Is Gigantopithecus Bigfoot?

For the sake of this post, I am going to take the assumption that their is an unknown North American ape that is commonly called Bigfoot. Assuming that Bigfoot is real, I am going to explore possible root animals from which Bigfoot evolved from and look into the prominent Bigfoot theory; that Bigfoot is a direct decsendant of Gigantopithecus.

First of all, let's take a look at the some of the prominent Bigfoot theories.

1. Most Bigfoot beleivers believe that Bigfoot is a creature with a very wide range that goes throughout most of the contental Uninted States and much of Canada. The Bigfoot Feild Research Organization (BFRO) has documented sightings throughout North America.

2. Bigfoot is bipedal.

3. Bigfoot lives in cold weather climates as well as warm weather climates.

4. Bigfoot is between 6-10 feet tall and weights over 400 lbs, probably significantly more.

Ok, for the sake of argument, for the purpose of this blog post, I am going to assume that the above four mentioned details are true. Now let's get started....

There are three seperate species of Gigantopithecus. There is Gigantopithecus blacki, Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis, and Gigantopithecus giganteus.
Gigantopithecus bilaspurensis was the first to go extinct around 6 million years ago.
Gigantopithecus giganteus lived in modern day India and was approx the same size as modern day gorrilas. Little is known of G. giganeus, as few fossils have been found.
Gigantopithecus blacki was the largest of the Gigantopithecus species and lived in modern day China and India and is believed to have went extinct approx 100,000 years ago. It is thought that G. blacki teeth found in caves were the insperation of many of the Chinese dragon myths, as G. blacki teeth are still sold as dragon teeth in Chinese shops today. G. blacki had the largest range of the giganto species and lived side by side with both Homo Erectus and Homo sapiens.
What we know about gigantopithecus is limited to jaw bones and teeth. The prominent view by most paleobiologists is that giganto was not bipedal and walked on all fours. The fossil evidence from the teeth point to all three species of giganto having a very similar diet; bambo. Wear patterns on giganto teeth are very similar to that of the giant panda, who giganto shared a home range with. Giganto fossils are often found in the same areas as giant panda fossils.
The theory that giganto was bipedal was pushed by former Washington State professor of physical anthropology Grover Krantz. Gigantopithecus's jaw bones are u-shaped and widen toward the rear. This allows room for the windpipe to be within the jaw, allowing the skull to sit squarely upon a fully erect spine like modern humans, rather than roughly in front of it, like the other great apes. However, giganto may have developed this to allow for easy consumption of large amount of vegetation while sitting upright and using its hands to eat, simialar to the way giant panda's eat today.
What is known about gigantopithecus leads us to some problems with the giganto-is-bigfoot theory. While is is possible that giganto may have been bipedal, it is unlikely, as their would have been no genetic benifit for bipedal locomotion in giganto's lifestyle of eating bambo in the bambo forrests of ancient India and China. Also, there have been many teeth and jaw bone framents from gigantopithecus found throughout southern China and India. However, there have been no evidence of gigantopithecus found in northern Asia or North America. Considering the fossil evidence supports that giganto was a bambo eater, it is extremely unlikey that giganto would have migrated north to cross the Bering land bridge into North America. The fossil evidence in the known giganto range (combined with the lack of evidence of giganto living in northern Asia) make it highly unlikely that gigantopithecus could be the answer to the Bigfoot problem.

So, if Bigfoot is NOT gigantopithecus, what is he? There is another theory that needs to be explored. Could Bigfoot be Paranthropus? Paranthropus was a bipedal ape who lived in Africa about 2.7 to 2 milion years ago. Paranthropus was about 4.5 feet tall and heavily muscled and was a forrest dwelling ground ape. It was not as adapatable as the early species of the Homo genius who started to appear about the same time and is believed to have been displaced. Although Paranthropus cleary could not be Bigfoot, as it was stricktly an African animal, it does leave a very intriguing possibility. There are many similar animals in both Africa and South America. Leopards and Jaguars are very similar, and both continents are home to many species of monkey. Although there is no fossil evidence to support this, it is possible (although highly unlikely) that paranthropus may have evolved from an animal that existed on both South America and Africa both. It may have been possible for animals to have traveled between Africa and South America as recently as 100 million years ago. Obviously monkeys developed on both sides of the Atlantic. Is it possible that in the depths of the Amazon rain forest a large upright ape developed? Perhaps the "out of Asia" theory supported by most Bigfoot believers is wrong, and Bigfoot developed first in the jungles of South and Central America and migrated north from there. This theory has no physical evidence though, and some physical bases must be found before and serious scientific theroy can be based on this hypthosis.

Big Foot, fact or fiction?

