Food for thought

This board is open for all matters and discussions pertaining to the Australian Yowie. Please keep on topic in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
mlj1mlj1
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:14 am
Position: Arm-Chair Researcher

Food for thought

Unread post by mlj1mlj1 » Tue Mar 05, 2013 1:06 pm

The concensus in BF world is the male counterpart of Sasquatch crossed the land bridge into N America at last ice age at the Bering sea through Alaska. Probably the same in Australia along the island chain that flows through the South Pacific. Thus, my guess is the Yowie and Sasquatch have the same male DNA. The difference is what happened next. The Native Americans in N America interbreed with the Sasquatch and revered them. The Aboriginals did not and instead hunted them and thus the human side is a bigger factor in N America and could also explain why your species is more aggressive like the Yeti. More than likely the father of both. Its just a guess, but it is something that makes sense to me.

The only thing wrong with this hypothesis is why didn't they cross the land bridges sooner. There had to be many ice ages in last 100,000 years and before. The 50,000 years aboriginals have been in Australia seems to point to earlier migrations of people, so the current scientific hypothesises themselves seem to have holes in them.

Neil Frost

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by Neil Frost » Thu Mar 07, 2013 8:51 pm

G’day mlj1mlj1,

The reality is that there is no known land bridge from Asia to Australia in recent time. Also, the further that you go back in time, the less likely the possibility. Apart from Aborigines and other seafaring people from Asia making their way here by boat, there was no easy land route, with ocean crossings between islands during this period being around a hundred kilometres or more.

This lengthy journey does not seem possible for a technologically deprived species. In any case, if it was feasible, then many members would need to make the crossing together or repeatedly over a short period, in order to make the population viable. Some estimates of viability maintain that a minimum of thirty individuals would be required.

Consequently, Australia was most probably a biological backwater, where extensive convergent evolution took place. Any bipedal hominoid would develop similar biological and behavioural traits to others elsewhere, under similar circumstances. In other words, if it walks on two legs, then it probably has two spare limbs for grasping and has consequently, developed excellent motor skills and neurological development to exploit them - probably uses tools, eats meat, et al.

Like you, these are just my thoughts.

Neil

User avatar
mlj1mlj1
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:14 am
Position: Arm-Chair Researcher

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by mlj1mlj1 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 10:32 am

What is so intriguing is they contend most hominids came accross a 50 mile or less stretch between Alaska and Russia about 17,000 years ago to N America. Yet, people were in Australia as accepted allot longer and it is more remote. I have heard as much as 50,000 years ago. Makes no sense. If no land bridge to Australia in last 100,000 years, what is your thought on when people crossed. I know allot of sea farers in S Pacific, so if thats the case the original aussies should be related to them? But if I recall thats not the case either. An intriguing dilemma or maybe the ice age was bigger and oceans lower than people thought. Good response Neil. There has to be a correct answer. I just don't know what it is, but the pieces aren't fitting right. :)

User avatar
Rusty2
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1770
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 5:30 pm
Position: Believer
Location: East Coast

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by Rusty2 » Fri Mar 08, 2013 3:35 pm

Hey guys ,

Australia , antarctica and south america were once joined . Its not a huge leap .

Some indigenous people refer to the yowie as " the old people " , acknowledging the yowie as being here before they arrived . I heard the indigenous peoples arrived here around 100 thousand years ago ????????

Neil Frost

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by Neil Frost » Fri Mar 08, 2013 5:24 pm

G’day mlj1mlj1,

What you have said about the arrival of the sasquatch and the Clovis people in North America seems familiar but this is an area in which I am not overly knowledgeable. Regarding Australia, it would seem that there were a number of migrations by different Aboriginal people, over a period of about 50K, so perhaps a low sea level may not have been a critical prerequisite on every occasion throughout this period. Clearly, however, Aboriginals were capable of sea faring, so technologically, migration over water would not have been a barrier for them anyway.

For the hairy ones, however, the Weber Line would have been too formidable. They are only capable of forming rudimentary tools, for example, clubs from tea tree roots and probes from branches and sticks. Fortunately, they can not manufacture fire or maintain it, otherwise we would have major problems in the mountains with bushfires.

I don’t think that boat or even raft construction would have been possible for them. Organizing an expedition requires extensive planning as well as technological skill. Language would be a major requirement, as well as community involvement. Although our dooligahl are capable of rudimentary communication and do associate in family groups, I can’t see this coming together in the manufacture an ocean going craft, or anything else of much significance, apart from a few stick structures. Additionally, there would be a need for repeated voyages, by similarly well prepared groups, in order to keep the population viable.

