Just finished watching it. There is an indication of a season 2 like last time, but just an indication.Genuine positives:>Smilodon and Mammoth scenes>Gigantopithecus is the GOAT!>Humans teased in the last episode>Overall visual porn>Some other scenes here and there, kinda subjective>There are kindo of subtle homages to WWB and paintings of Charles R. Knight, but that might just be me not seeing things as they areNow to whining lol. Only thing that sticks out is basically just the visual porn of it all and high quality models and animations. Story telling is all over the place and pacing is the same as with last two seasons, but it doesnt seem to work here that good for this period and these animals.There is an awful lot of patterns you will notice while watching, like constantly:>Single mother and children scenes occupy majority of every episode>Strong emphasis of family unit with a female leader>Predators failing almost every single hunt (Giant Foosa was the worst offender honestly of how scene unfolded, its just cheap af, you will see for youselves)>Infants survive every single encounter against a predator. I know people were complaining about this, but im not sure getting rid of it completely was a good ideaThere is a way to justify every one of these if you want, but once you notice it, well its not that difficult, it literally pokes you right in the eyes and ears, it insults the intelligence. Everything is kind of dumbed down. Also not every episode is the same runtime, they vary by almost 4-5 minutes in length, some more some less. And oh God the after episode segments are just awful, better skip them entirely, besides Darren Naish everyone else is just white liberal women, some random ass black guy and a tranny. This is nothing definitve, just a fresh stream of thoughts about the series right after watching it. See it for yourselves anons.
A hypothetical "alert" posture for a T. Rex (4 meters tall at the hips and 13 meters long). It's been theorized that when standing and walking slowly, theropods may have angled their thorax upwards by an angle of 10 degrees for a better view of potential threats and prey. Its 4-foot-long S-shaped neck allowed it to carry its head high above shoulder level.
>>5077912I already got filtered by this gross, jewish series when they trooned out pteranodons.
>>5077978Their closest living relatives are all highly prone to faggotry
>>5077978Those were femboy pterosaurs you uncultured ape
>>5077912Yea I dislike how sanitized it was compared to, for instance, walking with beasts. Like every time they do that thing where you think the child might die the tension does not work because they literally always survive. Other than that, I actually liked it quite a bit, but maybe that's just cause I'm a sucker for the Pleistocene.
ohhhhohohohooomy shaylaaaaaaa
>>5078007Could you imagine if they did a scene like this in the modern day?>toes who nose...
>>5077912>The series puts a mother and her cubs in danger for the fifth time, but they're saved by the power of the script, again.>Oh wow, that was suspenseful!You know what would have been interesting? To see one of the cubs die!
>>5078017For fucks sake at least make it happen once or twice. Like the mammoth was inhaling a shitton of sand as sharp as glass, why was it able to just get back up as soon as it rained?
>>5078007>>5078017This is genuinely strange. The first two seasons had so many children dying that it was a meme unto itself, why backpedal?
>>5078023>scaly baby dies = potentially sadge>woolly baby dies = definitively sadgesimple logic
>>5078033This is made even funnier by the fact that (I'm pretty sure) the only baby that actually died in this entire thing was a Megalania cannibalizing its own hatchling right before it failed to catch some tree kangaroos lmfao.
>>5077912I still don't get why Enhydriodon was even included despite it being an early pleistocene animal. Gigantopithecus makes some amount of sense because its segment focused on the whole "dying breed" aspect to the shrinking of forests around that time, but the otters just came in, beat the shit out of some cats, and the segment ended with the narrator calling them the new top dogs of Africa. Like, no? If they wanted to show some extinct African megafauna I dunno why they didn't just go with something like the Atlas Bear or Sivatherium or something.
>>5078044Africa segment was extremely dissapointing and lack luster. It doesnt feel African at all. The grit and atmosphere of WWB episode set in Africa is nowhere to be found. Also yes, Sivatherium is a shame for not being included.
>>5078035Actually TWO baby deaths happened. The Megalania cannibalism and the Thylacoleo successfully ambushing the Procoptodon baby.Conclusion, Australia is where babies go to die in the Ice Age.
>>5078035>>5078060Kind of disappointing that the best megalania design ever put on tv is limited to a short segment where it hunts a tiny animal
>>5078070Also them giving Arctotherium/Arctodus the designated "largest predator of the show" roll was such bs. Larger bear species (that live inland) substitute way more of their diets with plants compared to smaller more carnivorous bears, so they're 100% omnivores and potentially more herbivorous than carnivorous. It's not like Megalania is that much smaller than short faced bears anyhow, and it was an obligate carnivore and an active hunter which rarely if ever scavenged! I don't mean to sound too nitpicky since I liked this season quite a bit, but istg I was about to lose my shit with how many saber toothed cat scenes there were compared to literally everything else, even T-rex didn't steal the show that much.
