What the hell is this giant bug?, page 3

Originally posted by dtifantasma
These bugs are veery possible because of the lack of gravity in the ocean. Because of the fact that when you are swimming you seem lighter to your self, you fall slower etc, gravity has a much smaller effect on you. That is why the biggest creature in the entire world, is a whale.

I'm sorry . . . what? Gravity has little effect underwater and that's why whales are so big?

Where did you hear this? What books are you reading? Websites? Articles?

Furthermore, have you tried running in water? Do this experiment: find a pool that is at least waist-deep and wide enough to do a full circle in (some above-ground, inflatable pools meet this criteria). Hop in and run around the perimeter. Not as easy as it sounds, is it?

Is this because gravity is not in effect?

No. In fact, water is heavier than air, meaning that pressure (the effect of gravity pushing down on the water, which in turn pushes down on our bodies) increases the deeper into the water you go.

The fact that we seem to float weightlessly has absolutely nothing to do with the lack of gravity and everything to do with the buoyancy of the human body. The air in our lungs--try it: float on your back in the pool and alternate between keeping your lungs full of air and exhaling completely. Note the difference in how well you float--and the fat in our bodies, as well as the entire concept of buoyancy all factor into our floaty selves.

As such, the theory you present is not only wholly disproven, it's also disproven to the point as to make it just the opposite. The further into the ocean you get, the greater the pressure becomes. By your theory, that would make the whales and any creature living under a certain mark very small and flat.

Furthermore, an animal that large is just the product of this. Animals will grow to be as large as possible as their environment allowed which is why animals will decrease size, and increase size as long as they can. Its the same reaosn why humans have grown to be larger in even the past 500 years.

All of this truly makes little sense. Are you referring to the "goldfish theory", in which a goldfish will supposedly never outgrow the bowl it lives in (false, I might add; I've kept goldfish a number of years and can safely say that, no matter what you do, they'll get to be six inches long or die trying)? Or are you saying that, depending on the availability of food and water, an animal will become large or small?

Either way, that's a pretty humorous outlook.

As I already mentioned, goldfish of "goldfish theory" fame are not limited to the size of the bowl they live in. I mean, sure, you can keep a goldfish in a fishbowl and it won't get much further than "grocery store" size, because it will die. Very quickly. And it won't be a happy fish.

When I first started keeping goldfish, I kept three in a three-gallon tank (one gallon per fish; that's ten times the recommended amount). They lived to be a year, because I took very good care of the tank and the fish. However, they didn't remain small, cute little fish. In fact, the biggest became three inches in length and all had to be transported to a five-and-a-half gallon tank (which is still way below recommended size) that I was given as a gift. They lived another year, then died. The biggest goldfish I ever kept had his own tank; he got to be six-and-a-half inches.

So, I suppose in a way, goldfish are limited to the size of their bowls--mainly because the smaller the bowl, the more unhappy the fish will get, and the quicker it will die.

The same can be said for other animals. If you keep a cat in a small, kitten-sized cage for its entire life, you can bet that the cat will continue to grow to the size of a normal cat. Chances are, it will die faster than the normal cat due to the environment in which it lives, but that doesn't change the fact that it will grow.

This same basic idea works for the "food/water" environment. Examine two wolf packs in similar environs, the only difference being the availability of food: one is famished--Wolf Pack I--the other is engorged--Wolf Pack II. Removing the ability of either wolf pack to escape from its environment, you'll find that Wolf Pack I suffers greatly. The size of the pack will diminish as members die off, pups will likely never reach adulthood (if there are any pups at all), and the remaining survivors grow gaunt and ragged. However they do not diminish in height or length, though, granted, they will likely be marginally smaller than the average wolf if they had not achieved adulthood before going into the experiment. I seriously doubt, however, that prolonged exposure would breed a new generation of "midget wolves", simply because, as previously mentioned, any pups born would die off very quickly.

Wolf Pack II, on the other hand, waxes happy and exuberant. The pack, depending on the food, will be quite large in number, and its members will be healthy, very fine specimens. Pups will be fat and playful. Pack members will not exceed the average wolf size--if they do, it's by an inch or so.

If what you say is true, we would have a regular occurrence of gigantic animals worldwide. Coyotes in my neighborhood would be the size of small cars--they have an easy time of it, since they have so much to prey on, cats included. Jackrabbits would be at eye-level with horses, since there's so much clover and other plantlife.

Am I wrong? Am I overlooking something?

[edit on 17-10-2005 by Wolvaurynphamir]