Giants: A Comparative Analysis

 This document is pertinent in that it unbiasedly, and skeptically analyses critical evidence in connection with living, and no longer extant giants of this planet.  We will do our best to keep opinions to a minimum, if not at least while engaging in speculation, to make this clearly stated beforehand. In doing this we maintain strict adherence to the facts.  In regard to evidence, this should be provided through the mechanism of the "World-Wide Web" in contrast to the author doing any physical investigation.  This method enables the researcher to candidly proffer the fruits of the labor of others, rather than the invaluable productions of his own, all while reclining comfortably. 

However, let it be stated that evidence displayed in this fashion, will undoubtedly be from impeccable sources.  Those who have spent many days and years in the hallowed halls of academia, will provide us with infallible proofs that are rendered without reproach by way of many scientific processes.  

We will do our best to establish averages, if possible, for the term "giant" only carries meaning in the context of  a larger than average size.  In this analysis we will mostly look at the mammalian class of  living creatures, but for the sake of humor, will observe bird and reptile kinds briefly.

We shall start with the small "giants" and gradually work our way to the larger "giants" as a way of building in affect.  By this we hope to convince the more hardened of mind, or sweep in general all the more credulous of our readers.  We hope to establish the idea that big creatures can be bigger, and little creatures might be found larger.  

We hope to avoid entirely the fruitless question of "what's big to you?" or "what if big isn't really that big at all?" Such questions only gender confusion, and this is deemed sanctimonious on the part of the questioneer.  Other than this all questions are most welcome.

But it it is out intention to establish the reality of living and once-living giants in the world, what necessitates their survival, and what inaugurates their extinction.  It is our objective to conjure a functioning idea of how big, can big be, and how enormous the gigantic can remain functional.

Ceratogaulus or Horned Gopher

The now extinct species of gopher, found only in the geologic record, gives us unique insight into the realm of the past.  However mundane it may seem at first glace, and though of average size, the Horned Gopher may render an interesting talking point. At once we admit that this is no giant, but on more contiguous observations we notice that other gophers, simply lack the most prominent feature as in this specimen.  That is, the horns. Most commonly found in the section between the forehead and at the halfway point heading towards the animal's snout. 

As with all creatures strange and arcane, the Horned Gopher confronts us with the interesting idea that all creatures may not all have continued in the tradition of the past, but some may have rejected former things and moved on to a more simple biological existence. Simply put, with the extravagance of  additional extremities, modern genetics seems to have reduced itself to making less off this, and fewer of that when body parts are concerned.  As we move forward, (which we are bound to do, we know no other direction in which to proceed) we shall see a diminutisation of created life.

Phoberomys pattersoni, Giant Rodent

This massive protohistoric rodent could be compared to the large capybara of today, though Phoberomys weighed between 150 and 250 kg (330 and 550 lb).  A size comparable to that of a large antelope. Roughly four times the size of the modern capybara, and two-hundred-fifty times bigger than its smaller cousin the guinea pig.  If this would simply be credited to pituitary gigantism, we notice that this representative of the rodent race, has a tail unlike its living cousins. Statistically this appearance in the fossil arena, well demonstrates the existence of an entire race of giant rodents of this class. 

Josephoartigasia 

This creative portrait gives the idea that Josephoartigasia was much like a horse, which is a suitable comparison, as the living weight was calculated at 468–2,568 kg (1,032–5,661 lb), average of 1,211 kg (2,670 lb). The largest living rodent, the capybara, weighs about 60 kg (130 lb) on average.  Rodents have the second largest body weight span of any mammalian order.  As seen in the picture below, the capybara bears little resemblance to the facial features of a horse. 

Castoroides, or giant beaver

However large and curious the average beaver of today may seem, his larger relative leaves a long shadow.  With an average length of approximately 1.9 m (6.2 ft), to 2.2 m (7.2 ft), and weight from 90 kg (198 lb) to 125 kg (276 lb), castoroides was four to six times bigger than modern beavers. If todays beaver stood as the average, certainly a race of giant beavers stands in stark contrast.  

As we continue our journey,  many points will be touched on briefly with the intention of expanding further as we move along, more examples adding to the clarity of different points.  It is our contention that sizes though exceeding the norm, may only surpass by a certain degree in weight, the forces of gravity making further development impossible.  For example, the two giant rodents featured thus far are noted for being largely aquatic.  This point makes evident that the anatomy of rodents reaching a certain size, must therefore necessitate a watery habitat primarily for comfortable living.  This is the case for rodents reaching the astronomical sizes as stated above.  It is highly unlikely that rodent anatomy could be found surpassing that already stated, there seems to be a point of capping out, in every species. 

Water introduces a different set of atmospheric conditions than land.  We point out that the largest mammals to date are found in water, chiefly because the gravity of terra firma would be to great for a creature of such large size.  The blue whale for example, would be crushed under his own weight if he happened to be found on dry land. 

Argentavis or giant teratorn

With a wingspan up to 7.5 to 8 m (24 ft 7 in to 26 ft 3 in) and body mass of 80 kg (180 lb), this mother of all birds was over 8.5 times bigger than the common California condor. Yet it could still fly, and it was proportioned to live a normal existence among its dwarfed relatives.  Long before the Wright brothers, this giant aeronaut proved the terror of the skies, according to Native American legend.

Megaloceros giganteus or Irish Elk

The Irish elk, 2.1 m (6 ft 11 in) tall at the shoulders, and the largest antlers of any known deer, a maximum of 3.65 m (12.0 ft) from tip to tip and 40 kg (88 lb) in weight. And body weight of about 450–600 kg (990–1,320 lb) and up to 700 kg (1,540 lb).  Literally twice the size of  a modern elk cow, and carrying the better part of a foreign hat function, on his head. Where did these beasts go? It seems as though size meant nothing when hard times befell the inhabitants of the ice-age planet. The large creatures of  robust nature disappeared and were succeeded by the more moderate race of animals.

Bison latifrons, or giant bison 

Weighing between 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) and 2,000 kg (4,400 lb), B. latifrons was one of the largest ruminants ever.  The horns of  which measured up to 213 centimeters (84 in) tip to tip, compared with 66 cm (26 in) to 90 cm (35 in) in modern Bison.  That's 1,000 kg larger than an average American bison of today, the record bull of today only coming up to the weight of the smallest of B. latifrons. 

Praeovibos, or giant muskox

Pictured is a heard of modern musk oxen, but Praeovibos, or giant musk ox was 130–165 cm at the shoulder, weight estimates were not available, but looking at todays average of  120 - 150 cm at the shoulder for males, a substantial size difference is evident.

Cervalces scotti, or stag-moose 

The giant stag moose weighed 708.5 kg (1,562 lb), surpassing todays bull moose by 400 lbs, not much over average if it was another moose, but it was a deer. Mule deer usually weigh 125 kg, that makes the stag moose over 5 times larger than its closer cousin.  

Elasmotherium or Siberian unicorn

The Siberian unicorn had a mass of 3.5–5 tonnes (3.9–5.5 short tons), and was crowned with a giant single horn.  Elasmotherium was over 2.5 times the size of the modern white rhino. 

Paraceratherium

Paraceratherium shoulder height was about 4.8 metres (15.7 feet). Its weight is estimated at about 15 to 20 tonnes (33,000 to 44,000 lb). A railway boxcar weighing around 28 tons.  The long neck supported a skull that was about 1.3 meters (4.3 ft) long.  This monster rhino was up to 10 times the size of a white rhino, and is among the largest mammals found on land. 

Deinotherium

Deinotherium weighed 8.8–12 tons, African elephants weighing less, at 5 to 7 tons. With a massive and strange set of tusks on the lower mandible, unlike elephants having them in the upper mandible. 

Sivatherium

Sivatherium resembled the okapi, but was far larger, and heavily built, being about 2.2 m (7.2 ft) tall at the shoulder, 3 m (9.8 ft)and weight up to 1,250 kg (2,760 lb) or 1,360 kg (3,000 lb). This makes Sivatherium one of the largest known ruminants. About the same size of a giraffe, but as a relative of the okapi, Sivatherium is 3 times larger. Pictured below, modern Okapi.

Gigantopithecus

Gigantopithecus blacki could very well be the ancient giants prehistoric man talked about. Image: Mark Witton

Male gorillas weigh 136 to 227 kg (300 to 500 lb), and are 1.4 to 1.8 m (4 ft 7 in to 5 ft 11 in) tall, with an arm spans from 2.3 to 2.6 m (7 ft 7 in to 8 ft 6 in) Gigantopithecus however, was potentially 200–300 kg (440–660 lb) which is about 40% heavier than the average male gorilla.  This opens up the concept of size comparison for a more human-like animal.  The gorilla is classified as a knuckle-walker but easily runs upright for sort periods of time.  The angle of its hips inhibiting an upright posture, among other limitations.  Its speed and agility defy its clumsy appearance, and it easily leaps into the air to grasp high branches.  For an animal 3 times the size of a human, its physical abilities seem quite astonishing.  Also astonishing is its strength, and a capacity to lift up to 1,800 lbs.  To put this into human physiological terms, Andre the Giant weighed over 500 pounds and stood at seven feet and four inches tall. Robert Wadlow's height was 8 ft 11.1 inches while his weight reached 439 lb. Tacko Fall, a basketball player, has a height of  7'7'' and a weight of 311 pounds. The first two examples being of pituitary gigantism, a defect which leads to health problems and early death.  The third example being just a genetically large human, fully functional and not handicapped in any way. 
Tacko Fall

          

Robert Wadlow

Andre the Giant

Using the graph below we can extrapolate height to weight ratios of humanoid creatures.

A 660 lb Gigantopithecus comes in at just above 11 ft tall, a 500 lb male gorilla at around 9.5 ft tall.  So it could be physically possible to retain these sizes, as a human. 

I would now like to introduce to my reader, the concept of gravity, and its limitation on biological development. To do this I would like to place the horse on center stage as an example. We all know ponies, donkeys, horses, and draft horses. There is a common size to which a breed of horse seems best suited for the most variety of tasks, this set of dimensions also corresponds to that of nature.  If we observe the wild mustang we see an animal of shorter stature,(14 to 15 hands) shorter legs comparatively, and larger head. For this reason the mustang stands out visibly from a purebred.  Though not as fast as the taller Thoroughbred or quarter horse, intelligence and stamina are it's pronounced characteristics.  Now if once again a group of stable horses were released into the wild, just as the Spanish horses went feral in America in the 1500s, natural selection would again size an animal according to the environment. 

This stated, if a giant race of creatures are found, the causation might be one of two possibilities.  One, unnatural genetic intervention, and two, a different set of environments. By genetic intervention I'm referring to selective interbreeding, to achieve larger creatures.  By a different environment I'm insinuating a climate or set of conditions conducive to giant growth. 

We all recognize the possibilities for breeders when they spend years, and many thousands of dollars on a specific breeding program. Larger, smaller, wider, shorter, are all traits that breeders have access to when making their selections, usually however there is a point of capping out when it comes to size.  This is in part because of the surface area to volume ratio problem, and because of gravitational force on insufficient structural integrity. For example, you can make a cake as big as a table, but you can't make a cake as big as a house, it would collapse on its own weight.  

Such is the criticism where giant men are concerned. Critics simply suggest that giants would be impossible in human kind, for a similar reason.  Let us organise a set of terms, in which we might assume comfortably the likelihood of human size surpassing that which it has already retained.  If we were to infer the possibility of a different set of atmospheric conditions maybe the possibility would be entertainable.  Now how far must one go to find such a set of conditions, certainly the globe has been fully assessed, as to oxygen content, gravity, and air pressure.  Might one travers space to find a different set of conditions on a different globe? The possibility exists, however there is no way to test this proposition so it remains within the confines of speculation, a realm so far avoided in this analysis.

However the current set of conditions found on earth were not always as we find them today, the evidence of which is found trapped in amber bubbles.  A much higher oxygen content.  More evidence persists as we observe fossil Meganeuropsis permiana, an extinct dragonfly. With a wingspan of about 30 inches or 2.5 feet and weight of over 1 pound, similar to the size of a crow.  The problem this poses is the surface area to volume ratio. It shows that this dragonfly would not be able to breath, let alone fly in todays air.  

Another creature presents a problem, Argentinosaurus is a giant sauropod dinosaur perhaps the largest, reaching 30–35 metres (98–115 ft) in length and 60–75 tons in body mass.

In an article from earthlyuniverse.com Could Dinosaurs Live in Today's Environment? June 28, 2017

 - Other theories claim that higher oxygen levels might explain how many dinosaur species, such as the mighty sauropods, managed to grow so large. Regardless of the prevailing truth, however, many dinosaur species might have problems just breathing in the modern atmosphere, given its undoubtedly different composition.-

 

Another internet commentator announces,

 "While dinosaurs might be able to breathe today's air, it won't be pleasant, and it might not be sustainable for long periods of time...  …they would be consistently short of breath. However, recent studies show that oxygen levels were actually lower (10 to 15% as compared to 21% today), so breathing would be the least of dinosaurs' problem."

There's no way for us to go back and see exactly what the previous conditions were on earth, so there's no way to check conflicting statements made by academics.  However the large sauropod dinosaurs had very small nostrils, similar to that of a horse, so it would be reasonable to conclude that in todays atmosphere breathing would be difficult, if not impossible for such gigantic creatures. 

As we have briefly touched on atmospheric effects, now we shall engage the possibility of genetic intervention.  The idea that all giant creatures found are a result of pituitary gigantism, is simply unwarranted, the possibility of this being the case over large populations is extremally unlikely.  And the possibility that the giants found as fossils do not represent large populations, but single cases of gigantism is simply mathematically impossible.  However the possibility of genetic intervention seems to withstand scrutiny well. Historical cases of manipulation of this fashion are prevalent.

The Book of Enoch

VI

1. And it came to pass when the children of men had multiplied that in those days were born unto them beautiful and comely daughters. 2. And the angels, the children of the heaven, saw and lusted after them, and said to one another: 'Come, let us choose us wives from among the children of men and beget us children.' 3. And Semjâzâ, who was their leader, said unto them: 'I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin.' 4. And they all answered him and said: 'Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.' 5. Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 6. And they were in all two hundred; who descended ⌈in the days⌉ of Jared on the summit of Mount Hermon, and they called it Mount Hermon, because they had sworn and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. 7. And these are the names of their leaders: Sêmîazâz, their leader, Arâkîba, Râmêêl, Kôkabîêl, Tâmîêl, Râmîêl, Dânêl, Êzêqêêl, Barâqîjâl, Asâêl, Armârôs, Batârêl, Anânêl, Zaqîêl, Samsâpêêl, Satarêl, Tûrêl, Jômjâêl, Sariêl. 8. These are their chiefs of tens.

VII.

1. And all the others together with them took unto themselves wives, and each chose for himself one, and they began to go in unto them and to defile themselves with them, and they taught them charms and enchantments, and the cutting of roots, and made them acquainted with plants. 2. And they became pregnant, and they bare great giants, whose height was three thousand ells: 3. Who consumed all the acquisitions of men. And when men could no longer sustain them, 4. the giants turned against them and devoured mankind. 5. And they began to sin against birds, and beasts, and reptiles, and fish, and to devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood. 6. Then the earth laid accusation against the lawless ones.

As this text of Enoch is of incalculable antiquity, and was found among the dead sea scrolls, we get a peculiar insight into the legends of ancient peoples. Many times legends were put into a story for memorability, and many literary "frills" gradually adorned the narrative.  Possibly Higher powers in government were manipulating the structure of trade in their favor, hence the term "giants" was used in reference to those in abusive positions of power.  Taking women, and stealing animals to gain wealth.  Oddly, this narrative is mirrored in the sixth chapter of the biblical text of Genesis.  To attribute these evil workings to the supposed "Godly line of Seth" seems a stretch.  

However since the topic is physical giants, not financial giants it is necessary to dive deeper into the historic account.  Since the term "Angel" renders little explanatory power, a look at the biblical term "sons of God" may prove more fruitful.  It is likely that this term of veneration was used to describe the Idolized rulers of the time, since it infers the descendance from God himself, which was a common described position.  Just who these entities were would be anyone's guess, but power over the people was an obvious attribute.  Looking at the historical documents, would hint that these powers were into interbreeding humans, and animals in their drive for domination.  Just as Hitler instituted a program for breeding the Arian stock, and culling those he deemed worthless.  It could be that this process of breeding, culminated in the creation of larger than average people and animals.  

But where is the evidence of giant human remains?  The average fossil museum keeps few human remains, and those are predominantly average size humans. The key to understanding this lies in the concept of statistical probability.  

www.nature.com says... - Fossils are rare because their formation and discovery depend on chains of ecological and geological events that occur over deep time.-

-Only a small fraction of the primates that have ever lived has been preserved as fossils. After death, most primate bodies are eventually dismantled and devoured by predators, scavengers, and microbes. If not, then their remains undergo chemical decomposition and, ultimately, their molecules are scattered across the ecosystem and recycled. The same is true for all organisms throughout history. Because life as we know it depends on the death and decomposition of organisms, the fossil record is necessarily incomplete. As such, finding fossils involves not only perseverance and luck, but the discovery of any particular fossil also depends on the chance that the specimen preserved in the first place. Although fossilization affects only a small fraction of the organisms that have ever lived, there are well-documented conditions that foster the process.- (emphasis mine)

Creation.com says, 

-Most people don’t realize that in terms of numbers of fossils 95% of the fossil record consists of shallow marine organisms such as corals and shellfish. Within the remaining 5%, 95% are all the algae and plant/tree fossils, including the vegetation that now makes up the trillions of tonnes of coal, and all the other invertebrate fossils including the insects. Thus the vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) together make up very little of the fossil record—in fact, 5% of 5%, which is a mere 0.25% of the entire fossil record. So comparatively speaking there are very, very few amphibian, reptile, bird and mammal fossils, yet so much is often made of them. For example, the number of dinosaur skeletons in all the world’s museums (both public and university) totals only about 2,100.7 Furthermore, of this 0.25% of the fossil record which is vertebrates, only 1% of that 0.25% (or 0.0025%) are vertebrate fossils that consist of more than a single bone!-  (emphasis mine)

Creation.com continues,

-Another factor to be considered is the differential mobility of humans and many land-dwelling animals compared to much of the abundant marine life, such as corals, barnacles and shellfish. When the Flood began, the rising Flood waters would probably have encouraged humans and mobile land animals to preferentially move away from low lying areas to higher ground...Consequently, we would predict that it would be highly unlikely for us to find human fossils now in sediments that were deposited early in the Flood year.- 

Understanding the probability of finding humanoid fossils is key to comprehending the availability of giant humans in the geologic record.  With this in mind, we conclude that giant humans remain within the realm of possibility, though it is highly unlikely that any of their remains will be discovered in geology. However long forgotten, the idea persists, that in comparison to our own stature, the giants of old dwarfed todays TV heroes, and outshone the social stars of todays media.