I read today on CNN, two different news items that struck me as very strange. The first was the discovery of a race of very small ancient humans about 1 meter tall (3 feet) near Java, that existed as recently as 13,000 years ago! They hunted and cooked and made stone tools, though their brains were the size of a grapefruit. Scientists say that their isolation, low calorie diet, and lack of large predators made their small size an advantage.

Also, in a recent study, Americans are getting taller and wider on average.

Are modern humans going to get bigger and bigger like the dinosaurs? I'm sure we will continue to be clever enough to produce plenty of high calorie food, and the threat of human violence makes large size an advantage.


Related questions, do we really need huge brains to think? And, are these tiny people the origin of myths about elves and dwarves? Did modern people know about them?

Mmh, interesting, only 1 meter? That is quite small. I know that people from earlier times were smaller than we are today, and I would suggest that another diet is a cause for that.
Perhaps our ancestors knew dwarfes, obviously the exist. And you Americans are getting fatter? That does not surprise me, that happens in most parts of the western world...

Well, I am 2.03 meters, so I am quite big already, but pretty lithe (sadly without the aspect of attractivity :() in build, I do not know if I have any practical advantage through that, apart from me being very fast... There is no longer a definite reason to consider advantages for survival, so I suppose that people are the way they are now because of the food they eat and the beauty ideal that guides them in their search for partners.

Yes, but in the absence of environmental pressures that favor smallness, do animals just get bigger and bigger? The dinosaurs had an endless food supply, similar to us. Are we destined to be giants? I mean, Americans aren't just getting fatter on big macs, we seem to be getting taller, too.

Smallness seems to be an advantage now, in a strategic sense, small people would be less of a drag on the environment.

I love this description from the New York Times:

Once upon a time, but not so long ago, in a tropical island midway between Asia and Australia, there lived a race of little people, whose adults stood just three and a half feet high. Despite their stature, they were mighty hunters. They made stone tools with which they speared giant rats, clubbed sleeping dragons, and hunted the packs of pygmy elephants that roamed their lost world.



Man, we need to find their DNA somewhere, and clone one of them!

I do not know, lifeforms adapt to present circumstances, not to future/possible ones, so I suppose that big and stong people would be a drag on the enviroment, but right now that is of no consequence because we have enough to be big and fat...

But there is a limit to the size people can reach, at some point, the very physiology of our bones, muscles, nerves and blood vessels will reach a maximum. We are limited by physical laws, if there no big mutations occur, the limit of human size is at about 3 meters if I remember correctly. That is pretty big and not a good survival trait, but it is also unlikely that humans will get that tall.

standing nearly 7' my self, I would have to agree that people are getting taller. also there were some people who tried to settle Greenland (about the time of lef Erickson) who I think got down to about 1.5m before they died out.

im 168cm, but thres this chick in my class from japan who is 149cm, so theres a lot of difference there

*************
M*W: I've always been intrigued by museum exhibits that show old clothing worn by certain people. For example, I went to a Virginia Slims Tennis exhibit from about 1910, and the clothes and shoes women wore in those days were tiny! Then I went to the Romanoff exhibit, and those clothes were tiny, both male and female, Catherine the Great, and she was consider to be Rubenesque! Nicholas and Alexandra's clothing was small statured, too. Then I went to the Cyclorama in Atlanta (Civil War museum), and the uniforms of both North and South were tiny. I've wondered from these experiences how tall and big were the Romans in the height of their day? Does anybody know? It does seem as if humans are growing taller and larger by the day. How tall were the Greek philosophers, ancient royalty, average citizens. One thing I noticed about the native Italians when I was there, that they are small people yet they have a predominantly high protein diet of seafood. And how tall were the christians of the first century? I'm only 5'3", but these exhibits made me feel tall!

(It's also true that the smallest clothing tends to survive longer, since it is not worn by as many people. Just look in any thrift store.) Also, infant malnutrition stunts growth.

spidergoat: (It's also true that the smallest clothing tends to survive longer, since it is not worn by as many people. Just look in any thrift store.) Also, infant malnutrition stunts growth.
*************
M*W: That makes sense. Also, stress, cigarettes and alcohol abuse and/or neglect stunts growth in children. I was always told by my mother that coffee would stunt my growth. I wish it would stunt it now.

coffee stunts your growth becuase you grow faster when your sleeping, if coffee keeeps you awake then you dont get the sleep and therefore the growth. but coffee in the morning to wake you up is fine, becuase it will wear off long before you go to bed

link to an article on the new discovery:
http://www.rednova.com/news/display/?id=98344

Is there any corellation between smaller things and islands? There were, in the Catalina Islands off California, as I recall, small mammoths that adapted to a smaller environment--e.g. islands vs. um ... open plain (?).

And here are these people, isolated on an island.

Do remote, small environments affect the scale of things in the evolutionary outcome?

Probably it does, after all, the usable enviroment is smaller, also, the food that can be found on islands varies from the continental food... but I suppose on an island where there is not much food, a smaller body-type would predominate because it is more energy efficient.

