>>4908409
Males have to constantly fight each other for hopes of pussy

>>4908417
>Males have to constantly fight each other for hopes of pussy
so animals are just incidentally dimorphic because the species more heavily selects for physical fitness through the male, so over time dimorphic genetic traits end up in the mix, even though the ""purpose"" of the mating ritual is to strengthen both sexes?

>>4908425
>even though the ""purpose"" of the mating ritual is to strengthen both sexes?
In the case of something like a bear, that’s not the purpose. Males fight for mates so it is beneficial to be bigger but this comes at a cost of needing more food, etc. Females don’t need to fight as much so larger size isn’t selected for as heavily, and might even be selected against to help reduce resource cost and competition with males. The reverse is true of things like spotted hyenas where females are bigger

>>4908409
Well for one example I know, crocodile males actually get faaar larger than female ones do.
Saltie: male can get up to 6 meters, when the female rarely passes 3. (20 ft vs. 9 ft)

reason likely being that of laying eggs. Crocodiles have a much easier time going onto land if they're smaller, so females stay at a pretty small size and still get the job done since a 5+ foot long weird 'reptile' thing can get the job done for itself handily.

>>4908427
>Males fight for mates
yeah but they fight for mates because it selects for the most competent to pass on their genetics, there's no real survival advantage in bears fighting each other, in the short term. that's why it's the ""purpose""

>>4908431
It’s not a survival advantage, it’s a sexual advantage. It’s potentially even a survival detriment that pays off in securing mates

>>4908454
This; male bears being bigger to help secure mates is like a more violent version of a peacock's plumage.

>>4908409
sexual dimorphism directly correlates to the amount of intraspecies conflict for sex, examples being gorrillas and chimps, male gorrillas are huge compared to females, because they beat the shit out of other males for control of the harem, while chimps there isnt that much dismorphism because their females whore around entire the troop. so anything allows them to breed better than anyone else is going to be selected for

>>4908536
the differences between females and males in tigers are not so big yet the males do A LOT more fighting,for instance

>>4908569
200 lbs is a pretty big difference, thats almost twice as heavy on average, island tigers dont count because theyre suffering from island dwarfism so nobody gets big

>>4908526
>>4908454
these are both indirect selectors for survival abilities, why do you think animals even have to fight for a mate in the first place? it's because it confers an advantage, if the sex selecting ritual didn't select for who better survives then it'd be pointless and not near universal, the biggest or more vibrant bird clearly is better at scrummaging for food

>>4908409
>females select males on being bigger, stronger, faster, etc for the next generation
>males select all females by default, because they just want sex
>wtf why are males much bigger and stronger?!

Because you women get off on these qualities that you handpicked yourself.
Would like you instead like a tiny, feeble, cowardly male who can't provide shit for you?

>>4908674
no its totally because of... le rape!
>most times animals mate, unless there's local overpopulation encouraging more brutal competition, the female is cooperative and enthusiastic
WELL THEY CANT CONSENT SO ITS STILL RAPE ;_; MEN BAD

>>4908674
>>4908684
Op wasn't talking about humans retard, he specifically said solitary hunting animals like carnivorans
>>4908684
>the female is cooperative and enthusiastic
Then it is not rape
Women live in your head rent free

>>4908688
Yet among nearly all reproductive dynamics and rituals in animals it comes down to the same thing.
Females select males for specific qualities and males are hardwired to approach most females.
Mammals specifically live in a harem basis when surviving in a troop, even though there are enough males and females for each other. Females are hardwired to go for the best genetical option.
I'm trying to answer OP here.

>>4908684
>>4908674
>getting in a schizophrenic argument with a person you made up

>>4908702
>I'm trying to answer OP here.
No, you were going off on a 'women bad' tangent that reeks of insecurity

>>4908707
women aren't bad, they're baby factories

>>4908708
so much as men are cum factories

ITT: OP discovers sexual selection

>>4908620
>if the sex selecting ritual didn't select for who better survives then it'd be pointless and not near universal
Except surviving is only half the story. If the point of large size was for a survival benefit then it would be true for both females and males, the increased size of males is predominately to give an advantage in securing mates. Larger males tend to have greater breeding success, so that size is selected for. Females have the same level of breeding success whether they’re big or not, so it’s not selected for. It’s not selecting for who survives better, it’s selecting for who fucks more

>seals
Sea lions still have harems, dimorphism in that case helps tell the male who doesn't belong

>>4908737
>If the point of large size was for a survival benefit then it would be true for both females and males,
this is not true since if it selects through the male mating ritual then there would be many dimorphic genes for males and few for females

>>4908744
That’s a pretty major assumption. If it was selecting for greater fitness then females would also be under selective pressure to be as large as possible regardless of males being even bigger because of their greater number of dimorphic genes controlling size, yet size isn’t really selected for in females

>>4908409
To not have females constantly freak out and murder the other half keeping the species going. It also discurages the woman getting into fights in the first place where her baby making usefulness could be damaged.

