We know from fossils that immense dinosaurs did exist, but why would it be impossible for an immense giant ape like King Kong to exist?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The strength available to support an animal scales with cross‑sectional area, while its mass scales with volume — the square–cube law. Bone and tendon strength are proportional to cross‑sectional area (~k^2 if linear dimensions scale by k), but weight increases with volume (~k^3). Thus larger animals rapidly face much higher stresses on their limbs unless limb proportions and foot design change to compensate.

Step‑by‑step reasoning:
1) Relevant concepts: square–cube scaling, limb posture (columnar vs flexed), foot/hand morphology and load distribution, and structural loading (compression vs bending).
2) Scaling example: take an ape of linear size scaled up by k = 10. Mass ~ k^3 so mass increases by 10^3 = 1000×. Cross‑sectional area of bones ~ k^2 = 100×. Stress (force per area) ~ mass/area ~ (1000/100) = 10× higher. That means bones and muscles would need to be ten times stronger (or limbs substantially thicker) just to carry the load. Practical limb geometry, muscle attachments, and joint shapes in apes do not scale to provide that.
3) Hands and feet of apes are adapted for grasping and manipulation: relatively narrow soles, flexible digits, and joints that experience bending and torsion. Large weight‑bearing species (e.g., sauropod dinosaurs, elephants) evolved columnar, pillar‑like limbs and broad, fleshy feet that distribute compressive loads and minimize bending moments. Dinosaur limb posture and foot morphology were specialized to support huge masses; an ape’s hand/foot design could not redistribute loads likewise.

Why the correct option is correct: The core limitation is mechanical — Kong’s hands and feet (and flexed posture) would concentrate stresses and produce bending/torsion beyond tissue limits. Large dinosaurs avoided this by straight, pillar limbs and broad weight‑bearing feet.

Why other options are incorrect:
- Option 1: Semi‑sprawled stance is not the primary problem; apes already use more erect posture than sprawled reptiles. The key issue is foot/hand design and load distribution.
- Option 3: Heat dissipation and fur are secondary constraints; animals can evolve sweating, sparsely furred skin, or large ears.
- Option 4: Food requirements matter but are not the fundamental mechanical impossibility; endothermy alone doesn’t forbid large size.
- Option 5: Hollow bones occur in many theropods/birds but not all large dinosaurs; weight reduction by hollowness isn’t the decisive factor versus limb/foot support.

Conclusion: The correct answer is: "King Kong could not have survived as the design of his feet and hands could not begin to support his mass, unlike dinosaur feet." This matches the provided answer.

We know from fossils that immense dinosaurs did exist, but why would it be impossible for an immense giant ape like King Kong to exist?单项选择题

类似问题

What was the world's first widely adopted biodiversity policy?

The aim of the Paris Agreement is to ensure that the earth’s preindustrial temperature is not exceeded by more than º Celsius.

The IPCC's mission is to Blank ______.

Why have most international agreements for environmental protection been based on the honor system?

As was exhibited with the Montreal Protocol and the encouragement of reduced CFC production, trade can be an effective tool to compel compliance with international treaties.

The Stockholm Declaration and UNEP were the result of the Blank ______ first conference on the Human Environment in 1972.

In addition to the direct mission of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), why was CITES so important?

President Trump hiring a corporate leader from the oil and gas industry to head the Department of Energy is an example of regulatory ; one intention behind this was to change environmental policy.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单