The smalles existing vertebrates appear to be just under a centimeter. Smallest organisms - Wikipedia
The smallest non-amphibians are somewhat larger as adults, but presumably they are as small or smaller, with functioning organs and circulation system, as babies.
The web site I got those creatures where reptile creatures.
Some reptile have hard shells.
Only one those creatures above have exoskeletons.
But when you scale it up two eyes seem to be the norm.Not sure why when you scale it down there is more eyes.
But I’m talking about humans or animal. The organs in humans and animals are big so when you scale it down you would have to scale down the organs.
I can see may be bird or frog but Dog or people or other animal may be hard.
Frogs are animals. Birds are animals. Humans are animals. Frogs have organs, birds have organs. Even some of our closest relatives exist in quite small versions: Philippine tarsier - Wikipedia
Maybe you’re specifically thinking of the brain? In that case you should specify that instead of writing generally about “organs”. A tiny liver works just as well for keeping a tiny animal alive as a large one does for keeping a large one alive. There are limits of course, but your way of writing makes it seem you think a liver has to be a big organ to work.
They’re fantasy creatures, some of them are described as aliens. The tag “reptile” along side those are pretty much irrelevant biology wise.
Nothing to do with scale, everything to do with ancestry.
I’m talking about animals like a Dog or Lion. I could not care less what biologist classifieds things.
You don’t see small things in image of animals people hunt.
If there was need for human to have three or more arms we would evolve to have it.If dogs had big brain like humans and need for it , than it too probably over time would have need for arms.
But having more than tow legs it would just get in the way for humans.And the way humans are shape having more than two legs :eek::eek::eek:people would not be able to walk.
Some reptile have hard shells so no idea what that would evolve like.
I think one theory is gravity. Many legs creatures also have problem scaling up. On a planet with weak gravity they can have more legs.
If reptiles had very big brain like humans it too would probably evolve into like human like reptile
If you understand scale law.That factor in gravity ,atmospheric pressure ,circulation system and evolutions need you can determine shape.
That means humans or animals cannot get bigger than what they are they would not have enough muscular strength to keep the body up.
That means that big mass like an animals when they fall on the ground there is no resistance so they fall very fast but a spider or an ant when they fall from that say 5 feet onto the ground they fall much slower because of the high air resistance.
Not really sure what they are trying to say here.
The Godzilla would not have enough muscular strength to keep the body up.
The sizes of living creatures is a question of biology. It would be courteous to use the language of biology when discussing it. It doesn’t matter much though. Your idea that the organs of some vertebrates, like dogs and lions, are fundamentally different from and less scalable than a bird’s is silly.
Than why don’t we see small things in the shape of image of animals we hunt?
Why not a very small dog along with small organs or small lions?
“The animals we hunt” is not a well defined class, particularly when paired with your examples of dogs and lions, and your dismissal of a human relative like the tarsier. Still, a new born kitten is much akin to a lion, with the same functioning organs. If there was an open ecological niche for a predator that size, a small cat could fill it. Rodents, mammals as good as any, with the same organs as a lion or dog, and “we” hunt the larger versions like capybara and beavers, come in tiny sizes like the African pygmy mouse.
I’m sure there’s a point somewhere behind your posts, but I think this is as much time I’m willing to spend trying to figure out what it is.
I’m trying to understand the scale law.
Normally on large world we work with two eyes and two pairs of legs.
On the small wold many legs and many eyes.
So it seem the small world cannot support two pairs of legs and two eyes.
I mean you don’t see insects with two pairs of legs.And insects have lots of legs.
You don’t see insects with two eyes.An insects eye is very different than any animal or any thing on the big scale.
You don’t see animals or any thing on the big scale with insects eye.
If I understand the reason for so many eyes is to try to focus has much light as you can on a small area for the insects because of the wavelength.
If you could shrink human to a size of ant you would not see any thing with human eye .You will need many eyes.And tow legs probably would not support your body.
I think you’re taking the wrong lesson. The reason humans have two legs is a historical accident, due to our descent from our ancestors. No, not the apelike monkey things. Not the shrew-like mammals of the Triassic. Not the amphibious things that first inched up onto land. It goes back to the fishes that we came from. Why do fish have the body plan they have? Because.
Biological accident? The shrimps and lobsters were more suitable for spreading to land in some manners? Insects are descended from sea creatures with different body plans than the fish that mammals and birds and reptiles came from.
Descent with modification. Big land animals descended from fish with two eyes. Insects descended from a different body plan.
Gotta cite for that?
Actually, human legs would be way overkill for the weight load.
This is what some of the prior discussion talks about. Height scales upwards linearly. Volume scales upwards by the cube - i.e. by a factor of 3. Weight and mass (same thing, different flavor) scale up by the cube.
However, stress in the leg bones scales up by area, i.e. by factor of 2. This means that as the body height doubles (for the same body plan), the mass becomes 8 times larger, while the ability of the legs to hold up weight becomes only 4 times better.
Insects can get by with long thin legs because they are small. As they get larger, there is proportionally more weight per leg, until it reaches a point that the legs are too weak and would break. (And the “muscles” would stop before then.)
Humans legs have bone and muscle scaled to support our weights at the sizes we grow. An ant-sized human could get by with much thinner legs made of the same bone and muscle fibers. A 50 ft tall human would be unable to stand up and walk - the muscles wouldn’t be strong enough, and if they got magically lifted to their legs, their bones would break.
An 8-legged human might be able to stand up at 50ft tall, but would be a weird arrangement to make a hip structure to connect 8 legs.