The Darwinian Impossibility of King Kong
I'm not too much of a fan of King Kong, not the old, old
version, or the eighties remake starring Jessica Lange - who a
buddy's uncle in Minnesota dated once - and I don't think I will
be one of the Peter Jackson version that's set to hit the
theaters soon. Don't get me wrong. It looks fantastic and
clearly Jackson's vision is realized in this version. From what
I understand Jackson has been a Kong-o-phile since he was a
little kid, so this thing is his life's dream come true.
Don't tell him, but I never got into it much. I didn't care for
any of the characters, like the girl or the scientists or
anybody else in the story, and especially not King Kong. Sorry.
Maybe Jackson's version will be different, but I don't think
I'll give it a shot.
The reason why King Kong would be an impossible creature is
because of something called 'the island rule' which is something
biologists have known ever since Darwin. Maybe even a bit
before. On islands the resources for the creatures living on it
are limited, so two thing happen. First: The big creatures
become small, because food is limited, and Second: The small
creatures become bigger because they have to compete for that
limited food. On some islands scientists have found the remains
of both giant mice and miniature elephants.
King Kong is discovered on Skull Island which is over-run not
only with King Kong, but with other giant prehistoric creatures
like dinosaurs and such. Well, It couldn't happen. What on Earth
are all of these giant animals eating? The food suppy wouldn't
support them. They would literally eat themselves out of house
and home within a generation.
If I remember the story correctly, superstitious villagers on
skull island set out virgins on stakes for Kong to eat, so that
would help things out there. But how many of those can there
really be? Not enough to feed a monstrous gorilla, that's for
sure. You know, I don't think you could find enough virgins in
the whole continental US for that.