>>4908409
is this the thread where we pretend
>dimorphism=size differences between sexes
?

because that's wrong.
Size difference is one of millions of forms of dimorphism, not the only one.

anyways fpbp
size differences are because males fight for food and fucks. Also being huge demonstrates fitness so females prefer large mates. It's sexually selected.

sexual dimorphism usually means color differences between sexes or different antlers or frills or whatever. Size is also dimorphism, but it's not the one most people are going to think of if you say dimorphism.

rape isn't a thing in nature. Females want to breed with the largest and often most violent males. Also the prettiest males. And the fattest. And healthiest. It's not rape, they want those mates.

>>4908877
>Size difference is one of millions of forms of dimorphism, not the only one.
True, but OP specified he meant large solitary mammals like bears and big cats

>>4908878
Yep, but OP doesn't get to decide what the word means, and a normal biologist is going to be confused or amused by his choice of usage.

>>4908883
He wasn’t deciding what the word means, he was just asking about dimorphic size in those animals and not others with different sexual dimorphism

>>4908896
>what's the point of sexual dimorphism
covers millions of times more content than just size in bears

be like asking
>what's the point of the color red
and then limiting conversation to strawberries only. Like strawberries are the only "red" in the universe. It indicates OP is using a word he doesn't begin to understand.
Presumably OP is trying to sound smart and utterly failing.

>>4908899
>covers millions of times more content than just size in bears
Sure but he followed it up immediately with
>specifically in solitary hunting animals, especially mammals. like leopards, seals or tigers

>>4908900
still indicates an ignorance of the vast majority of dimorphism

>what is the point of the color red
>specifically in strawberries
indicates complete ignorance of breeding salmon, sunsets, mushrooms, and rainbows

>>4908901
Everyone in the thread was perfectly aware of what he meant. Everyone in the thread knows there is more to sexual dimorphism than size. You are being needlessly autistic

>>4908903
>Everyone in the thread knows there is more to sexual dimorphism than size
>>4908877
>is this the thread where we pretend
>>dimorphism=size differences between sexes
>?

there's no indication OP understands what dimorphism means, or anyone else here until I mentioned it.

>>4908904
Yeah, I can understand you wouldn’t catch OP’s meaning the first time around if he didn’t outright say it. Autism does make it harder to pick up on that sort of thing

>>4908909
>what's the meaning of earth?
>specifically toadstools?
he's using words wrong to try to sound smart and making himself look like a dumbass instead

it's funny

it's not so funny if I have to explain it to you and you still don't get it

>>4908912
>he's using words wrong to try to sound smart and making himself look like a dumbass instead
No he’s asking a pretty simple question which has been answered. Rather you’re acting like you’re being smart when your comment about sexual dimorphism not being limited to size was entirely unnecessary and irrelevant as if what you said isn’t common knowledge. Something like a male peacock’s feathers would be an even more famous example than the size difference between bears (which btw peacocks had already been mentioned in the thread)

>>4908913
>as if what you said isn’t common knowledge
nothing prior to my post indicates it's knowledge at all here

and that's funny

any normal person would have pointed out OP's mistake.

>>4908913
this is the part where you report me for trolling and get me banned because you have no sense of humor and can't see OP's autism as the absurdity it is.

have a good month.

I'll be back three days after you report me, but I'll just laugh at you quietly instead of trying to find normies here to laugh with me.

>>4908914
>nothing prior to my post indicates it's knowledge at all here
Except for the anon who already said that it’s a more violent version of a peacock’s feathers. Or the anon who said the most vibrant bird is better at finding food. Also the fact that OP said specifically what animals he was talking about, which should clue you in that he’s not interested in other forms of dimorphism in other animals
>any normal person would have pointed out OP's mistake
Any normal person would have realised OP didn’t make a mistake and was asking a question. A normal person also wouldn’t feel the desperate urge to sound smart by stating the obvious about there being more than one kind of dimorphism as if that’s some kind of higher knowledge, even though other types of dimorphism had already been mentioned

>>4908916
>playing victim
>pretending to know who you’re talking to
Lol

>>4908922
there's 3 people here and I'm 66.666% sure OP isn't the overly sensitive and painfully uneducated janny.

