Float, the key difference between the proposed evolutionary path of Giganto and that of humans is that with humans, we have an end product to look at. There is no Bigfoot to even look at which makes it unabashed speculation. The last million years is literally littered with big Pleistocene megafauna like Giganto that died out or were replaced with smaller versions. It'd be hella-strange for Giganto's massive descendants to go unnoticed (and I mean physical evidence) in temperate settled climates, and also still be essentially a Pleistocene megafaunal holdout. I mean, this would have to be the exception of all exceptions to biological patterns.
I agree, completely. The odds of having Bigfoot emerge are astronomically low. I would put them lower than even Nessie or Champ, depending. It would be completely out of the normal to have this gigantic bipedal primate strolling around the State of Washington, when primates that large don't really exist any longer, and we are the only bipedal primate on this rock. It is low, low and lower. Which is why it is fantasy, not science. But the purpose is to say that if we were able to have a Bigfoot to use to track back, this is the proposed method by which such an event could occur. That isn't the same as saying it has occurred. I'm not, by any means, claiming that Bigfoot exists, 100% matter of fact, I'm just saying that if he did, this is the most likely way it came into existence. I'm more of a Bigfoot agnostic than a Bigfoot believer, which is to say, I typically agree with Jane Goodall on the issue, even in jest. And as such, these are the views I take to describe the process by which we could explain existence, even absent proof of existence. In other words, purely speculative with small amounts of "evidence." I think one guy, and I don't recall whom, basically said that if you took all the foot castings of Bigfoot, you would have to classify each cast as its own species. So, it would be hard to call that evidence. So again, pure fantasy land. But fun to think about.
I tried reading the Hobbit, and couldn't get into the actual book. Homo Floresiensis was tauted as a "Hobbit," but definitely not in Tolken's way.
I never read much about it other than the original article. Something about burying their dead and using tools, but I don't recall much more than that.
Tiny human species, but some think they may have just been individuals of another hominid species suffering from a genetic defect.
I suppose either is possible. I would probably tend to lean towards speciation rather than disease, but either way is neat.
I don't think there is enough data to know for sure either way. That's the nature of the beast with fossils in the tropics.
Simplest solution is usually correct, and clearly the simplest solution is that the Yeti was simply wearing an ancient polar bear fur, to keep warm.
Interesting from an evolutionary perspective. Polar bears are the youngest species of bear on the planet.
'Bigfoot hunt' ends in shooting, arrests An apparent hunt for Bigfoot in the woods of Oklahoma went wrong after a man reportedly heard a “barking noise,” turned around and shot his friend in the back, police say. Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/Story/23875033/bigfoot-hunt-ends-in-shooting-arrests#ixzz2jmgBzYxg
