[QUOTE=Colibri]
However, it is from a relatively small, isolated island, which is apparently the only place where it ever occurred. And it is quite closely related to other hominids, probably simply a dwarf form of Homo erectus, which is known from the same archipelago. So, surprising as this fossil is, it is not nearly as unexpected as finding a hominid in the New World would be.
[/QUOTE]
This is known as island (or insular) dwarfism, which can occur due to allopatric speciation resulting from extreme pressures. There is also island gigantism, which results from a similiar geographical barrier, but in this case in herbivores owing to relief from predation. Neither case would apply to an allegedly intelligent primate with free range over the entire North American continent, and it would be highly suprising that any rapid evolutionary change or saltation would occur on a large land mammal with free range.
Furthermore, there is significant question about the biomechanics of such a creature. A quick perusal online gives estimates of Bigfoot range from 300 lbs to over 2000 lbs, and heights from >6ft all the way up to 12 feet. The upper end of the scale is almost certainly untenable for a biped, certainly one derived from hominids; the hip and leg structure of a hominid simply can’t be scaled up to support that kind of weight. The lower end of the range–say, about 8ft in height and around 500 lbs–is biomechically the limit for plantigrade bipedalism without a major restructuring of the basic anatomy of a hominid.
Then there’s the evolutionary impetus for achieving such height. Even if we dispense with the issue of a lack of fossil record, there’s no explaination for a biped to have developed to such an extrema of height. Unlike, say, the giraffe–whose extended neck and accompanying phenotypical features–originally come from pressure to get leaves on the relatively sparse savanah plains of southern Africa (though the sexual dimorphism suggests that subsequent factors came into play), a primate in North America would have no conceivable reason to develop such height, especially one allegedly as intelligent as the sasquatch. A shorter, stalkier body might make sense in terms of warding off the large mammalian predators of the previous era, but that comes back to a creature more alike a gorilla or bear than an upright biped.
And the supposition that “they bury their dead”? Seriously? While there are examples of some of the more intelligent mammals performing apparent “burial” rituals (covering a body with loose sticks or rocks), there is no precident in the whole of zoology, save for the “advanced” members of Homo–modern humans, Neanderthals, perhaps Heidelberg Man (Homo heidelbergensis), for regular burial of deceased members. To assert that an entire species directly unrelated to genus Homo has developed social traditions and advanced tool-making ability sufficient to cause said species to conduct effective and undiscovered burials without a single shred of physical evidence is an absurd breach of reason. If they are advanced tool-makers, we should expect to see occasional incidence of lost or broken tools, scaled to their size and (presumed) strength. If they aren’t advanced tool-makers, they can’t be constructing the kind of underground vaults hypothesized to explain the lack of skeletal remains.
All of this is naught, though; the fact that this is an allegedly extant species but has never been reliably documented, tracked, or indentified on a heavily populated and industrialized land mass is an extraordinary claim. Before asserting that it is “likely” that Bigfoot/sasquatch/the Swamp Ape exists, you ought to have at least some small amount of credible evidence (beyond tufts of hair and murky photographs). And if you’re going to claim that they’re tool users, I bloody well want to see at least some primative tools.
There’s value in being critical about what “the experts” know, 'cause they’re often blinded by their own limited perception. But there is also great value in understanding why the experts are skeptical, and the weight of evidence it takes to convince them. The intertia against adopting a new (and frankly very weak) hypothesis is what makes the most radical revolutions in science credible. And in this case, skepticism is far more justified than advocacy.
Stranger