Mutation: Bigfoot

Tzieth wrote:It does not matter how small or large the pic is.. When the Sockets take up that much skull and then you know that the skull is actually larger than your own, common sense should tell you they had larger eyes.

What? The photos you linked to yourself didn't have any scale on them so there was no way of telling what size they were and you still claimed they were evidence that Neanderthals had larger eyes. Those photos had been scaled down and weren't the actual size of the actual skulls, you realise? But now that I've turned things around suddenly the scale is drastically important. You can't have it both ways, man.

And as I said: the measurements I gave are for comparative ratios. The actual size doesn't mean anything - a shrew has a tiny skull with comparatively larger eye orbits (which are still smaller than ours) and are nocturnal. A killer whale has a massive skull with comparatively little eyes (which are still bigger than ours) and they're diurnal. Gorillas have a bigger skull than modern humans and comparatively larger eye orbits but are diurnal. Coyotes have a smaller skull with smaller comparative orbits but are nocturnal.

You can't make a claim about a hominid being nocturnal based on either actual eye size or comparative eye size because neither are a clear indicator of nocturnality. If you want to claim that either case is enough to say that any extinct hominid was probably nocturnal you're going to have to make a much better case than eye size.


And you still you still haven't explained how the size of their orbits would be relevant to whether they had eye shine.

If you look at some of the Scientists who study said that early Man was a cave dweller.
This being the case I could see how they might have had the Eye Shine.
Caves are dark places they would want the most light they could get.
So it is possible they did have it. Since per Evolution theory all life on the planet had a Single initial starting point.
Within the theory of Evolution it is Possible.

CMcMillan wrote:If you look at some of the Scientists who study said that early Man was a cave dweller.
This being the case I could see how they might have had the Eye Shine.
Caves are dark places they would want the most light they could get.

The cave dwellers I've read of also had fire to help them see in the dark. They also didn't live their entire lives in the caves, they just sheltered there.

you know this for a fact?
Again a lot of what we are talking about is speculation on both sides.

We do know that mutations can help animals adapt to new environments or ways of living. This is what in part theory of micro evolution is about.
So it is Possible that some of the Ancient "man" lived majority time in cave systems and they developed eyes to help see in the Dark.
So it becomes Logical and possible that IF Bigfoot spends a lot of time in caves and at night they have developed the need to see better at night and in the dark.

A cows eyes are also larger than ours.. what is your point? Mice who are nocturnal and subterranean have smaller eyes compared to our own. But look at the skull of a killer whale or the skull of a cow compared to it's eye-sockets. Then look at a Pack-rat or field mouse compared to it's sockets... They are all eyes.

Bovine or whale eyes are little pin heads compared to the mass of their skulls. Same with pachyderms which are strictly diurnal. But look at a lemur or a flying-fox.

Or how about this guy:

That is a strictly nocturnal primate with much smaller eyes compared to a human. More space is taken up on the skull than a neanderthal, but this creature is not known for it's brains. However if any primate is capable of seeing Infra-red, it is this guy. Like Sasquatch, he is known for red glowing eyes and once was thought to be the ghost of dead children by the Natives that inhabited his land... Vocals that sound like a crying child in the night did not help.. What is he?

CMcMillan wrote:you know this for a fact?
Again a lot of what we are talking about is speculation on both sides.

None of the caves known to be inhabited by hominids had sufficent sources of water or animal/plant life to sustain life so they obviously had to leave to get hunt, gather food and access water. Hunting and gathering would have taken up the major part of their waking time so it's pretty obvious that they only spent a small part of their time in the caves.
Many of the caves with prehistoric cave paintings also have torch marks on the walls, an obvious sign that those homids used fire within the caves. These are all supported facts. The idea that any homind might have spent the majority of their time inside caves (with or without fire) is pure unsupported speculation.

Tzieth wrote:A cows eyes are also larger than ours.. what is your point?