>>4908877
>>4908883
>>4908899
>>4908901
>>4908904
Do you take pride in embarrassing yourself online?

>>4908924
>doesn't think it's funny when retards use the wrong word to try to sound smart
>thinks I'm embarrassed when other morons defend them
I am amused, not embarassed

>>4908926
>doesn't think it's funny when retards use the wrong word to try to sound smart
pot, kettle
>I am amused, not embarassed
>GUYS IM ACTUALLY THE ONE LAUGHING AT YOU STOP BULLYING ME
How'd that crocodile thread go for you mr chewing gum?

>>4908927
>How'd that crocodile thread go for you mr chewing gum?
kek
what are you talking about idiot?

you guys have your own entire head-cannon of wrong biological ideas and terms by now. Eventually it's going to turn into a cargo-cult of pidgin-biology speaking troglodytes jerking each other off in incomprehensible slaughterings of technical-speak

>>4908929
>kek
>what are you talking about idiot?
Is it dementia? I think it's dementia
https://youtu.be/2LLWhQGLPfM?si=K18TR0idAXBwE4x5
>you guys have your own entire head-cannon of wrong biological ideas and terms by now
Sexually dimorphic size differences being a kind of sexual dimorphism is wrong? News to me

>>4908930
99.999999% sure

File: 564154-i.jpg (318 KB, 1536x1798)

318 KB JPG

>accuses OP of trying to sound smart and failing, immediately after entering the thread to try sound smart by imparting basic knowledge about dimorphism as if it’s the cure to cancer
>didnt read the thread, acts like nobody mentioned this prior to his entry despite being mentioned at least twice
>bitches about apparently getting banned (I wish)
>pretends that he’s laughing down on everyone else while making himself a laughing stock
Oh yeah, it’s one of those threads

>>4908932
go ahead, report me. I know you want to

I made you for a brief second realize how incredibly stupid you sound to outsiders.

>>4908934
You are welcome to believe this

>>4908935
I know this.

you know this.

even the mods probably know this. But they'd rather have 2 people talking to each other in their secret retard language than fix it so normies MIGHT come here. Because the fact is even if they banned you nobody with half a brain is going to come here.

>>4908936
>Because the fact is even if they banned you nobody with half a brain is going to come here
You fit right in then huh

File: 1714067840093935.png (216 KB, 675x585)

216 KB PNG

>>4908720
based

>>4908620
>why do you think animals even have to fight for a mate in the first place? it's because it confers an advantage
Then why do female elephant seals mate with not just the big strong male but also the small sneaky males? It’s not a question of who’s showing off the greatest level of fitness, it’s about making yourself the only male in the area to deny the others mating rights

>>4908899
>ask about specific phenomena under an umbrella term
>erm, umbrella term encompasses other phenomena!!!
yes you're very smart anon, good job, kill yourself

>>4908956
because they have another evolutionary strategy and thus don't pertain? that's my bad, I should have said "some seals"

>>4908958
He’s a narcissist, if there’s any chance he can get to try and sound smart then he’ll take it regardless of how relevant it is. Like in the croc plover discussion just recently
>>4908959
Pretty sure most female mammals will happily mate with the smaller males just as much as the bigger ones, assuming that there isn’t a big male who’s there to chase off the smaller ones. It probably confers some advantage, but that’s secondary when you make yourself the only male around by beating the shit out of all your rivals

>>4908409
That male will need to eat a lot more calories to maintain his muscles, and to hibernate. A tradeoff to have the strength to fight off other males. I would guess it makes them better at killing elk and moose too to get high value food. The small female need to prepare to birth cubs during hibernation an provide extra calories for them, being small serves her well. There isn't competition between females because they don't care who the father is.

>>4908978
>. A tradeoff to have the strength to fight off other males
but this only is a thing because they evolved to fight each other, it cannot be the point itself

>>4908963
They don’t. They reject gimpy mates.

>>4909018
it can, nature isnt very complex in its reasoning, it does what it does because thats what it does; size, much like intelligence, pays out in dividends; when youre big nobody wants to fuck with you so you can steal other people food and get bigger
>>4908963
not really, females have a vested interest in the quality of their children too, so in many cases theyre very picky about who they mate with

>>4908958
>use technical jargon incorrectly in attempts to impress
>end up looking stupid instead
>other handicapped people don't see the error and defend you
Happens constantly here and it's funny

You'd think if OP wants to pretend to be an academic he would be open to advice when he makes dumb mistakes but instead he reinforces his tells by insisting they're not mistakes

And that's funny too
But over time it turns the board into a collection of pseudointellectual gibberish no outsider can cut through

>>4908409
Females find bigger males hotter

>>4908409
Females are more genetically valuable than males. If you had a tribe that had lost all but one male he could still have multiple children a year if there were enough women. If there was only one woman left then the birthrate wont increase no matter how many men are there. It makes sense to prioritise one sex and split the risk.

