But you used it in a strawman fashion. Shrike used Shaq only as an example of size and proportion. If Bigfoot evolved to be 7-8' tall it would have a physiology to support that size and the activities of survival. Bigfoot would not sustain the same injuries as Shaq on the basketball court.
No matter how it evolved, it would still not be exempt from basic biology. Whether you're talking Shaq or a genuine bigfoot or T Rex, the square vs cube rule still holds. You could still outrun a T Rex no matter how it evolved, unless you postulate some miracle muscles that work unlike anything else and were somehow replaced with more inferior muscles in the bird and mammal descendants of those lizards by evolution.
Ditto for bigfoot. Short of some miracle biology, they'll need bigger bones, much thicker ligaments just to not tear up, and disproportionately bigger percentage of their body mass in the leg muscles just to keep up with a human.
And humans survived and were good at hunting because they used tools too. You can't pummel a deer to death with your fists. Homo Sapiens and this particular body configuration comes at the end of a long evolution lines that involved increasingly more tool use. And in fact, the way to us includes already two sentient hominids before us, the H Ergaster and H Heidelbergensis. That's just out of our direct ancestors, not counting side branches like the Neanderthals. And Ergaster comes from the already tool-using H Habilis. And I don't just mean use a branch to dig for ants, but flaked stone tools.
We could afford to have more and more this particular body configuration, because we're at the end of a long evolution line which favoured having the hands free for tool use, rather than for locomotion either way. We don't have the feet of someone who needs to do much locomotion through trees, nor the arms of someone who could use the extra speed on ground. We're the product of a very specific chain of circumstances, not the least being that for the last couple million years we used tools instead of either speed or strength.
The same goes for natural weapons. Chimps can tear prey apart with those arms, because they're arms selected for use for locomotion in trees. But then they also have the feet for that. Bigfoot doesn't.
So, really, how
would bigfoot hunt? Why would their selection have favoured a configuration which isn't particularly suited for either trees or ground level, yet doesn't have the tools and stuff to need those arms free for? If nature keeps them having arms strong enough to tear prey apart without tools or pummel a deer to death, then they're arms suited for living in trees. And for a species that lives in the woods, then why doesn't selection also produce some feet suitable for that? Or if it chases the prey on foot, and, again, barring finding a bunch of Bigfoot weapons and tools, then why doesn't it get the kind of front limbs that would be an advantage for that?
And generally, we're talking a configuration that would be... weird anyway. It would need to maintain some very strong upper arms just for hunting that way, which adds total weight, while _also_ having some disproportionately thick legs so it can chase prey on just two legs at that size, and a foot configuration that doesn't help with speed either. And then it doesn't get something like claws on those big feet so it can actually use that leg strength for a kill. (Like, for example, raptors did.) It's not clear at all why something would evolve such a WTF configuration instead of a quadruped or arboreal form that beats it hands down.
