Bringing the giants back!

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join

posted on May, 8 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   
So I guess 1 is saying they do still exist just not in the forms of 3d once and now in Raphiam form... There may be genetic relations HERE though already. As the size may have been related to oxygen exposure and intake and now the pollutions design smaller bodies...




posted on May, 8 2013 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Plugin

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by amazing
reply to post by Hanslune
 


Fair enough, but what do you think the tallest functioning human form could be? 9 ft? And by saying that it wouldn't look human if it were taller, are we talking like much thicker bones and legs for starters, say more of a caricature of a human form would be enough to make it functional? Fascinating discussion.


About 9 feet tall. At that point (and there are a few that height) the diameter of the bones versus height and weight is simply not sufficient -- their ankles and feet develop problems and their bones often break under the weight of their body (remember, it's a lot of weight pressing down on a small area about an inch or two in diameter. They tend to die very young. Andre the Giant (at 7'4") died at the relatively young age of 50 from heart failure -- a common problem in giants.


I think this is a non-issue. Your example was a syndrome.

Just look at 'other' giant mamals in the past. They did just fine with being so large. If they adopt and grow large, everything will adapt, so stronger bones and muscles.


The large forms (I work in a paleontology lab, so I've reviewed evidence) are not the same as the smaller forms -- as Hans pointed out. A dachshund, for instance, can't be bred to be 3 feet high at the shoulder (with the same proportions -- the dog at that point would be well over 10 feet long.) The shape of lizard and crocodilian skeletons means that they can be very long but not as tall as a horse (because their legs aren't under them, but are splayed to the side of their bodies.)

As Hans said, if you managed to get a human that was 12 feet tall, changes in the skeleton would make them look not-very-human.



.... species of modern mamals where appearing, but they where very very tiny, basicly the environment was kinda toxic back then which did not support normal sized animals and so you had in the past also an enviroment which was very very healthy basicly and so mamals grew like giants.


First... not all species of mammals are large -- in fact, most species are much smaller than humans. Second, environmental changes meant the environment was "toxic" at various times for various types of mammals. We still have giants today like the grizzly bear, elephants, pandas, giraffes, and so forth.


but for me it would be just rather odd you didnt had a giant race of humans somewhere at some time just like most from modern day mamals which had giants versions in the past.

There are quite a lot of mammals which don't have giant forms, including mice, shrews, dogs, wolves (dire wolf was actually smaller than a Great Dane), horses (today's horse is the largest that the species has ever been), sheep, goats, platypuses, ocelots, tigers, leopards, gazelles, many breeds of deer, otters, and so on and so forth.


Most extinct but giant relatives of modern mammals where just pretty much in the same proportions! just look at the giant deer, camel (only just recently found), crocodile or even the great white shark which was once Megalodon, it was just a giant white shark, it looked exactly the same only way way bigger.

They where in pretty much the same proportions! but at least 2x bigger then today's still alive versions.
So why wouldn't a human get 2 or even 3 times as big when many different mamals did just fine, with no difference in the way they looked (the same proportions), only bigger > giant versions.

Of course when you breed a dog, it's not natural, we made many different dogs with interbreeding with different species to make them small or bigger and of course this way you will reach a limit with how big/tall or small/tiny.

It's just not excactly known why they grew that large or even tiny but general speaking they didn't come alone, where basicly they all went in giant or in tiny versions and perhaps in the future again.

The last mammoths died out just 3600 years ago! (at least untill found some bones, before that they thought differently/not possible) (io9.com...) basicly just giant versions of today's still living elephants.
So why not some giant race of humans somewhere, where only myths/great stories remain.
edit on 8-5-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

There are quite a lot of mammals which don't have giant forms, including mice, shrews, dogs, wolves (dire wolf was actually smaller than a Great Dane), horses (today's horse is the largest that the species has ever been), sheep, goats, platypuses, ocelots, tigers, leopards, gazelles, many breeds of deer, otters, and so on and so forth.