>>5078044I think the thing that pisses me off the most about that is that there was already a giant otter that existed in the late pleistocene called megalenhydris! Like what even was the point?!?!
>>5078017The procoptodon joey had it comin I tell ya
>>5078075marsupials are just awful
>>5078073I'm just glad they didn't do the mistake of >le cats dominated le terror birds into oblivionthat LOOP made
>>5077912Any mega?
>>5078078Psilopterus being put in there as an intelligent mesopredetor was honestly one of my favorite parts tbqh.
>>5078080I went to EXT to download.
>>5078080You can just watch it on flixbaba if you have an adblocker.
>>5078073>which rarely if ever scavengedVaranids are supreme scavengers. It probably did so all the time
>>5078073Arctotherium was a predator though. Predator =/= carnivore
>>5078074Speaking of, how come there was only one marine segment in this entire thing? Like yea I get that the oceans weren't affected nearly as bad by the holocene extinctions, but I feel like more couldn't been done than just the sea cows. Like what about a scene with some great auks fishing? Or what if we got to see that one marine gharial in Papua? I'm not asking for a whole episode on the oceans or anything, just a few more scenes here or there would've been nice.
>>5077912I think (or at least hope) they may do a 2nd series like last time. There's certainly more they could do and explore.Also the scenes including IRL animals are pretty good, at least the ones I've seen.
>>5077912>>5078017dear God,female empowerment crap even in documentaries about non-humans prehistoric animals even to hell with BBC!!
>visual porn
>>5078120Bold of you to assume they were ever gonna stop at modern first world Europeans. Its like a virus. Thats the point of global homosexual empire. Infect the past, present and the future.
>>5078095The Murua Gharial is seriously underrated
>>5078018>It rains after a sandstorm.>Unlikely.Like I said, the power of the script.Besides, these mammoths are weird, "We never leave anyone behind, oh wait, yes we do."
Actually could we pour one out for Macrauchenia?Whoever wrote the episode scripts must've had a bone to pick with it since it just kept dying everytime it shows up.
>>5078148Oh yeah, Macrhauchenia being cannon fodder is one more downside to the entire thing.>gets a updated design>keeps just dyingsuch disrespect.
>>5078148They mentioned in one of the after episode segments that animals like macrauchenia suffered from the Great American Biotic Interchange due to the introduction of new predators they were unable to counter. Which just isn't true since macrauchenia and toxodon were the only meridiungulates that COULD adapt which is why they evolved alongside the North American animals and made it all the way into the late pleistocene when humans arrived.
>>5078170Litopterns outlived Smilodons by some estimates well into holocene iirc>t. smilodon enjoyer.
Is he our guy?
>>5078191Actually the best segment in the entire season honestly. Bit depressing, but kino, fits narratively really well.
Why didn't they include any hominins?
>>5078231Because there's already a ton of docs about anthropology, I'm personally glad they stuck to fauna and didn't put a ton of humans.
>>5077912Love how teratorns are portrayed as agile aerial predators instead of just vultures but bigger
>>5078060Yeah I'm pretty convinced every "Traditionally cute" baby was straight up not allowed to die, while the odd ones out like Megalania/Procoptodon served the role of sacrificial lamb to meet an infanticide quota.>Megalania hatchling is a lizard and reptiles are gross so we can show that getting eaten.>Procoptodon is an off-putting weirdo creature and even the joey looks odd so we can show that dying.It's a very noticeable contrast when you compare them to the scenes of cute and cuddly bear/smilodon cubs, elephant/rhino calves, or sloth and moa babies making it out of ridiculous situations alive.
>>5078242Same, they were basically like a cross between giant caracaras and golden eagles with how they hunted in the air and on the ground. Kinda would've preferred them talking about how it was the largest flying thing on earth at that point though.
>>5077978>troons being deceptive freakswhat did they mean by this
>>5077978The worst part of this is the scene plagarized from Blue Planet II with male cuttlefish disguising themselves as females to mate with other females, but they reskinned them as pteranodons.BUT they added the part where the big alpha male “mistakes” a small male for a female and tries to mate with him, that didn’t happen in the squid one as the squid adaptation was for small males to slip in unseen to mate with females, the big boss squids weren’t swimming around looking for femboy squids, it’s just a surface level deception and male squids will drive away those false males if they detect them.This pteranodon thing was just a gross political sex scene with animals made by creepy jews and other hateful political zealots uninterested with an accurate portrayal of these extinct animals and are more concerned with grooming the children trying to watch the dinosaur show and instead have to watch gay pteranodon rape.
man, cats had it hard this season.