>>4909104
Its not about worth. Just survival rates in certain conditions. There is no value judgement here. There is no purpose unless god wants to come down here and say yeah the bible got fudged, but i did the evolution thing. This is an important distinction.

The one male with many females could have countless worthless offspring doomed to be dumb animals that will never amount to anything greater than dirt. They could be fragile and the end of their species given a slight change. This is the fate of most species and why no one intelligent views birthrates as a measure of worth. The one female having less offspring than the harem could yet be the surviving line. And has been many times. What shitty woman would want to be part of a harem? She cant be that great, and neither can her offspring.

>>4908877
then why duck females are evolving longer and more twisted vaginas to try to counter rape attempts?
it's an arms race between rape attempts and rape defense

>>4909018
That’s exactly the point itself. Being bigger is better for fighting, so it’s selected for
>>4909024
No they don’t. Look up faeder males in things like birds and antelope
>>4909031
>so in many cases theyre very picky about who they mate with
In things like peacocks sure. In things like big cats and bears not so much

>>4909076
OP isn’t pretending to be an academic, you’re just having a schizophrenic meltdown about something that wasn’t even the topic of discussion. You are the only person here trying to sound smart and failing

>>4909121
>OP isn’t pretending to be an academic
then why use terms he doesn't fully understand in ways nobody else does? What's the point of using a word designed for a specific concept if you're going to use it in unusual contexts?

the only reason I can think of is to try to impress people with how learned you are,
and that only works if you use the word the same way learned people do.

>>4909121
>you’re just having a schizophrenic meltdown about something that wasn’t even the topic of discussion
you're the ones that concentrated on my grammatical criticisms while ignoring my comments on biology.

that's on you, not me. I pointed out the oddity of OP's phrasing and then moved on.

>>4909122
>then why use terms he doesn't fully understand in ways nobody else does?
He didn’t? He asked about dimorphism in animals like leopards, so size. Everyone seems to have gotten his meaning except you and before you act like nobody else knows there’s more than one type of dimorphism, colourful birds had already been mentioned in the thread by at least two people they just weren’t the focus of discussion because everyone got that they weren’t very relevant to OP’s question
>I pointed out the oddity of OP's phrasing and then moved on
No you didn’t you retard, you started shit flinging and bitching about being banned for like 30 replies straight with somebody

>>4909128
>you started shit flinging and bitching about being banned for like 30 replies straight with somebody
that's what I said

I remarked on OP's wrong use of a word and I moved on

then some retard ignored my comments about biology and went off for hours about how OP's usage is correct

just like you're doing now.

>>4909130
You came in to try sound smart by correcting something that didn’t need to be corrected. Dimorphism in size is sexual dimorphism. OP asked about leopards and tigers, not peacocks and turkeys.
You tried to act like nobody in the thread knew there was more than one kind of dimorphism. Everybody knows that, you’re not special. You missed two replies who already talked about other kinds of dimorphism in birds and acted like nobody else had said anything about it prior to your entry.

Surprise! You’re the retard

>>4909135
>You came in to try sound smart by correcting something that didn’t need to be corrected.
nothing here NEEDS to be corrected

this is a forum for childish misunderstandings of nature populated by literal retards and third worlders discussing things they don't begin to understand. That's the only appeal. You sit here all day and recite wrong or incomplete understandings back and forth like it means anything. Probably sit up nights trying to think of new childish questions to ask each other so you can show off your creationist tier knowledge.

You're a clown in a clown car. Sometimes it's fun to see if you understand that. You generally don't. But I'd bet money you'll still be here and be a clown 20 years from now.

>>4909136
>You generally don't. But I'd bet money you'll still be here and be a clown 20 years from now
this is funny coming from an old man who’s apparently been here for many years and routinely makes a fool of himself

>>4909137
It's just you and me here buddy
I'll probably be here laughing at you on my deathbed

>>4909138
Keep telling yourself that

>>4909139
Honestly if you gave up on pretending to have the same education I actually have I'd find you way less interesting. Maybe one day you'll learn to laugh at yourself and realize you don't need a degree in evolution to be respected. And if that happens I'll disappear out of boredom. But I doubt you're capable of it. That would require honestly thinking about yourself, and you likely wouldn't survive it.

>>4909142
When did I ever say I had the same education as you and how is that relevant?