My point is that there's absolutely no evidence that any prehistoric hominid was nocturnal. Your statement "Evidence suggests that all of Genus Homo with the exception of Homo-Sapiens were nocturnal" from earlier in the thread (which started off this entire discussion) is just plain wrong. There's a whole bunch of evidence against that statement and absolutely none to support it.

Tzieth wrote:Or how about this guy:

That is a strictly nocturnal primate with much smaller eyes compared to a human. More space is taken up on the skull than a neanderthal, but this creature is not known for it's brains. However if any primate is capable of seeing Infra-red, it is this guy. Like Sasquatch, he is known for red glowing eyes and once was thought to be the ghost of dead children by the Natives that inhabited his land... Vocals that sound like a crying child in the night did not help.. What is he?

Gosh, you've got me stumped there. I guess I'll never find out which primate is shown in the image with the filename bush_b11.jpg.

By the way, bush babies' eyes don't actually glow red (fluoresce) on their own, they just have intense red eyeshine when you shine a torch in their eyes.

Squatchmaster G wrote:

CMcMillan wrote:you know this for a fact?
Again a lot of what we are talking about is speculation on both sides.

None of the caves known to be inhabited by hominids had sufficent sources of water or animal/plant life to sustain life so they obviously had to leave to get hunt, gather food and access water. Hunting and gathering would have taken up the major part of their waking time so it's pretty obvious that they only spent a small part of their time in the caves.
Many of the caves with prehistoric cave paintings also have torch marks on the walls, an obvious sign that those homids used fire within the caves. These are all supported facts. The idea that any homind might have spent the majority of their time inside caves (with or without fire) is pure unsupported speculation.

Tzieth wrote:A cows eyes are also larger than ours.. what is your point?

My point is that there's absolutely no evidence that any prehistoric hominid was nocturnal. Your statement "Evidence suggests that all of Genus Homo with the exception of Homo-Sapiens were nocturnal" from earlier in the thread (which started off this entire discussion) is just plain wrong. There's a whole bunch of evidence against that statement and absolutely none to support it.

Tzieth wrote:Or how about this guy:

That is a strictly nocturnal primate with much smaller eyes compared to a human. More space is taken up on the skull than a neanderthal, but this creature is not known for it's brains. However if any primate is capable of seeing Infra-red, it is this guy. Like Sasquatch, he is known for red glowing eyes and once was thought to be the ghost of dead children by the Natives that inhabited his land... Vocals that sound like a crying child in the night did not help.. What is he?

Gosh, you've got me stumped there. I guess I'll never find out which primate is shown in the image with the filename bush_b11.jpg.

By the way, bush babies' eyes don't actually glow red (fluoresce) on their own, they just have intense red eyeshine when you shine a torch in their eyes.

I know this.. it was my point about Bigfoot's eyes not emitting light either.. just reflecting it back more intensified.

About Killer whales being Diurnal.. You sure about that? We have a lot of Pods up here and they seem to have shifts paroling certain areas. Aside from that, though killer whales have keen vision. (Demonstrated by spy-hopping) They do not need nocturnal vision. They have echo-location.

I do not understand your point about "Cave men". MOST caves do have an adequate source of water. (That is how many of them are made.) Our cave systems here were not created by water, but were lava-tubes... And they are still wet and freezing cold even in the dead of summer. These scorch marks you speak of could have been used for warmth, not light. There is also an equal chance that the fires and paintings were Homo-Sapiens made. Caves do not follow the rules of a normal terranean environment. They have their own ecosystem. Different animals, different insects, different fungi and different bacteria. There is no photosynthesis in a cave and the only radioactivity is from minerals the cave may or may not have. Things do not rot in a cave the same way they do on the surface. A dead mammal will be picked clean by insects, but it's bones will never rot nor turn to dust. This is why the Dead Sea scrolls have survived, why Egyptian Mummies survived (As well as the hieroglyphs coloring) and why thee cave paintings have survived. No way to carbon date and no way to determine a date by layers. (Especially if you are speaking of that Neanderthal cave in France where you are dealing with Limestone). For all we know, Homo-Sapiens could have inhabited that same cave a few thousand years later.