The only other possibility is that an unknown land bridge somehow arose in the recent past, with falling sea levels. The problem here is that the boundaries of the Indo-Australian Plate, for example, the Sunda Trench, are typically around 7000 metres deep, so this seems extremely unlikely.

“During ice age glacial advances, when the ocean levels were up to 120 metres (390 ft) lower, both Asia and Australia were united with what are now islands on their respective continental shelves as continuous land masses, but the deep water between those two large continental shelf areas was, for over 50 million years, a barrier that kept the flora and fauna of Australia separated from those of Asia.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_line

Digressing a bit, I have been studying the similarities in locomotion between our dooligahl and other Australian marsupials for some time. As most of us know well, our hairy ones are capable of sustained high speeds. I found the following source interesting. Even though it relates to hopping, I think that it is possibly applicable to bipedal running as well, given shared ancestry.


“A study on a red kangaroo, in which it was trained to use a tread mill after getting used to wearing a mask, found that while the animal was walking the oxygen consumption increased steeply with speed until it reached 10 km/h, at which point it started hopping. From the time it started hopping the oxygen consumption did not increase up to a speed of 35 km/h (Dawson & Taylor, 1973). This explains how the early explorers were astonished at how easily kangaroos could outrun their dogs, especially after being chased for about 2 hours by fox hounds. Gould (1863) reported that ". . . it was also plain that he was still fresh, as, quite at the end of the run, he went over the top of a very high hill, which a tired kangaroo will never attempt to do." This chase is reported to have taken 2 hours to cover a distance of about 29 km, an easy jog for an animal that has been clocked at 40 km/h…

The economy of locomotion achieved by the kangaroo is enabled by the elasticity of the tendons and the leg geometry, the maximum efficiency being achieved at speeds above 10 km/h.”
http://austhrutime.com/kangaroos_hopping.htm



G’day Rusty,
I agree. Australia, Antarctica and South America were once joined and this was the evolutionary route taken by marsupials before the land masses separated. The evolutionary history of Homo is too short to have made this a plausible migratory route.

Additionally, I have often thought that their night vision ability may have evolved via Antarctica, during those long nights, when Australia was similarly isolated. As was the case with Australian dinosaurs.

Also, just to confuse matters, recent research suggests that marsupials may have first evolved in China.

Neil

User avatar
mlj1mlj1
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 480
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 2:14 am
Position: Arm-Chair Researcher

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by mlj1mlj1 » Sun Mar 10, 2013 7:33 am

Very well thought out, a real good read. It is puzzling indeed, but worthy of discussion and thought. We are missing a big piece of something somewhere is my thought.

forestguy
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 846
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 9:29 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Brisbane, Queensland

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by forestguy » Thu Mar 14, 2013 10:31 am

Hi Neil - I was reading a paper last week that you might be interested in. It's a couple of years old now (2009), but still worth a read - "Evolution and biogeography of primates: a new model based
on molecular phylogenetics, vicariance and plate tectonics."


I'm at Uni so I'm worried that if I post a link it'll just bump you into the Uni firewall if you try to follow it, but if you google the article name above you should be able to track down a copy (or at least the abstract).

http://johngrehan.net/files/1813/3997/5 ... imates.pdf

(Edit - actually, had a better look around, and that link should be ok for you).

Interesting enough in itself, but adds another layer when you take a step back and include the topic that we're interested in.

Cheers,
FG
"What is reported is different to what is remembered which is different to what was seen which is different to what was present."

Neil Frost

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by Neil Frost » Sat Mar 30, 2013 5:02 pm

forestguy wrote:Hi Neil - I was reading a paper last week that you might be interested in. It's a couple of years old now (2009), but still worth a read - "Evolution and biogeography of primates: a new model based
on molecular phylogenetics, vicariance and plate tectonics."

G'day Forestguy and Mike,

I have transferred the reply from this post “Food for Thought” to “Do you believe them to be marsupial or primate”, as I think that it belongs here.

Neil

omega
Approved Member
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2022 6:57 pm

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by omega » Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:25 pm

Could there be a possibility that there are subterranean passages below the surface of the earth that allows passage? Think of the sulphur/rotten eggs smell!

gregvalentine
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 420
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:42 pm
Position: Skeptic
Gender: Not Telling

Re: Food for thought

Unread post by gregvalentine » Sat Sep 03, 2022 8:53 pm

omega wrote:
Sat Sep 03, 2022 5:25 pm
Could there be a possibility that there are subterranean passages below the surface of the earth that allows passage? Think of the sulphur/rotten eggs smell!
Gees, talk about reviving old threads . . . !

Post Reply