>>4908409
Because it allows genetic variation to occur more spontaneous along the male line. Female selects what's working for given situation every generation so you have a sort of baked in evolution engine even in complex animals that would otherwise need more generations to evolve in any significant way. An extreme example of the opposite is animals that reproduce asexually usually don't have enough genetic variation and eventually wind up going extinct when conditions change enough.

File: 1633919716760.jpg (396 KB, 1076x710)

396 KB JPG

Animals and nature

>>4909155
>When did I ever say I had the same education as you
any time I say
>that's not how academics use that jargon
and you argue with me, you are saying you have the same education I do
>and how is that relevant?
it's utterly irrelevant except when you choose to argue with me about how academics use a particular bit of jargon

and since this board is self-taught, and loves to appear educated, you guys often use jargon in odd or wrong ways and we get to argue about it. You use big words trying to appear educated, and you use them in weird ways making you appear uneducated, and I find entertainment watching you. Presumably you do that here because you wouldn't be allowed to do it on other websites. And that's fun too. A little exercise in what's wrong with anonymity.

>>4909186
Nobody in this thread is talking about how academics use the word. And now you’re saying I’m the one using big words to appear educated and not OP. You also thought I was a janny and probably also paleoschizo. Stop pretending to know who you’re arguing with

>>4909204
>I'm not OP
>I'm not paleoschizo
>I'm not the janny
>I'm not bugguy
>I just happen to post retarded pseudoscience all day every day here for the last decade and a half
>and defend retards that totally aren't me
>there's tons of other people just like me here
>I swear

>>4908409
Handicap principle. The one that needs to take care of the offspring is build to survive, the other one can take care of the selection process.

>>4909208
>I just happen to post retarded pseudoscience all day every day here for the last decade and a half
I haven’t been here that long nor do I make threads. You have the same schizophrenia ad paleoschizo

>>4909224
>You have the same schizophrenia ad paleoschizo
and you have pictures of me from 15 years ago saved on your hard drive. Even my wife doesn't lick my ass as hard as you do.

File: screencap_f67.jpg (18 KB, 304x395)

18 KB JPG

>>4909229
Try again

>>4908877
>>4908883
>>4908899
>>4908901
>>4908904
>>4908912
>>4908914
>>4908916
>>4908934
>>4909076
holy autism meltie

>>4909240
projection

you don't know what I'm doing or why so you imagine your own insecurities and anger on me.

I don't actually have insecurities or anger. I state facts without having any feelings about them. The fact is OP used the word "dimorphism" in a clumsy and odd way when a normal scientist would use it as the adjective "dimorphic" and provide the specifics also as adjectives.

this is funny, and a clear indication that OP is using words he's not familiar with. And it's weird nobody here had the knowledge to point it out. Probably because nobody here recognized the clumsiness of OP's usage. Because nobody here is directly familiar with any of the millions of pages of published science on the topic. And that's also funny.
A pack of autistic retards pretending to be educated by discussing science they have never read and have no intention of ever reading. It's also very shallow and disappointing. People trying to talk science for show rather than because it actually interests them. Nobody is impressed, and anyone with an actual interest is chased off. Which is fine by you guys, you don't want people that actually read science coming in here and shattering the illusion of your expertise.

4chan as a site might not agree with you systematically chasing educated people off the board, because it makes the place dumber, smaller, and poorer, but that's their problem, not mine. It's a normal result of free speech. It dives to the lowest possible level pretty quickly.

>>4909380
You’re not doing yourself any favours at convincing people you’re not autistic

>>4909240
yep thats paleoschizo alright!

>>4909408
who said I'm not autistic?

everyone here is autistic
I have enough self-awareness to see that we're all ridiculous, and to laugh at the ones pretending to be smart.
bonus points me, I see that all of you are at least as stupid as me and most of you are much worse.

size related dimorphism. Not just dimorphic but SIZE RELATED DIMORPHISM. Be specific or you look stupid when you're trying so very hard to appear smart.

>>4909461
>yep thats paleoschizo alright!
OP is paleoschizo
I'm more of a grammar nazi. And a philosophy of science nazi. Paleoschizo doesn't understand either topic. He thinks semantics doesn't matter. As if anything can be measured without semantics. You have to define your metric first. Paleschizo is insane. Not capable of defining metrics or working semantics. Incapable of science because his mind is too soft for rigor.

same with the dumbasses making value judgments itt. As if nature shares your values. Your values need to fuck off before you can even begin to think about nature.
That's the biggest tell. Biologists don't talk values. We talk survival and reproduction. Rape doesn't matter, harems don't matter. You dumbasses are so far off base no biologist would ever want to talk to you. Paleoschizo is the worst of you, but you all suck ass when it comes to biology. And paleoschizo is probably just pretending to be stupid for the (You)'s

there is one person here that might pass 8th grade bio, and he's probably also the paleoschizo (99.99999%)
none of you would get into college in the US.