They found T-Rex bones on some island of ADULT T-Rexs, but they where quite small, as the food chain was not as abundant, the T-Rex shrunk in size to compensate.

Did you know that taller poeple become more successful in life? They did a study on it. I'll try to find a link to that somewhere.

Yeah, I read that too, will also try to find a link. Ain't having a problem with being successful. :D

I've wondered from these experiences how tall and big were the Romans in the height of their day? Does anybody know? It does seem as if humans are growing taller and larger by the day. How tall were the Greek philosophers, ancient royalty, average citizens. One thing I noticed about the native Italians when I was there, that they are small people yet they have a predominantly high protein diet of seafood. And how tall were the christians of the first century? I'm only 5'3", but these exhibits made me feel tall!The Smithsonian natural history museum has a hall with painted images of average size humans from various eras in full scale. As I recall, the Roman man was around 5'4" and his wife was around 5'0", but I could be way off.

Someone used a phrase like, "in the absence of any survival advantage to being small." There is usually a survival advantage to a particular size. The most basic is heat exchange. The surface area to body mass ratio of large animals is obviously lower than for small ones. The few species that exist in both arctic and desert environments, such as the House Sparrow that was brought over from England and completely dominates the avifauna of the New World, show vast size differences. The fact that elephants are tropical creatures is certainly counterintuitive!

Fraggle Rocker: The Smithsonian natural history museum has a hall with painted images of average size humans from various eras in full scale. As I recall, the Roman man was around 5'4" and his wife was around 5'0", but I could be way off.
*************
M*W: Thanks for the update. The last time I went to the Smithsonian, they were just starting to build that display. You probably are right about Roman man's height. I envision all these little men with their spears and shields fighting other little men for control of their land.

Simply Darwinism would suggest that if you took an Ocean and a Pond, to populate both with fish. The Ocean would have the space to generate larger fish where the pond actually limits the size to which the fish can grow.

(If you don't believe me, look into the Koi farm industry.)

It could be suggested that with the dinosaurs it wasn't as overly populated as some might believe. In most of the films and some documentaries they show "herds" however there is the likelihood that their numbers were far less, it was just the number of years to which they existed and not forgetting of course the amount of time they took to "hatch" through gestation/incubation.

There is also the interaction of the planets Poles, which occasionally invert and potentially are weaker today compared to what they once were.

Imagine to survive in a high gravity field, a life form would have to develop a stronger/denser body to counter the gravity which is of course another suggestion for dinosaurs.

um, the magnetic poles don't effect gravity, but your point about animals adapting to the space available makes sense. What about Komodo dragons, though, and those really big tortoises on Galapagos?

The Smithsonian natural history museum has a hall with painted images of average size humans from various eras in full scale. As I recall, the Roman man was around 5'4" and his wife was around 5'0", but I could be way off.

I seem to recall that this idea was invalidated. That man has always been basically the same height. So this idea is back in vogue then?

The fact that elephants are tropical creatures is certainly counterintuitive!

Wait. What are you saying? That it's counterintuitive because you'd expect smaller animals in the tropics? Isn't it just the opposite? You get smaller, stockier animals in cold climates and larger animals with more surface area to dissipate heat in warmer climates. Or are you commenting on the stockiness of elephants? I suppose this is where the ears come in.

Wait. What are you saying? That it's counterintuitive because you'd expect smaller animals in the tropics? Isn't it just the opposite? You get smaller, stockier animals in cold climates and larger animals with more surface area to dissipate heat in warmer climates.

What he's talking about is surface area-to-volume ratio, which is generally greater in smaller animals. After all, the skin surface is basically 2-dimensional, and varies roughly with the square of the dimensions; body volume is 3-dimensional, varying with the cube of the dimensions. Therefore, a larger animals dissipates internal heat more slowly than a smaller one, having less surface area per unit volume.

It follows that a large body is advantageous in cold climates, especially with lots of fur or fat to minimise heat loss through the skin: as shown by the largest whales living in cold seas (which also have the greatest mass of plankton to feed on). Elephants in tropical regions are perhaps more favoured by the abundant year-round food supply than penalised by the temperatures - especially since they use their large ears as cooling fans, and soak themselves in water or mud whenever they can.

As Tiassa and others have suggested, there is a definite evolutionary link between small island habitats and smaller versions of mainland animals: mini-mammoths have been found fossilised on several Mediterranean islands, as well as Novaya Zemlaya in the Arctic - where they survived until as recently as 3000 BC. There were also goat-sized versions of the giant Irish elk. The seemingly contradictory giantism among tortoises and lizards on various islands (like the Galapagos and Komodo) is believed to be due to the absence of natural predation, allowing these long-lived animals to keep growing indefinitely, which reptiles - but not mamals - sometimes can. The largest ones can outcompete others for mates, and thereby strengthen the size genes in the next generation.

The recently-discovered prehistoric "hobbit" people from the island of Flores would have have a warm climate, even during the Ice Age - coupled with the lack of large game to hunt, this would have selectively encouraged dwarfism over the generations.