Bigfoot. Perhaps no other animal in cryptozoology brings stronger feelings and debate. Does it exist, and if so, what is it?
I have to admit, the sheer number of sightings and the footprint evidence is interesting, but there are problems. First, there is no North American template for bigfoot. Yeti has gigantopithicus. Orang Pendek has Homo floresienis (aka, the hobit) and orangatangs. The mountain valleys of Asia and the swamps of Sumatra have many species of monkeies and apes that have lived along side humans. North America does not. I would be much more likely to believe that bigfoot exists if fossil evidence could give us proof that it DID exist.
Many bigfoot research organizations believe that bigfoot is an animal that lives throughout most of North America and can be found in every state except Hawaii. I disagree. To have a population big enough to cover that much land mass, you are looking at 10's of thousands of animals. Even by the most conservative estimates, it would require at least 10,000 animals, which is likely too small of a population to be stable over that much land mass. The sheer numbers of animals that would be in existence would have resulted in a dead body being found. Also, all large apes live in tight nit social groups, and bigfoot clearly does not, as a group of 10-20 individuals would unquestionably have been found by now. Even bigfoot research points to bigfoot living as single individuals. There is no known precedence for apes living this way.
Do I believe it is possible for bigfoot to exist somewhere? Yes, I do. I think it is possible, although unlikely, that bigfoot exists in the coastal rainforests in the Pacific northwest. This area is not all that different from known habitats of other non-human great apes and the dense vegetation could hide a small population of animals.
For you bigfoot believes who take exception, PROVE IT. I will gladly eat crow.

Orang Pendek

Everyone knows the legends concerning bigfoot and yeti, but less people know about orang pendek, or "little foot." Orang Pendek is rumored to be a ground dwelling and hair covered bipedal ape, believed to be between 80 cm and 120 cm tall. Orang Pendek, or similar animals, have historically been reported throughout Sumatra and  Southeast Asia recent sightings have occurred largely within the Kerinci regency of central Sumatra and especially within the borders of Taman Nasional Kerinci Seblat National Park.

This 3 foot high "little person" (the Indonesion inturpation for Orang Pendek) has been reported by Westerners for over 100 years in and around Sumatra. Like bigfoot and yeti, there has been little physical evidence found of orang pendek, which leads most biologist to believe that orang pendek is a myth. However, the dense jungle areas of the Sumatrian swamps in not condussive to fossilization and the area is dense in animal life, including many species of monkeys, and is well within the historical home range of orangatangs. There has been a wide variaty of sightings from both local people and forigners that back up the existence of orang pendek, and there has also been the discovery of footprints.
Like bigfoot and yeti, science has yet to accept the sightings and footprints as proof of the existence of this creature. However, unlike bigfoot, there is possibly historical proof of the existence of orang pendek. In Oct 2004, scientists published the discovery of skeletap remains of a possible new human species called Homo floresiensis that they discovered in caves on the island of Flores (another island in the Indoesian achiplelago). Homo floresiensis were dubed "Hobits" after the tiny people in JRR Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings". The hobits are estimated to have been approx 3'6" tall. The evidence on Flores suggests that they lived from about 94,000 years ago until as recently as 13,000 years ago. It is highly possible that the hobits may have been much harrier than modern humans. It is very possible, although perhaps unlikely, that orang pendek is a surviving population of Homo floresiensis. The problem with this theory is that the hobits were known tool users and are believed to have lived in tight social groups and likely in villages. There has be absolutely no evidence that orang pendek lives in villages or that they make and use tools.
Another possibility is orang pendek is a groud dwelling adaptation of the orangatang. This would account for the bipedal locomotion of orang pendek. Many witnesses have reported orang pendek to be a very similar color to orangatangs.
A small prehistoric human? Local myth? Misidentified animals? A new species of ape? What is orang pendek? Nobody knows. However, the dense jungle swamps could easily hide an unknown animal. If something is out there, someday, it will be proven to exist. Until then, the debate will go on.

The Origins of Agriculture

Paleoanthropolical theory has suggested multiple reasons that early humans gave up their lives as hunter-gatherers and turned to agriculture. The earliest and most accepted theory is that agriculture was a natural progression or cultural progress. Others have suggested enviromental change and others an increase of population. However, their are problems with all these theories.
First, let's start with the "natural progression" of culture bringing us agriculture. Why? It is estimated that gathering and hunting brings the same amount of food yeild PER MAN-HOUR as agriculture does. Obviously seed crops give people a significant increase in food yield per acre, but that would not have been known.
Enviromental change is a very weak theory, as differnent cultures turned to agriculture at different times in history.
I also don't believe that an increase in population would have caused early humans to turn to agriculture, as it more likely that a turn to agriculture lead to an increase in population.
So, what is the most likely reason people turned to agriculture? Fishing. Seed crops take time to grow, and it just does not makes sense that early man would have suddenly stopped their nomadic lifestyle and sat around watching plants grow as game dimmenshied. Fishing gave early man a steady and reliable food source that could have led to the first permanent settlements. These stable and permanent settlements would have allowed increases in population, and also given the earliest farmers time to plant, grow, and harvest the first earliest crops. Spear fishing was probably the first form of fishing and could have been done with many of the same spears that were used in hunting, and gathering shallow water creatures such as crabs, mussels, clams, fogs, turtles, and snakes could have added variaty and stability to the fishing villages. From these early settlements, the domestication of animals and seed crops would have had a solid foundation to grow from.