I agree with most of your post, but this bit has some problems for me.

First off the phenomena of island gigantism - which does affect small rodents, happens in a very short time frame is notably what you would call a giant "rat/mouse/etc" and is very well recorded.

Secondly Enhydriodon dikikae also known as the bear otter had a skull 3 inches larger than the largest living otter today, the Irish Elk was the largest species of deer in history.

Horses were smaller though, I'll give you that



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by Harte
 


I think you're being a bit hard on the Chinese pyramids there!
They aren't mounds of earth, they're pyramids of pressed earth covered in mounds of earth - quite a different thing - we actually use pressed earth in the modern epoch sometimes it's stronger than concrete!

Strength isn't the issue, though, is it?

How is an earth mound linked to a stone edifice?

The poster asserted that there must be a connection between Egyptian pyramids and Chinese ones.

I'm not downgrading or dismissing either pyramid type. Just pointing out that there's no connection. None.

Harte



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
Most extinct but giant relatives of modern mammals where just pretty much in the same proportions! just look at the giant deer, camel (only just recently found), crocodile or even the great white shark which was once Megalodon, it was just a giant white shark, it looked exactly the same only way way bigger.

They where in pretty much the same proportions! but at least 2x bigger then today's still alive versions.
So why wouldn't a human get 2 or even 3 times as big when many different mamals did just fine, with no difference in the way they looked (the same proportions), only bigger > giant versions.

Giant camels, deer, crocodiles, sharks (living in water makes giantism much less difficult) etc. were not the same species as today's camels, deer, crocodiles, sharks etc.

Looked at from this perspective, then, there's no reason at all that species in our genus (Homo) couldn't grow 2 or 3 times the size of other members of the genus.
And, in fact, we have. H. Sapiens and a few other members of the genus Homo are 2 or three times the size of the other species in our genus. Just like the camels, deer, etc. in your example.

Harte



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


Well like I say, some of them aren't just earth mounds, but rather earth pressed into block's (by slave labour) till you have solid blocks of compressed earth, which were then used to construct the pyramid - then they covered it in an earth mound (allegedly for secrecy, but in the case of the first emperors tomb to disguise the fact that it was never finished).

I do agree there's no link other than people all over the world building pyramids because it's an efficient way of building a large structure, I just think some of the Chinese pyramids get down played when they're actually quite remarkable.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Plugin
Most extinct but giant relatives of modern mammals where just pretty much in the same proportions! just look at the giant deer, camel (only just recently found), crocodile or even the great white shark which was once Megalodon, it was just a giant white shark, it looked exactly the same only way way bigger.

They where in pretty much the same proportions! but at least 2x bigger then today's still alive versions.
So why wouldn't a human get 2 or even 3 times as big when many different mamals did just fine, with no difference in the way they looked (the same proportions), only bigger > giant versions.

Giant camels, deer, crocodiles, sharks (living in water makes giantism much less difficult) etc. were not the same species as today's camels, deer, crocodiles, sharks etc.

Looked at from this perspective, then, there's no reason at all that species in our genus (Homo) couldn't grow 2 or 3 times the size of other members of the genus.
And, in fact, we have. H. Sapiens and a few other members of the genus Homo are 2 or three times the size of the other species in our genus. Just like the camels, deer, etc. in your example.

Harte


So why did megalodon if it's not the same specie as the white shark looks excactly the same! (only bigger) but like for example an indonesier is the same specie as a german (human) but they got more difference between them, then those 2 sharks?

How big the change would be that the great white shark would apear as an exact copy of Megalodon many milions years later - only smaller? that change would be how big?
edit on 8-5-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
Most extinct but giant relatives of modern mammals where just pretty much in the same proportions! just look at the giant deer, camel (only just recently found), crocodile or even the great white shark which was once Megalodon, it was just a giant white shark, it looked exactly the same only way way bigger.


