amen?.
i forgot what site, but i seen some pictures of what could be a Bigfoot, Yowi, yeti, A. Snowman, cryptid that’s not big foot, unknown species that’s no known in cryptozoology or living fossil.. but i looked legit….. well to me

i think it’s an ape. but very well can be a monkey..

apes are built except for chimpanzee their skinny.. and when i mean built i mean like gorillas and orangutans..

but i could be wrong it could be a monkey.

if it’s indeed a subspecies then wow what primate made that?
and if it’s the original primate that started all the primates. wow lol..

but if Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzee’s..etc. are related then i wonder where did the Gorillas, Orangutans, Chimpanzee’s originated from. Cause i have a feeling Yowl, Bigfoot, yeti maybe resembles or have Characteristics of Apes instead of monkeys.

as far as i know.. from what i read.. no one mentioned an ape like characteristics

I believe in our present time were able to do more then what we expect.. i think were able to catch lots of cryptids, living fossils..etc.

but with patients unless they appear on the spot right away.
;d amen amen.:)

if we don’t have patients and if we jump to conclusion we will be busting a “Destination Truth” (although i love that show) meaning that (if i remember correctly) when they were looking for the Mokele-Mbembe.. they didn’t see it, when their trip was over they said “it isn’t real”… that’s so lame… they can’t assume that just cause they didn’t see it… chances are you won’t see it when you want to, and chances are you will… and chances are you will see it when you don’t look for it. and chances are you will not.

i say if someone is going to do an expedition at least it should be for a week or 2 or more.. but if their able to stay for days it’s cool.. as long as they realize they may not see it…. if i go around my city hoping to see lizards (yes we have lizards “wild ones”) chances are i will not see one. And I won’t see one just cause i want to…and second their able to not be seen by us.. even if their small and have a big advantage of hiding lol… you get my point.
Too many of us jump to conclusions and not realizing the truth is right in front of our eyes.

i know for a fact that if see any spiders, insects and bugs we never seen before we ignore them or kill them.. without even realizing they may be a cryptid or living fossil or unknown species… who knows….

same goes with larger creatures not everybody seen and knows all recorded animals and they may assume the animal they saw is recorded or they will ignore it and walk away… without even realizing it was a living fossil or cryptid or unknown species of animals..etc.

i for sure seen a strange insect or bug or spider.. what ever it was.. in my bathroom although i had no batteries for my camera then.. so i couldn’t have tooken a picture. the only picture i have of it is in my head.

It isn’t so much the amount of “fuel” (food or nutrient) a body needs, so much as what kind it is and how much chewing it needs before swallowing. So eating an egg needs no real chewing, whereas eating walnuts does.

So essentially you just need to look for a reason to say paranthropus became a specialized herbivore instead of the general hominid presumption they were non-specialized omnivores.

So you might imagine that a paranthopus group traveled to a niche environment where nuts and very edible (but needing chewing) vegetation was plentiful and soft fruits, bird eggs, and small reptiles, lizards, etc. were more scarce. Then, if they settle into that niche, they may evolve a more developed sagital crest to accommodate the extra chewing each day.

Bill

Bigfoot, as an evolved, larger Parathropus boisei, might have developed a larger sagittal crest since it would necessarily need more fuel to live. And this begs the question: what can we expect as to bigfoot diet, given Parathropus as a prototype or indeed as an ancestor.

Btw, springheeled jack, there is a reason my ideas might sound like something from American Indian spirit lore. I still have enough Indian blood in me to qualify as an American Indian and I think I inherited a great deal of my ancestors beliefs. Personally I think most indigenous peoples are much more in-tune with what goes on in Nature than city-folk are.

Someone mentioned something about Patty’s walk in the P-G film. First of all I have to agree Patty’s walk is not that of a primate at all but of a creature that has been naturally bi-pedal for untold generations, like homo. Also, anyone who has done much walking learns they have several different strides; a short one for normal around town type walking, a bit longer one for when you want to get somewhere a bit quicker and another, for those lucky enough to be able to spend a lot of time in the open where they can really WALK, a stride that allows one to really eat up distance when necessary. It is this last stride which Patty is exhibiting, a ground-covering stride that allows one to cover much ground without the exertion required by running. That is something I’d love to see, a Sasquatch out for a long distance run; probably the only thing that comes close is watching Watusi warriors running in Africa, almost equal heights but without the body mass of a Sasquatch.

The examples you gave are very good. I thought this was a good point to bring up. There are many, many examples of why a creature may need adapt to change in its environment. Predators, climate change, competition from other species, often an interlocking of many factors. It is a complex thing. But I thought it would be important to bring up the evolution myth that all life always moves towards more advanced forms, or that it even sometimes “devolves” into a “lesser form”. This is false. An organism evolves precisely as it must to best survive in its habitat and niche; no more, no less. Selective pressures and changes arise and natural selection progresses. But by no means is it imperative that an animal continue changing if it is well adapted and its environment stable. This is something that I often find is misunderstood or misrepresented in discussions concerning evolution, so I do think it is important we brought it up.

Thanks for helping me to further explain my point.

Sometimes the same species, but usually in the classes I listed, they are able to produce offspring, anyway.

Ligers and tions, zorses and zonkeys, and on ya go.

I agree and think you brought up a valuable point often lost when people think about evolution. Evolution should be thought of as a response to a change in a species environment, and if the environment (in total) is stable, the species tends to remain “in stasis” (largely unchanged). It is in response to a change in the environment (a land bridge forming that allows a new predator to enter the area, for example) which changes the evolutionary needs for the species to survive and the successful species then evolves to survive the predator threat (one example),

Or the species moves into a new environment, finds different food sources, and adapts to that environment, its food and the food gathering methods needed.

But the idea there is a “goal” of evolution to “advance” is a fallacy. So yes, any of those hominid ancestors, if they survived today, could be the same as they were then, if their environment niche was similarly stable and largely unchanged.

Bill

Thanks!