User talk:Hybrid420

I am not sure how to pose this question, so I will just go for it. Why was the dominant early life forms of Earth so large, compaired to todays standards? I mean, the dinosaurs, larger than some of our buildings! Mega mammals, ran the the planet until the Ice age, they died as well, though. Does life go through a cycle of growing until that species is eliminated and the next ones start off like microbes that continue to accelerate in growth until they are destroyed as well? Or does a species begin as giants and die as giants? If that is the case, why was the original life on earth, of course following bacteria and the sespool evolutionary changes, mostly very large? Does the early climate have to do with it? Was gravity less? Atmospheric gasses completly different? If such the case of a much harsher, earlier environment, then why would a sudden turn for the worse destroy most of this life that was adampted to harshness, spare the weaker life forms only to evolve into weaker species? After all, if life evolves out of survival of the fittest, then why does life evolve into weaker forms after a catostrophic event takes place? Wouldn't a stronger species arise out of the destruction? After all, are mammals or amphibians more likely to survive an event where most ground life would perish vs. marine? If so, then why would land life devolope so much faster and more intellectually superior than the more abundant life in the oceans? Maybe being forced to harsh life on land encouraged intellectual development instead of physical development, finding a temporary solution forcing more adaptability. Yet this still doesnt answer my original question.