> Duane, Duane, Duane... :))
> > Kristin, Kristin, Kristin,
> > 1. the 7 footers you are referring to now are
> > outliers (mainly diseased) from a group of
> > who are genetically smaller
> I don't know about diseased (unless you're
> referring to gigantism and/or acromegaly) but this
> is a possibility.
> > 2. these ancients one may be from a group of
> > people (another Homo group), one of our genetic
> > cousins, who were genetically larger and
> > healthy - no need to die young
> Again, possible. But without any skeletons there's
> no way to determine that.
> > 3. the wiki square-cube article
> > [en.wikipedia.org]
> > talks about
As was elucidated by J. B. S. Haldane,
> > large animals do not look like small animals:
> > elephant cannot be mistaken for a mouse scaled
> > in size. This is due to allometric scaling: the
> > bones of an elephant are necessarily
> > proportionately much larger than the bones of a
> > mouse, because they must carry proportionately
> > higher weight.
> > yet mammoths were larger than present day
> > elephants but both look pretty much the same
> > proportion
> > so a giant mouse would look like a mouse....
> You're cherry picking. The law states that as a
> shape (or an organism) grows, the volume increases
> faster than the surface area. What Haldane said is
> that an elephant MUST have larger bones than a
> mouse because those bones have to carry a lot more
> Haldane wrote an essay called On Being the
> Right Size in which he says:
The most obvious differences between
> different animals are differences of size, but for
> some reason the zoologists have paid singularly
> little attention to them. In a large textbook of
> zoology before me I find no indication that the
> eagle is larger than the sparrow, or the
> hippopotamus bigger than the hare, though some
> grudging admissions are made in the case of the
> mouse and the whale. But yet it is easy to show
> that a hare could not be as large as a
> hippopotamus, or a whale as small as a herring.
> For every type of animal there is a most
> convenient size, and a large change in size
> inevitably carries with it a change of form.
> Let us take the most obvious of possible cases,
> and consider a giant man sixty feet high—about
> the height of Giant Pope and Giant Pagan in the
> illustrated Pilgrim’s Progress of my childhood.
> These monsters were not only ten times as high as
> Christian, but ten times as wide and ten times as
> thick, so that their total weight was a thousand
> times his, or about eighty to ninety tons.
> Unfortunately the cross sections of their bones
> were only a hundred times those of Christian, so
> that every square inch of giant bone had to
> support ten times the weight borne by a square
> inch of human bone. As the human thigh-bone breaks
> under about ten times the human weight, Pope and
> Pagan would have broken their thighs every time
> they took a step. This was doubtless why they were
> sitting down in the picture I remember. But it
> lessens one’s respect for Christian and Jack the
> Giant Killer.
> The square cube law states:
When an object undergoes a proportional
> increase in size, its new surface area is
> proportional to the square of the multiplier and
> its new volume is proportional to the cube of the
> The cross section increases by the square of the
> scaling factor and the mass increases by the cube
> of the scaling factor.
> This explains why the mammoths died out. They were
> splendidly adapted for cold conditions--their huge
> size helped them in that regard. But large mammals
> like that have a very difficult time cooling
> themselves. When the climate warmed up, they
> couldn't tolerate it. The same thing goes for
> elephants. They're wonderful at retaining heat but
> not so good at getting rid of it.
> The same is true of humans. Smaller people get
> cold very easily--their body heat dissipates
> quickly. Larger people can stay warm longer and
> can tolerate much colder temperatures.
> Now, take out average 5'7" and scale that up to 8
> feet, which is what we're talking about here.
> First off, you'd lose a lot of muscle strength.
> Remember, the cross section of the muscle
> increases by the square of the scaling factor and
> the mass increases by the cube of the scaling
> factor.What you'd have is a massive body
> without the musculature to support it.
> Second, the cardiovascular system would have to
> work really hard to pump blood and oxygenate
> tissue, which leads to lung issues as well. Why do
> you think that many people 7 feet or larger die
> from pneumonia?
> > 3. these ancient tall ones were also "Native
> > Americans", unless you want to put a cut-off
> > i.e. before 10,000BC, as to when arrival makes
> > a native versus foreign
> Show me a skeleton. That's all you have to do.
Excellent technical information there about size, mass and volume! I didn't know a lot of that. Thanks for posting. I'm sure a lot of people will find it useful. Why not start a thread on that information in its own right?