>>5078298>Homotherium pack taking down an adult mammoth.>Smilodon taking down a Macrhauchenia being one of the few clean successful hunts shown.>Smilodon mom and her cubs somehow surviving waltzing into a tar pit and being attacked by dire wolves.They had it pretty good whenever baby plot armor wasn't involved. Toughest shit was probably the African Homotheriums getting their shit pushed in by time displaced giant otters. That entire sequence kind of felt like them being put on the receiving end of the Terror Bird treatment, ironically.
>>5078296It was inspired by Calidris pugnax.
>>5078301No it was inspired by these squid in another planet earth show they just lazily reused the idea. And the birds you mentioned aren’t gay bulls looking to rape twinks like the pteranodons either. Just shut the fuck up and quit disingenuously trying to defend this weird shit.
>>5078296That behaviour is far from unique to cuttlefish>>5078302>the birds you mentioned aren’t gay bulls looking to rape twinks>The faeders are sometimes mounted by independent or satellite males, but are as often "on top" in homosexual mountings as the ruffed males, suggesting that their true identity is known by the other malesThey literally are though
>prehistoric planet season 3 abridged:
>>5078304yup birds rape each other they’re not bull faggots looking for “passing” pteranotranniesnot only that point being this rare and bizarre adaptation is equally bizarre to place into a fictional setting with an extinct animal you’re trying to recreate, might as well make pteranodon males “give birth” like male seahorses do, it’s in the animal kingdom chud! it’s all just weird political diarrhea to groom kids just trying to watch some dinosaurs could have had some pteranodons guarding their eggs like 99.99999% of birds and other similar animals but instead we had to have a trannydon avoiding being clocked by the totally straight bull wanting to have cuttlefish ass sex with the trannyjust leap off a cliff please and stop being disingenuous if they wanted it to be actually realistic have the pteranodon rip the little trannydon into pieces and have it rape the body
>>5078324>yup birds rape each other they’re not bull faggots looking for “passing” pteranotranniesThey rape each other but they’re not looking for passing individuals to rape?>not only that point being this rare and bizarre adaptationFemale mimics occur in cuttlefish, lizards, birds, antelopes, etc. It’s hardly rare>could have had some pteranodons guarding their eggs like 99.99999% of birds and other similar animalsThey did have this in the show though>if they wanted it to be actually realistic have the pteranodon rip the little trannydon into piecesThis doesn’t happen with the faeders though. That’s just having violence for the sake of violence>and have it rape the bodyPlease keep your fantasies to yourself, tranny rapist anon
>>5078299>Homotherium pack taking down an adult mammothSurely not a healthy adult male?
>>5078387nah they messed him up earlier in the episode and came back to finish him off as the end
I liked it but it's not as good as Walking With Beasts. it feels almost disneyified sometimes in how sanitised it is compared to *any wildlife doc ever*
>>5078397So it was the same pack and they initially attacked a bull mammoth when he was healthy? I haven't watched it yet but I find that scenario unlikely.
>>5078409Modern lions are capable of killing bull elephants (although it's incredibly rare), and homotherium was far stronger than a lion.
>>5078420No they aren't. Even the lion prides that specialize in hunting elephants have to carefully pick out smaller sub-adults and juveniles to target because even the larger sub-adults are too big for them. Even if they could, it's still an implausible scenario because taking down a bull elephant risks costly losses to the pride, so why would they try hunting literally the worst possible choice of prey when there's easier prey?
>>5078420>Modern lions are capable of killing bull elephants (although it's incredibly rare)There’s exactly one record of this and it was a bull that had already been mortally wounded by another elephant. Aside from that even large prides that are practiced elephant killers will avoid adult male elephants>homotherium was far stronger than a lionIt was about the same size as if not slightly smaller than a lion with a weaker bite and blunter claws
>>5078422https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4nG4JsAyKY
>>5078493Did you even watch the clip before posting it? Exactly what I described happened.>One of them is alone, but it's too big for the lions to tackle. This one looks a little smaller.I'm also pretty sure it's a female elephant.
>>5078422The scene takes place in the middle of winter when every animal there is presumably in a shitty place. Scimitar cats are hungry and Mammoths have been on a constant march to migrate. Plus there's a timeskip between the two attacks where the male mammoths wounds from the first attack become more grisly and noticeable during the second, suggesting they festered and weakened him. It's obviously not something they did on a daily basis but I think it was portrayed well. Unlikely sure, but documentaries are all about portraying the once in a lifetime events you would rarely actually witness in nature. The fact lions do it IRL is enough precedent to justify it with saber cats, especially since those evolved specifically to hunt megafauna.