Even with the "Ritual burials" of Neanderthals, I have a problem with that theory as well. It is being looked at as some sort of proven-fact and it's not. You have Neanderthal bones, You have tools that Neanderthals supposedly used, and you have the bones of long extinct animals that Neanderthals supposedly preyed on in one massive grave site?

It becomes:"Neanderthals were fierce hunters who made stone tools to kill large prey. They had great respect for their dead and buried them with decorated ornaments of flowers."

Problem #1 How do we know these were Neanderthal tools?
Problem #2 How do we know the pollen residue (The flowers were long since withered) Were for ornamental purposes or respect and not merely to cover the stench of death?
Problem #3 The animal bones... If they had so much respect for their dead why would they throw them in their own trash-heap?

Now what do we think we know from Homo-Sapiens? (Cromagnon). #1 Every village had a trash-heap. This varied between coastal villages and inland, but they all had these. Coastal people later started building walls out of their shell-fish trash and then began throwing the bodies of their fallen enemies on the walls to ward off other tribes.

#2 Villages were mostly Clans. Strictly family based (I have no idea how they know this but they seem to think they do.) Mostly inbred they would raid other villages for women.

#3 They were highly territorial, especially those who lived on the coast.

#4 They all seemed to have their own religions and ritualistic practice unique to them. Even the remains of two separate villages not far from one another, but ethnically the same population seemed to have their own rituals and deities. They also seemed to have had different methods and tech. (Another problem I have with "Neanderthal tools". If no two groups of Cro Magnon made the same type of tools or even out of the same type material, how can you confirm that Neanderthals made these tools?) Some tools were made strictly from bone, some from different types of stone, some from shells, but it's even more than that. Some had axes but were made differently. ie; One ax was found that was made like a tomahawk where another ax was found in the remains of a village five miles away that was made like a modern ax with a hole bored through the end to be mounted and wedged onto a handle. God only knows how many of these ancient tribes were making weapons and tools strictly out of wood as most of that would have long since rotted.

So how do we know it did not happen like this:

"Cro Magnon sees a family of Neanderthal encroaching too close to their village. They launch an ambush and wipe out the Neanderthal clan and then throw their bodies into their trash-heap or ritualistic offering site where they make routine sacrifices to their god/gods. They then adorn the body of their enemies fallen leader with flowers to appease their God/Gods along with offerings of their own weapons and tools as gifts to their Gods." <--This is just as likely a scenario only more reinforced because why we may not know much about Neanderthals, we know about "Us".. We still behave the same way to this day. We still kill in the name of our Gods, we still offer them sacrifices, we still have our own rituals and we still do not care much for cultures that are not our own.. Also even though it is not mentioned, we still pile the bodies of our dead enemies into mass graves. The tech has changed, the Gods have changed, the sacrifice has changed and the reasons as to why we do what we do has changed... But Human behavior has remained perfectly intact and unchanged since as far back as we can trace our beginnings.

Oh CM.. You might find this interesting http://www.newdawnmagazine.com/articles/stan-gooch-the-neanderthal-legacy

Squatchmaster G.. This orbit issue is pretty much dead. You are actually going against mainstream science here saying they did not have larger orbits. (Normally it is me challenging mainstream but in this case facts are facts we may never know weather or not they were nocturnal but the larger orbits are something of the Now...) Cite one anthropologists who says they did not have larger orbits.. until then, I am done with this silly argument that is going no where. I searched everywhere to find someone of science that shares your view on this, but so far Orbits are not the debate, Nocturnal vs Diurnal because of the orbits seems to be the issue. I am not going to keep beating this dead horse.