>>4909523
>none of you would get into college in the US.

This poster comes close because he mentions one of several possible mechanisms
>>4908417
>Males have to constantly fight each other for hopes of pussy

this poster also names another mechanism
>>4909209
>Handicap principle.
but then he fucks it up by explaining it wrong.

>>4909525
>then he fucks it up by explaining it wrong.
not exactly wrong, per se
just incomplete

the larger male advertises his fitness (honest signaling) by his size

being bigger isn't an advantage, in fact it's a disadvantage (Gould on sexual selection and handicap). it proves his fitness to other bears both male and female. Even though it costs him to prove his fitness (handicap principle)

>>4909527
Then we have Cope

who pointed out in the 1800's how being bigger is more useful than being smaller for both predator and prey (Cope's Rule). But also pointed out that being bigger is a specialization, and more specialized animals go extinct faster.

>>4909529
finally we have Bergmann's Rule and Dolo's Law as it pertains to animals living in the arctic

but all of this is way above /an/'s ability to digest at a 3rd grade reading level and an (at best) 8th grade bio level

>>4909531
>finally we have Bergmann's Rule and Dolo's Law as it pertains to animals living in the arctic
this would indicate that bears should become less dimorphic in size as we move south

this is easy to test and in fact has already been tested.

not that anyone here would know that.

but if that were the case, then size differences could largely be chalked up to cliimate.

>>4909532
>but if that were the case, then size differences could largely be chalked up to cliimate.
And indeed if size related dimorphism in bears is regulated by climate,

we could expect such size differences to be reduced as the climate warms. or increased if the climate becomes colder

but that's all way above /an/'s average education, and not really important to anyone here who's just trying to look smart to the other 2 people on the board.

>>4909533
but sure, let's talk about rape and harems and female choice because you faggots here are all incels that can't get any pussy and wish you were bigger

right?
right?

>>4909534
bunch of pathetic losers on this board pretending to know anything about nature when they can't even get laid with a human.

>>4909535
biology can't be interpreted through the lens of your own failures as a human

that's paleoschizo's error. Nature doesn't exist to justify your politics, morality, or weaknesses.
End of today's biology lesson. Hope that helps.

>>4909523
>OP is paleoschizo
Unlikely. You have no idea who anyone in this thread is. You’ve accused me of being OP, paleoschizo and a janny none of which are correct. Not everyone who thinks you’re a retard is one of your online nemeses
>>4909533
>being bigger isn't an advantage, in fact it's a disadvantage (Gould on sexual selection and handicap)
This has already been mentioned
>it proves his fitness to other bears both male and female. Even though it costs him to prove his fitness (handicap principle)
So has this. You bring nothing new to this discussion that’s relevant
>>4909529
>>4909531
>>4909532
>>4909533
None of these are relevant, also:
>this would indicate that bears should become less dimorphic in size as we move south
This is incorrect in the case of brown bears. Sexual dimorphism is not so much related to climate as it is the availability of abundant marine-based protein like salmon. Male Alaskan peninsula brown bears are on average 1.7 times the size of females, whereas in northern Canada male barren ground grizzlies are on average only 1.2 times the size of females
>this is easy to test and in fact has already been tested
(lol)
>finally we have Bergmann's Rule and Dolo's Law as it pertains to animals living in the arctic
Your suggestion that they’re bigger in the Arctic and everybody else is too uneducated to know about it is also incorrect in the case of brown bears. The barren ground grizzly bears which live at the highest latitudes are the smallest of all the North American brown bears, being about the same size on average as a lion or tiger and around half the size of the Kodiak bears or Alaskan peninsula brown bears who live further south. Bergmann’s rule is something anyone who’s ever watched pop sci videos on youtube would know about, stop acting like it’s some insider information you have
>but all of this is way above /an/'s ability to digest at a 3rd grade reading level and an (at best) 8th grade bio level
That didn’t age well

>>4909532
>this would indicate that bears should become less dimorphic in size as we move south
>this is easy to test and in fact has already been tested.
and that's the real answer to OP's inane question.

Size related dimorphism in bears is regulated by climate per Bergmann's Rule with contributing factors of handicap principle, sexual selection, and resource scarcity.