As for the thread-starter's speculation that these pygmies have some connection to various legends about little people... :cool: they would have to have travelled far and wide across the Old World, and existed into much more recent times (maybe about 4000 BC?) Flores was, of course, an island since long before the period in which they are currently placed; it would have to mean that they built boats, and had a developed Neolithic civilization with a substantial population and an exploration motive. (Perhaps Flores itself was not, in fact, their place of origin?) Whilst not impossible of course, it seems strange that no remains of these diminutive folk have been found anywhere else... yet.

Even if these particular hominids did not leave their island and hence cannot have seeded the little peoples in mythology, it is also quite possible that other prehistoric midget-races evolved separately in different parts of the World, and await discovery... :eek:

I was wandering around in cyberspace, and found a site about GIANTS. They are called the Solomon Island Giants, somewhere in Guadalcanal, and they are said to have great technology.

Here's a link to that page> www.thesolomongiants.com
The normal-sized inhabitants of the islands say they have been living there for thousands of years. They don't seem to realize that the rest of the world doesn't share their land with giants.
What do you guys think?

I was wandering around in cyberspace, and found a site about GIANTS. They are called the Solomon Island Giants, somewhere in Guadalcanal, and they are said to have great technology.

Here's a link to that page> www.thesolomongiants.com
The normal-sized inhabitants of the islands say they have been living there for thousands of years. They don't seem to realize that the rest of the world doesn't share their land with giants.
What do you guys think?


A bunch of hokum! :bugeye:

Did you read the whole thing? Or are those your instincts?
I think I read about 3/4 of the whole thing. It can't be a hoax, I mean, who the hell would write something that long and convincing when it's really just baloney? It just wouldn't make sense.

Did you read the whole thing? Or are those your instincts?
I think I read about 3/4 of the whole thing. It can't be a hoax, I mean, who the hell would write something that long and convincing when it's really just baloney? It just wouldn't make sense.


Ever read SCI-FI books? Their full of nonsense and you read them don't you. Ever read the Bible, does it make sense, if so why? Many things are written about just to create either controversy or sell it for money.

Damn, that site is soooooo convincing...


THE GIANTS OF
THE SOLOMON ISLANDS
AND
THEIR HIDDEN UFO BASES

SOME OF THE GREATEST ANTHROPOLOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERIES OF MODERN MAN

WELCOME TO THE SOLOMON GIANTS.COM

Grrr...bah humbug. Leave me alone. :mad:

Hey: I'd love to believe that such creatures as those Solomon Island/Guadalcanal giants are still extant and thriving in the modern world. Certainly, science hasn't trapped or classified all the large animals of land or ocean yet...

But I have to agree with Dreamwalker & Cosmictraveller, the site about the "giants" is far from convincing or credible. Especially since it is easier to beieve that large proto-hominids could survive and elude capture in the expanses of a large, continental landmass than on smallish islands. Similarly, I can believe that sea serpents may still exist unseen in the oceans - but not in a small, landlocked body of water like Loch Ness.

The yeti, sasquatch, yeren, yowie and suchlike might conceivably be real, or at least have BEEN real until the last couple of centuries. But how would similar creatures have reached Guadalcanal or the other Solomons in the first place? They must have been detached from the Asian mainland since long before the ice ages.

Hmm, I was kinda aiming at the "And their hidden UFO bases" thing... I would not exclude that there are big people on this planet...

just like the homonids, the yeti/sasquatch/yowie crossed land bridges during the ice age, and have since adapted to their particular area

Yes, but WAS there a land bridge to the Solomons during any of the ice ages? Indigenous human peoples on isolated islands will have originally arrived in canoes or rafts - or large colonization vessels, in the case of the Polynesians - but hypothetical apemen are surely not possessed of seafaring technology.

...but hypothetical apemen are surely not possessed of seafaring technology...


It did say they built UFO bases. They probably just flew there, or had the technology to make boats and whatnot. It also said they had a lighting system in the caves, but there weren't any fires or light bulbs. As bright as daylight.
It also mentioned they had the giants skeletons in museums, by the way. Didn't say where the museum was, or didn't show any pictures.

... It also mentioned they had the giants skeletons in museums, by the way. Didn't say where the museum was, or didn't show any pictures.

How convenient! Aliens who happen to have humanoid skeletons. only larger... Perhaps the Men in Black also have a division in the Solomon Islands, and they are the ones preventing any concrete information from being released.

Getting back to the size v environment point (not that bigfoots in ufos aren't cool, just look at chewbacca, he was a kickass pilot) but anyways, i had a goldfish once and kept it in a tank about 2ft x 1ft. it grew to about 3 inches long and stayed that size. When i moved interstate i gave him to my brother, who put him in a tank about twice the size and after years of staying the same size in my tank, in the bigger tank he started growing again and is now about 5 inches long. Apparently its the same with turtles.

In theory, some creatures can continue growing as long as they live - and as long as they have a food supply in excess of their needs. Crocodiles are one example, along with turtles (and tortoises) as ScRaMbLe said. Of course, they need more food the bigger they grow...

It's a shame that doesn't apply to humans. If it did, gluttony would no longer be a sin or a health risk - just a reason to become taller and stronger, not fatter and slower.