CNN has a story on a fossil found that appears to be hominid that's much older than any previously discovered hominid fossils. Not sure it has any real bearing on arguments for or against bigfoot, but it's interesting nonetheless:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/07/10...kull/index.html

It's really amazing how well preserved the skull is considering it's age. Six to seven million years!?!

I knew there would be a connection! I was listening to NPR on the way home and they were talking to the guy who discovered the famous Lucy fossil. He said that the discovery of the new hominid indicates there was far more diversity among early hominids than previously thought. Now isn't that interesting? More hominids than previously thought, huh? Wonder if any of them are still around...

Here's the interview. You'll need the Real Player to hear it.

They also said that this new skull is about 9,000? years older than the Lucy skull in which it was originally believed we derived from. The new skull has more humanlike features than the Lucy skull, so that means it was actually more evolved than Lucy was....hummmmm....so maybe we didn't evolve from Lucy afterall but this new skull instead? Interesting indeed.

Or maybe the Bigfoot evolved from us!

Anyone hear about that mummy they found in neveda? It was in the mountain they are proposing to have as that nuclear dump site. It was 9,000 years old! I thought that was pretty cool. They always seem to find the good stuff in Europe or Asia, now we've got one.

wasn't it something to do with the Anasazi that lived there around 10,000 years ago or so?around the time of the Aztecs or something like that?I wonder what they'd find in Alaska where the land bridge came across if they really started looking?

That's one of archeology's biggest problems. Since, during the last ice age, sea levels were roughly 300 feet below present level, practically all evidence would now be buried under the ocean's surface. The general concensus being that most of those that migrated via the land bridge actually did it by navigating the coastline.

I guess you're right about that, Fishbone. It makes sense that the ocean's levels have changed numerous times throughout the history of the world. I have at home a shark's tooth I dug up in the foothills of the Sierra Nevadas that a local geology teacher told me was about 20 million years old. I found it in a site with a complete fossilized tree...not only fossilized, but he called it "opalized". This tree was supposed to be about 20-22 million years old and had turned to glass, very beautiful glass by the way. I have a huge chunk of it at home in my garden. It was found at about 500 ft. above the present sea level, but now there is a housing development sitting on top of the spot.

I know what you mean, RB. I've got a buddy who's a local archeologist and he was telling me that where we are now (Panama City) was roughly sixty miles inland during the last ice age. He said it practically kills him thinking about all the stuff that's lying off shore in the Gulf.

I used to hunt for shark teeth all the time in the Chipola River. What always tickled me was when I'd tell someone I'd been doing that and they'd say, "No way! You have to be mistaken! There are no sharks in that river!!!" :roll:

Fishbone.... You've gotta be kidding, there are no sharks in that river!!!

Well, maybe not. But I have seen a couple of six foot alligator gars in there. So, neener neener neener!!!

An update:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...ence_skull_dc_3

What I love about this story, and how I think it's scores a point for our side, is that the scientists who's job it is to study these kinds of things had no idea that this specimen even existed. I'm not faulting them since I'm sure every one of them would say we don't know everything about our ancient ancestors, but I wonder how many of them would have said the creature found could not have existed based on what they knew previously. How many of them would also say bigfoot could not exist? How many of them would recognize the irony in that?

My thoughts exactly Bipto!

I KNOW that's right. Amen, sister, amen!

Amen, bipto. But what they will admit to publicly vs. what they will admit to privately.... I'm certain varies, possibly greatly. Having taught a few classes myself, I know how difficult it is to admit you don't know something, especially when you are supposed to be the expert. I think it takes more guts to admit you don't know the truth than to pretend you have a good grasp on it, that your belief is similar to those of your peers and to suggest to others they should "do their homework" prior to discussing such issues with you. And then if proven wrong, who cares?...who's gonna remember, or even care a year from now? That philosophy must be taught in Scientist 102, because I didn't get it in 101...

Although the find has a large impacton the way we view overall Hominid evoloution it sheds no light on bigfoot, yowie, yeti or any other modern Cryptids who are much more humanlike than this ancestral fossil and much more advanced. :roll:

Entirely true. However, it nicely illustrates that those who think they know enough to say bigfoot could not exist obvioulsy do not since this homid was also thought not to exist. Not just that it was unknown, but that it should not have existed, just like our hairy friend. Like I said: One point for our side!

Many people have told me that bigfoot couldn't possibley exist. And then I nform them that by their same arguments we couldn't exist either. And then they either stop arguing with me or are led to think that they could be a figment of their own imagination. This hominid is different, Paleontologists have always been flexible on the date of various species and only an idiot would believe that just because an fossil is the oldest evidence of a species means that it is the oldest.