>>4909541
>Bergmann’s rule is something anyone who’s ever watched pop sci videos on youtube would know about, stop acting like it’s some insider information you have
you are the only person I have seen mention it in the last 15 years.

making you smarter than anyone else on /an/ so long as I go away

congrats. That's a really high bar

in the US we expect children to surpass you and this board by the age of 14

>>4909543
>Size related dimorphism in bears is regulated by climate per Bergmann's Rule with contributing factors of handicap principle, sexual selection, and resource scarcity
>and that's the real answer to OP's inane question
It’s not the answer since he’s not just asking about bears. He also asked about leopards for example, and sub-Saharan leopards have some of the most extreme difference in size between sexes of any cat, even more so than lions and tigers. Somehow I doubt Bergmann’s rule is holding true there on the African savannah. Bergmann’s rule is pretty irrelevant here, direct sexual competition and the factors surrounding is what’s relevant
>>4909544
Looking it up on an incomplete archive shows plenty of results. It is not a high bar, not does knowing about it make you or I special when that’s middle school tier biology

>>4909546
apologies but if I look it up I find 99 times I said it and one time you did.

that's the problem with technical talk in /an/ archives
most of the posts are just me

>>4909547
Sure, sure it’s all you. We all totally believe your self aggrandising bullshit

>>4909548
believe what you want

when I go away you spend years talking to yourself. The only question is why?

>>4909549
>still pretending to know who it is you’re talking to
As I said, equally as schizophrenic as paleoschizo

>>4909550
perhaps you're right, I wouldn't know for sure.
but I'm an odds guy
and odds are you're alone here and think you're king of the dog-fuckers or something.

>>4909551
Sorry but I generally don’t engage in cat and dog threads

>>4909553
I'll give you the janny get

>>4909554
What is that even supposed to mean

>>4909553
>Sorry but I generally don’t engage in cat and dog threads
you piss your pants for weeks if someone suggests dog and cat intelligence can't be compared.

>>4909557
>schizophrenia again
They can’t be compared. Dogs are smarter. Wild dogs are especially smarter. Raccoons and bears are smarter again

>>4909558
gotta go to work for money

you have to go to work FOR FREE

Have a good evening paleo-genius. Don't ban me ok? I can phonepost but at my age the keyboard is hard to read.

>>4909559
>more schizophrenia
Stick to dinosaurs next time, bears clearly aren’t your area

>>4909560
suck a dick, pussy is clearly not your area

>>4909557
Most people with a brain agree that cats are significantly dumber than dogs and they are fully comparable. A cat does not have mouse catching intelligence or whatever. It has more developed motor skills and dramatically inferior intelligence.

>>4909562
kek

>>4909561
Kek stay mad

>>4909565
lol
if you weren't such an argumentative asshole you'd agree with me and I know it

anyways have a good night. Do think of a stiff cock hitting your hard palate. I think you'll find it suits you.

>>4909567
Why do you keep coming back to announce your departure? Don’t get so mad
>if you weren't such an argumentative asshole you'd agree with me and I know it
Why would I agree with someone who’s wrong? Both in this thread and several previous

>>4909569
because being wrong about jaguars doesn't make me wrong about bears

OP was so specific his initial question covers THE ENTIRETY OF LIVING ORGANISMS.

You can find any number of cases where I'm wrong when discussing ALL OF TERRESTRIAL LIFE.

and any retard would see that.

I make my own schedule, if you keep presenting retarded scenarios I might keep responding

>>4909572
>because being wrong about jaguars doesn't make me wrong about bears
But you are wrong about bears? I just explained that the difference in size between sexes doesn’t increase as you go further north in brown bears, nor are brown bears larger in general as you go further north
>OP was so specific his initial question covers THE ENTIRETY OF LIVING ORGANISMS. You can find any number of cases where I'm wrong when discussing ALL OF TERRESTRIAL LIFE.
He was pretty clear about referring to large solitary predators

>>4909567
Straight men dont describe sucking dick in this much detail. You’re giving off the same vibes as the anti-dog cat schizo that ended up getting banned for defending bestiality and frequenting an animal porn thread on /trash/.

He always had the most detailed and lingo-ridden descriptions of what everyone else was supposedly into. Some say, if you caught him in a mood he would describe the exact number of hairs on the pair of dog balls he had no interest in (but everyone else was totally head over heels for). Although it was unintelligible at times (what the fuck is a cookie)

>>4909574
>I just explained that the difference in size between sexes doesn’t increase as you go further north in brown bears, nor are brown bears larger in general as you go further north
you didn't touch on what happens if you go south, did you?

>>4909575
don't know, wasn't there

are you suggesting there's only 3 people on 4chan in its entirety?