As Hans said, they're different species and have different features (and different bone internal construction) -- but more to the point, they are not the fabled 2x-3x larger reported for fabled human giants. Giantism in a water environment is a whole 'nother bucket of guppies than giantism on land. The giant deer, camels, etc, aren't 2-3 times the size of the modern version of those mammals -- and if you look back through the fossil record to a time when they were half the size of modern animals, you'll see they looked different (thinner legs, for instance. An elephant can't run around on legs the size of a horse's leg.) Eohippus is REALLY different from today's ponies.



Of course when you breed a dog, it's not natural, we made many different dogs with interbreeding with different species to make them small or bigger and of course this way you will reach a limit with how big/tall or small/tiny.

Actually, all we're doing is speeding up and directing evolution. They could breed to that size naturally.



The last mammoths died out just 3600 years ago! (at least untill found some bones, before that they thought differently/not possible) (io9.com...) basicly just giant versions of today's still living elephants.

Actually, there's a bunch of differences that most folks aren't aware of (let's face it... we don't encounter elephants every day) -- and mammoths were 15 feet at the shoulder (the largest one) compared to today's elephants which are 12-13 feet high at the shoulder.


So why not some giant race of humans somewhere, where only myths/great stories remain.
edit on 8-5-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)

Because there's no remains of giant houses, giant food bowls, and other paraphernalia that would be left by a race of giants. Human beings are messy, but a large tribe of giants would be super-messy and destructive of the landscape (finding food to keep them alive.)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Plugin
So why did megalodon if it's not the same specie as the white shark looks excactly the same! (only bigger)


They're the same genus. Just like lions and tigers are in the same genus but are different species.




but like for example an indonesier is the same specie as a german (human) but they got more difference between them, then those 2 sharks?


Less difference, actually (other than skin color and hair color.) I could bring out two vertebra of megaladon and white shark, and you'd spot the differences immediately. If I brought out two vertebra of a German and an Indonesian, NOBODY could tell them apart.


How big the change would be that the great white shark would apear as an exact copy of Megalodon many milions years later - only smaller? that change would be how big?

"Convergent evolution" (en.wikipedia.org...) happens all the time. For instance, there is the "saber toothed tiger" which happens to be one of a dozen or so animals that were felines and had long saber-like incisors.

And the Great White isn't an EXACT copy of Megalodon.



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 03:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Byrd
 


Again agree with everything in the post other than one little point - there are giant tools, spear heads and the like found at digs:

phys.org...

rephaim23.wordpress.com...

More than likely they weren't giant's and just used for ornament or training purposes, but still, giant size stuff is found


But I do also question the way you're treating evolution - it's never a straight line, and it's generally not the most specialised or evolved creature that becomes the next down the line - as such, gigantic sub species generally wouldn't be connected to those around today - but it doesn't stop (for example) a giant deer from being a giant deer does it?

There seems to have been as many as 5 different species of hominids kicking about within our species' lifespan and gigantic creatures - certainly enough for a racial or folkloric tradition to spring up around them.

(Don't really hold with the 30ft giants admittedly, but big people isn't so absurd, a lack of material evidence just means that they weren't widespread and didn't die in a manner favorable to preservation)
edit on 8-5-2013 by MaxSteiner because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 8 2013 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
They're the same genus. Just like lions and tigers are in the same genus but are different species.


Sure but you could see big difference between lets say a hammerhead shark and a great white and like as you said lions and tigers.

So tell me what are all the differences between Megaldon and the great white? Except size.

I looked up the bertebra of megaladon and white shark, can't see much difference??

Convergent_evolution; is rather vague but sure many animals got the same stuff often, but still look way differently.. can't say that with Megaldon and the great white in my opinion, pretty much the same stuff all over.
edit on 8-5-2013 by Plugin because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 11 2013 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


That last bit reminded me of this:











new topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join