6

According to several articles, yowies (i.e. wild, unidentified, hominids, reputed to live in Australia) have been allegedly observed by many.

For example, in this Herald Sun article about a man in Canberra: , it is stated "The creature, according to James, was a juvenile covered in hair, with long arms that almost touched the ground".

Similarly, it was claimed that a different cameraman in Canberra spotted and filmed a yowie.

I am skeptical of these two claims, as I would have thought such a yowie, if it existed, would be well known in the community already.

Are these claims true that Yowies exist?

  • 1
  • 7
    I was told they were all eaten by Drop Bears. What evidence would it take to convince you that they didn't exist? – Oddthinking Apr 8 '13 at 6:41
  • I think that the second source puts it best by saying A researcher, says it is the most conclusive evidence to date that a Bigfoot creature may be roaming the Australian wilderness. – SIMEL Apr 8 '13 at 8:47
  • 2
    Australia has a very low density of people, so if there are non-human hominids roaming anywhere in the world, Australia is one of the best possibilities. – Nick Apr 8 '13 at 9:16
  • 3
    @Nick, to the best of my knowledge, Australia has such low density of people, because everything in this continent, including the continent itself is deadly. It's a vast desert populated by the most poisonous creatures on Earth. cracked.com/… – SIMEL Apr 8 '13 at 10:11
11

Probably not, but also likely unfalsifiable.

As your second source states:

A researcher, says it is the most conclusive evidence to date that a Bigfoot creature may be roaming the Australian wilderness.

As the Wikipedia article states:

As is the case with the North American Sasquatch, many people discount the existence of the Yowie considering it more likely to be a combination of misidentification, folklore and hoax.

This is in fact the same story as with Bigfoot and Yeti, only even less plausible.

Before we start, it must be noted that like any other mythical creature we can't prove a negative. Meaning we can't prove that there is a 100% certainty that this creature doesn't exist. We can just say that it is extremely improbable for such a creature to exist and that in order to prove that there is such a creature irrefutable proofs are needed. For example, a alive specimen, or at least a tissue that can't be checked to not come from any other animal known.

Why is the Yowie is even less probable than the Yeti or Bigfoot?

Because there is generally no "evidence" whatever to collaborate their existence. Bigfoot advocates at least have low quality movies that suppose to depict it, and foot prints. The Yeti has supposed tissue remains (whose DNA wasn't checked) and other evidence. All the Yowie has as proof is eye witness accounts as no bones, food, droppings, living places or even blurry pictures are generally found.

As Carl Sagan said

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

but here we have no evidence at all.

Why Australia is the less likely place for an undiscovered ape or ape-like creature to exist?

Because Australia is a giant death trap. It's a giant desert with almost no sources of water, and even if you come with enough supplies, almost every animal that you'll come across will try to kill you and probably succeed. It didn't get the title Badass of the Week for nothing.

It should be noted, that a previously unknown specie of apes have already been discovered, namely the Gorilla, that wasn't discovered by the western world until the middle of the 19th century. The difference is that they lived in an area that was hard to reach, lush jungles and mountains, but hospitable for life, Australia is the complete opposite, it's mostly a desert which means that most of Australia doesn't have lush vegetation but is comparable easily traversable when using modern technology, so the number of unexplored places in Australia is much smaller than, the amazonian Jungles, or the Jungles of nearby Papua New Guinea.

*-As noted in the comments, Australia is a very harsh living environment for Humans and Apes, but sustains thriving ecosystems of animals of different types.

Australia will kill you

  • 1
    Australian deserts may be inimicable to humans and lush vegetation, but this answer skirts dangerously close to suggesting that they are inhospitable to all life. Australian deserts are thriving ecosystems, even if humans (and unidentified homonids) aren't a significant part of them. – Oddthinking Apr 9 '13 at 6:10
  • 2
    "Why Australia is the less likely place for an undiscovered ape or ape-like creature to exist?" - I have a problem with this section of the answer. Australia did have an undiscovered population of hominids when the Western world came across it. Sure, they weren't a different species, but it is at least proof of concept that hominids can take root in the environment. That said, I do agree it is unlikely there is another. – called2voyage Jan 15 at 15:21
  • 1
    @Oddthinking I'd argue that humans historically found it relatively easy to settle the Australian desert: theconversation.com/… – called2voyage Jan 15 at 18:13
  • 1
    @called2voyage: Be careful about "relatively". Survivalship bias has led to a a perception that Indigenous Australians lived in deserts, when, prior to European invasion, most of them lived by the coast. – Oddthinking Jan 17 at 11:53
  • 1
    @Oddthinking I do know that most of them lived by the coast, but I did link an article directly presenting scientific evidence of early occupation of the desert by indigenous Australians. – called2voyage Jan 17 at 13:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .