80: What does evolution tell us about Giants

I recently scanned through the archives of an American archaeological site using the word giant. In regard to humans all they said was that were many hoaxes, yet the animal kingdom has many skeletons of giant animals, birds and reptiles that have been dug up and produced. And while there are no known giant human skeletons on display (through one of two possible reasons) I began to think. "So if giant animals no longer exist, then life must have once been able to support them and yet they died out too. Why couldn’t humans have been larger?"

Many will say it is because man evolved after the giant animals disappeared. But if man came from the apes, then man has become larger in that process. Yet science suggests that all life since - from the plant kingdom to animal kingdom - has become smaller. It is sort of the reverse of what evolution has produced throughout all of history. Odd that. One site suggests that animals developed huge size as there were - and we quote, 'ecological roles to be filled by giant mammals across the globe'. This is a weird conclusion if you think about it but if it was true, it has not applied to humans as the 'evidence' says we grew from small hominids. So we did grow bigger then - just no taller than we can accept as tall today.

There is also the theory of island gigantism. This is usually an evolutionary trend resulting from the removal of constraints on the size of small animals related to predation and/or competition. It could account for giants being seen in areas not normally habited by large groups of humans or any large predator than would hunt them. eg South America, Pacific, New Zealand etc.

Stanford scientists have found fresh support for a theory that states that animal lineages (humans included by scientific inference) tend to evolve toward larger sizes over time.

But nothing can be absolutely proved. What we need is a group of tall skeletons recorded properly before anyone can destroy, remove them or attempt to debunk the find. Naturally my mind thinks that maybe I should just release word of the find, but no pictures, and let the rest of the world debunk the ‘said’ discovery - and then release the evidence! In other words, let a few fall on their swords. It is better for people to have to change their story when evidence is produced than produce something up front and have them counter it because the opinions of ‘experts’ would be deemed to be more credible.

If you had the evidence. What would you do?