The Darwinian Impossibility of King Kong

I'm not much of a fan of King Kong, not the old, old version, or the eighties remake starring Jessica Lange - a buddy's uncle in Minnesota for a time - and I do not think I will be one of the Peter Jackson version is set to hit theaters soon. Do not get me wrong. It looks fantastic and clear vision Jackson is realized in this version. From what I understand Jackson is one-o-Phile Kong because he was a little boy, so this thing is the dream of his life into reality. Do not tell him, but I've never much. I did not care for one of the characters, like the girl or the scientists or anyone else in the story, and especially King Kong. Sorry version. Perhaps Jackson's will be different, but I do not think I'll give it a shot. The reason why King Kong would be an impossible creature because of something called "island rule" is something that biologists have known since Darwin. Perhaps even a little for. On islands in the resources for it are limited beings, so two things done. First: The great become small creatures, because food is limited, and the second: The little creatures are bigger, because they must compete for limited food. On some islands, scientists have found the remains of both the giant mice and small elephants. King Kong is discovered on Skull Island, which is over-run not only with King Kong, but with other giant prehistoric creatures such as dinosaurs and the like. Well, it could not happen. What on earth are all these giant animals eat? The Food Suppy would not support. They were literally eating house and within a generation. If I remember the story, superstitious villagers on Skull Island set in the maidens commitment to Hong Kong to eat, so that would help things out there. But much of that really can be? Not enough to feed a monstrous gorilla, that's for sure. You know, I do not think you could find enough virgins in the entire American continent.