Comments on: Pygmy Giant Panda Skull Found

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 24 Jun 2007 08:11:45 +0000

Well, as I’ve said before, fossils are a tricky thing. They are rare, and they pop up when you least expect them too. We do not have fossil evidence for all of the life that has ever existed on this planet and that is not even to say that the fossils do not exist somewhere. I have no doubt the post cranial remains of Gigantopithicus are out there, we just have not come across them yet. Fossilization is a rare process, so I will not be too surprised if fossil evidence for Bigfoot pops up someday.

By: DWA

DWA — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 13:42:19 +0000

Loren says: “My wish, of course, is that this new find foreshadows the fossil discovery for which many of us have been waiting - the post-cranial remains of Gigantopithecus, a species only known from teeth and mandibles.”

Let’s not get too excited, Loren. After all, this - like everything we have of Giganto - is cranial only.

Just needed to point that out.
That having been said: it’s really funny what passes for “knowledge” with scientists. (And the public, for that matter.) Note this: “Other than size, the animal was anatomically similar to today’s giant panda.” Um, and how do they know this? Particularly when Ciochon himself thinks Krantz came to incorrect conclusions from Giganto’s jawbone?

Fact is, we know NOTHING about fossil animals.

Read that again.

NOTHING.

It just needs to be constantly pointed out. Everything we “know” about prehistoric life is inference, gleaned from what we know about present-day animals. (If you think about it, there’s very little “knowledge” in the field of geology, either. Most geologic processes have to be inferred from what little we actually know; they can’t be directly observed or tested.)

And note how long it took to find evidence of the giant panda’s lineage. (Part of the red panda’s - I believe the only part we’ve found - was unearthed in TENNESSEE, if I understand correctly.) Yet another pin in the no-sasquatch-fossils skeptic balloon.

You never know. Until you KNOW.

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:27:16 +0000

Indeed, mystery man…I think a paradigm shift in understanding genetic mechanics is about to emerge. The old mendellian explanations are fine in the most simplistic explanation, but applying it to the species we see (and don’t see) is very unsatifsying. Will keep it in mind and look forward to the next opportunity to apply it as a possible explanation.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 17:04:12 +0000

Dogu4- No problem. I’m happy if anyone learns something from one of my posts. One thing you mentioned that I also find fascinating is the possibilities represented by the horizontal gene transfer, especially the exciting possible insights it offers into evolution. It is probably not in keeping with the topic of this post and is a discussion for another time, but horizontal gene transfer versus vertical gene transfer is of great interest to me as well.

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:31:21 +0000

Thanks MysteryMan for the enlightenment on digestive systems for the panda. That is very interesting. I can see now how volume would indeed require the big gut. I’m familiar with “the Panda’s thumb”…should re-read it now that molecular biology has definitively answered the question. Cheers.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:45:17 +0000

It is interesting to me that for all of the characteristics that have evolved in pandas to specialize in eating bamboo, they still maintain a digestive system at odds with their diet. It seems to me that this would have evolved more effectively considering the large quantities of food that need to be secured that end up as waste. Not terribly efficient.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:40:15 +0000

Dogu4- Pandas have evolved many characteristics toward their bamboo diet, including enlarged wrist bones, pseudo opposable thumbs, tough throats to protect from splinters, and large molars. Puzzling enough, though, is that although pandas have adapted to a vegetarian diet, their digestive system is still that of a carnivore and contrary to popular belief, panda’s are actually physically capable of eating meat (although they will often starve rather than do so). This still essentially carnivorous digestive system does not keep pace well with their vegetarian diet. Since they still maintain the digestive system of a carnivore, pandas lack the digestive bacteria you mentioned and their digestive systems are actually terribly inefficient at breaking down the cellulose of plant matter. Most of what they eat gets passed through as waste. In order to compensate for this, pandas are required to consume huge amounts of bamboo, as much as 83 pounds a day over the course of up to 14 to 16 hours. For all of this, their digestive system only absorbs about one hours worth over the course of a day.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 15:34:26 +0000

The question of the panda being a bear was settled a few years ago. It is one, and not closely related to the raccoon-like lesser panda. Its being so specialized, when all its relatives are omnivores, does pose interesting questions about how and why the species evolved as it dod.

The argument about Giganto’s posture will not be settled definitevely until we mave more of the creature to examine. For what it’s worth, I did have an email exchange with Ciochon a few years ago, and he, at least, was certain the big ape was not bipedal. He thought Grover Krantz inferred too much from too little evidence when Krantz argued the spread of the jaw bones indicated an upright posture.

Matt Bille

By: Tengu

Tengu — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 14:55:11 +0000

But it still doesnt answer whether the panda is a bear or a raccoon like animal.

and we must remember that Gigantopithecus had a similar ecological niche, that of fat arsed bamboo chewer.

I doubt they could walk upright.

(but this does not preclude a yet undiscovered relative who had a different, more active lifestyle!!!)

By: dogu4

dogu4 — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 13:38:57 +0000

Interesting. The speculation regarding the evolution of a strictly vegetarian bear, particularly so. Do I understand correctly that part of the adaptation required the introduction of a species of bacterial that inhabit the digestive system in which if “ferments” or pre-digests the otherwise unavailable plant nutrients. Wonder if other animals eating the remains of pandas might not find themselves exposed to the benefits of these microorganisms which over time could benefit a creature with the adaptations to harbor and benefit from them. I think there’s something interesting and puzzling in the realm of horizontal gene transfer and the introduction of adaptive mitochondria.