>>4909578
There are thousands of people, and a few hundred schizos most of whom are essentially the same person. But every now and then, in that little lake of narrative spinning rumor spreading self obsessed samefags, there is born a fish that is undeniably true to itself, and cat-schizo was one of them. He got banned talking about what he loved. Molesting pets. RIP.

>>4909576
>you didn't touch on what happens if you go south, did you?
there’s not a whole lot of extreme difference as you go south. Mexican brown bears were once thought to be the size of Kodiak bears based on stories, but more recent examination of museum specimens suggest they’re no bigger than a brown bear you’d find in Montana. Size is linked to food availability first and foremost. In your rush to try sound smart you’ve stumbled into one of the absolute worst examples you could’ve picked about Bergmann’s rule, and you even had the audacity to say it’s “easy to test and has been tested” as if you’d ever read a paper compiling brown bear size records

>>4909580
>Size is linked to food availability first and foremost.
>>4909543
>and resource scarcity.


>as if you’d ever read a paper compiling brown bear size records
are records averages?

>>4909582
>and resource scarcity
Which you conveniently only added after I explained what you were wrong about in regard to brown bear sizes. You also seem to be saying it’s just a contributing factor alongside Bergmann’s rule which was the part you were really hammering home, when in reality it’s not just a contributor but the main driver and Bergmann’s rule hardly applies
>are records averages?
Records as in recorded data, not record breaking sizes. That is why I specified average sizes when talking about barren ground vs Alaskan peninsula size differences

>>4909580
the problem is if you go south the species shift to a less dimorphic one (size related).

>>4909584
>when in reality it’s not just a contributor but the main driver and Bergmann’s rule hardly applies
kek

you think one influence is more important than others when the others drive the one

it's cute.

bergmann's rule is occasionally true BECAUSE of other factors including sexual selection and resource scarcity

but because you want to win an argument you don't understand truth, and block it.

>>4908409
>what's the point of sexual dimorphism
To put gay ass females in their rightful place.

>>4909585
>source: my hairy ass
Interior grizzlies from the lower 48 are much less dimorphic than the Alaskan peninsula bears, but aren’t that different to the barren ground bears. Again you are making shit up as you go along
>>4909587
>you think one influence is more important than others when the others drive the one
Because it is more important. Not all factors are equally important just because they’re all still factors
>it's cute
What’s cute is you pretending you have a job to go to, yet are still here arguing about this
>bergmann's rule is occasionally true BECAUSE of other factors including sexual selection and resource scarcity
It’s occasionally true regardless of those factors as well
>but because you want to win an argument you don't understand truth, and block it
I’m not sure there’s much left to win. All you’ve done is demonstrate you aren’t as well educated on the topic as you thought

>>4909584
I'm actually going to work or to get laid now

but the mistake I seem to see you making is imagining the "RULES" stand alone.

that's bullshit.

cope's rule, bergmann's rule, they're not actually rules

what is the mechanism? What makes those "rules" work?
Gould talks about this and so does dawkins

the mechanism is sexual selection and resource availability. The rules aren't magic. They aren't right or wrong. They operate on sexual selection and resources.

>>4909593
>All you’ve done is demonstrate you aren’t as well educated on the topic as you thought
I dream of finding someone more knowledgeable than me.

so far no joy

>>4909594
>I'm actually going to work or to get laid now
(Unfortunately, he did not get laid and went to bed seething in anger and live unhappily ever after)
>but the mistake I seem to see you making is imagining the "RULES" stand alone.
No, I’m not. I’m well aware that they are not universal and there are plenty of exceptions and variables. The point is that you brought those rules into the discussion to show off how smart you are by using brown bears as an example, talking about the relation both overall size and size dimorphism had with higher latitudes/colder climates. You picked one of the worst exceptions to Bergmann’s rule and spoke like you knew all about it, when what you were saying was the exact opposite of reality. Then you tried to add that these rules act in conjunction with other factors only after being told you were entirely wrong. On top of that you had already accused people of trying to act smart by talking about things they didn’t know about and said everyone else was just uneducated. You’re making a fucking joke of yourself and don’t seem to realise
>>4909595
This is what I meant by narcissism

A fairly interesting and mostly civil thread -by this board’s standards- turned into an old man ranting and shitting himself in just 25 replies. Now at 141 replies just 3 days later and it’s not even about dinosaurs. This has to be a new record! Congratulations to everyone involved, this is a true /an/ work of art

>>4909598
Just waiting for mods to delete the board so I can think of your loss

Okay let's get back to the topic, do male bears recognise cubs they sired? Or would they kill them too?

>>4909613
What an interesting question,
I bet Google can't even answer that one!

Oh shit. Nevermind