar proteins, dna.

But they behave very differently. Bonobos are known to walk upright for much longer than any regular chimp does. They are peace-loving, a gentle lot.

Regular chimps are anything but peace-loving. They can be monsters at times.

And giving them time, these Bonobos may evolve to something totally different from regular chimps.

Despite their proteins being extremely similar to regular chimps.

[the13bats]

6 hours ago, Abramelin said:

Damn , munns didnt age well,  that was his fantasy biased opinion based version of gigantopitheus its the idea of a lowrent makeup artist not science, after krantz died i thought only meldumb and his credulous worshippers were the only ones who clinged to the silly notion gigantopitheus was not a knuckle dragger.

 

On 2/3/2023 at 9:54 PM, Dejarma said:

fair enough- but to even consider 'IF' is ridiculous to me. To say: 'Honestly, I don't even believe in its existence' baffles me as to why you would feel a need to start this thread topic in the first place!? All due respect 

I understand how you feel but i welcome new threads in these target for me sections keeps me out of politics, lol.

[Abramelin]

5 hours ago, the13bats said:

I thought only meldumb and his credulous worshippers were the only ones who clinged to the silly notion gigantopitheus was not a knuckle dragger

I don't cling to anything, but it still is a possibility.

And why do yòu think Gigantopithecus was a knuckle dragger? Maybe you think the same as X it's because of its weight?

As soon as they find its spine, pelvis and legs we will know. Or a complete skull: you can know how it carried its head based on the location of the hole where the spinal cord enters the skull.

Edited February 6, 2023 by Abramelin

[the13bats]

2 minutes ago, Abramelin said:

I don't cling to anything, but it still is a possibility.

And why do yòu think Gigantopithecus was a knuckle dragger? Maybe you think the same as X it's because of its weight?

As soon as they find its spine, pelvis and legs we will know. Or a complete skull: you can know how it carried its head based on the location of the hole where the spine attaches to the skull.

That whole "its possible" is a bit of a played out rebuttle for when a person is empty handed in supporting their claims but want to keep dancing, i see it as clinging, no big deal.

Carno posted plenty of good evidence to support gigant was a knuckle dragger all you have that it was obligate biped ( we dont care if it was facultative biped ) is opinion based on "its possible" and "what if" if the day come more remains are found.

Let me play your game for a moment lets say munns riduculous model is what it looked like are you going to suggest that has been out there "hiding" no breeding stock no evidence at all it exists? And is BF?

Actually that would be impossible.

 

[Piney]

13 hours ago, Abramelin said:

I'll tell you what I think.

Gigantopithicus was a giant bipedal ape.

The Siberian ancestors of the Native Americans encountered that beast, and transmitted their stories about this beast to every next generation.

This story became legend, myth, whatever, and it became part of Native American lore.

 

I do think the legends are based on some kind of ape or hominid encountered while still in Asia. 

[psyche101]

On 2/4/2023 at 12:47 PM, MysteryMike said:

That's why I said If.

Honestly I don't even believe in its existence or 99.9% of cryptids for that matter at this point. This thread was just talking about the possibility what bigfoot and other hominid cryptids might be if they existed in such a hypothetical world.

Wouldn't a smaller hominid be more likely to exist that a very large one? Particular in the bigfoot tradition?

Hypothetically of course..

[the13bats]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Wouldn't a smaller hominid be more likely to exist that a very large one? Particular in the bigfoot tradition?

Hypothetically of course..

That was something that was odd to me, the way BF is described thats not really a good design for the areas its claimed to live, here in florida due to different reasons we do have wild monkeys but they are not large.

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by the13bats

[Piney]

3 minutes ago, the13bats said:

That was something that was odd to me, the way BF is described thats not really a good design for the areas its claimed to live, here in florida due to different reasons we do have wild monkeys but they are not large.

 

Walking upright in any heavily wooded place wouldn't make sense. Every time I'm bushwhacking a cedar swamp I'm always half hunched over.

10 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Wouldn't a smaller hominid be more likely to exist that a very large one? Particular in the bigfoot tradition?

Hypothetically of course..

It didn't stop us from looking. 

[the13bats]

40 minutes ago, Piney said:

Walking upright in any heavily wooded place wouldn't make sense. Every time I'm bushwhacking a cedar swamp I'm always half hunched over.

It didn't stop us from looking. 

And you had tools gear to help clear your path not just power through it empty handed yet leave zero behind.

[Piney]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

And you had tools gear to help clear your path not just power through it empty handed yet leave zero behind.

No tools. I just push the branches out of the way and follow game trails.

 

[the13bats]

8 minutes ago, Piney said:

No tools. I just push the branches out of the way and follow game trails.

 

Bushwhacking here means hacking stuff with machete,  my mistake.

[Carnoferox]

8 hours ago, Piney said:

I do think the legends are based on some kind of ape or hominid encountered while still in Asia. 

It's doubtful that it was Gigantopithecus or H. erectus, since it seems they were both extinct by the time H. sapiens reached southeast Asia. H. floresiensis, H. luzonensis, H. denisova/altaiensis, and orangutans are all possible. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by Carnoferox

[Abramelin]

26 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

It's doubtful that it was Gigantopithecus or H. erectus, since it seems they were both extinct by the time H. sapiens reached southeast Asia. H. floresiensis, H. luzonensis, H. denisova/altaiensis, and orangutans are all possible. 

Ok. Gigantopithecus went extinct very long before any HSS crossed Beringia.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/160106-science-evolution-apes-giant

Sort of end of discussion.

[Piney]

54 minutes ago, Carnoferox said:

It's doubtful that it was Gigantopithecus or H. erectus, since it seems they were both extinct by the time H. sapiens reached southeast Asia. H. floresiensis, H. luzonensis, H. denisova/altaiensis, and orangutans are all possible. 

I was leaning towards floressiensis or luzonensis and wondered if  larger versions roamed the Eastern continent.