>>5078191I don't love that they gave him straight up orangutan noises but other than that it is a perfect design
>>5078507It is not something lions do IRL. Lions never target healthy bulls, and when the elephant hunt does succeed, it's by a large pride of around 30 lions with multiple males. Lions will hunt literally anything else before trying a full grown bull elephant, including other non-bull elephants.
>>5078536>It is not something lions do IRL. Lions never target healthy bulls, and when the elephant hunt does succeed, it's by a large pride of around 30 lions with multiple males. Lions will hunt literally anything else before trying a full grown bull elephant, including other non-bull elephants.I don't care about the specifics, I just think that the documentary portrays the scene well enough to be believable. Lions show that felines could potentially take down a proboscidean with numbers and that's what the documentary goes with for their scene. Maybe it would be slightly better if they included the other variables you mentioned, like the cats having a way more massive group, or the hunted elephant being a female or youngster. But it's not like excluding those things makes the entire scene egregious. In the end the scene is about different species that aren't lions or African Elephants, so it's completely reasonable to show slightly different circumstances/dynamics. We have no way of knowing the absolute reality, since they went extinct thousands of years ago. Frankly I would argue that you risk making the scene look more unbelievable by making it a carbon copy of an interaction between similar extant animals.
>>5077978>trooned out pteranodonswatqrd?
>>5078556Herehttps://youtu.be/ECYOwyj9tJY?si=pg7DoUU-O1_xSIUK
Feels like it was made with generalised audience feedback, they asked sentimental women and they said they didn't like all the animals mating and killing each other. Walking with series still reigns king. The storytelling is just very underwhelming. I don't know if anyone else noticed but the actual narration was really vapid too, a lot of lines added nothing. I did find the speculation less obnoxious though this season. Someone on here also mentioned how annoying modern documentary sound design is, and I can't unhear it.It's not a documentary for paelontology fans. Modern nature documentaries are just really disappointing. The CGI is beautiful though, easily the best it's ever looked. Just a shame how sanitised it feels. Imagine the endless hard work the artists put into this, just for the script to be ghostwritten by ai.7.5/10 (only because I like the cenozoic a lot)-I'd like to see paleozoic season next, although doubt they will because their style of storytelling relies on personifying the animals as much as possible, good luck making a sympathetic salamander out of tiiktalic.
>>5078569Prehistoric Planet: Permian could be possible
>>5078569>Feels like it was made with generalised audience feedback, they asked sentimental women and they said they didn't like all the animals mating and killing each other. Walking with series still reigns king.I don't want to be a nostalgiafag but PP really made me realize that I'm never gonna relive the stuff of my childhood. It's still good in it's own way of course, but the world has changed to where we're just not gonna get things like the Walking With series again. I don't we'll ever see nitty gritty stuff like the Andrewsarchus fighting over a dead brontothere calf, or the Opthalmosaurus mother being killed mid-labor. Feels strange since I always thought prehistory was niche enough that it'd be unaffected by those major shifts in media production.
>>5078569>tfw a movie made for children is more violent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLoJCgW-KWk
>>5078582Wait what the fuck is this bullshit i just posted? here's the original scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ksu4OaMRAYU
>>5078578Could you imagine if a paleo doc animated a baby gastornis chick being eaten alive by ants while it cries out in pain only for the mother to arive to a tiny skeleton with tiny bits of meat hanging off the bones?
>>5078551I watched a clip, and no, it is egregious.>Lions show that felines could potentially take down a proboscidean with numbers and that's what the documentary goes with for their scene.I don't know if you realize how ridiculous what you just said was. Imagine thinking it's believable enough to portray yourself taking down a lion because the man who killed a juvenile cougar with his bare hands shows that humans can potentially take down big cats and that's what you're going for.>In the end the scene is about different species that aren't lions or African Elephants, so it's completely reasonable to show slightly different circumstances/dynamics. We have no way of knowing the absolute reality, since they went extinct thousands of years ago.We have cave sites with many fossils of juvenile mammoths with signs of predation by Homotherium. This isn't about the dynamic between lions and elephants. This goes against everything we know about the dynamic between predators and large prey. We see the same general rule for pursuit predators hunting megafauna herds across the board. Target a straggler that looks the easiest to take down and separate it from the rest of the herd. That makes sense because you need to take the easiest, least dangerous path to maximize your chance of survival. The narration even explicitly calls the large male mammoth the most dangerous threat. You don't attack the most dangerous threat head on. That's suicide. The homotherium pack attacking the one bull mammoth in the herd is already unbelievable enough, but a pack of dead cats would've been a more believable outcome than what was actually shown.
>>5078749It's pointless to be caught up in the specifics, do you really need them to go down the entire check list of "Requirements" so that your hyperfixation is satisfied? Yes, the norm for predators is hunting the young, old and sick. That doesn't mean extraordinary exceptions could have absolutely never happened, because we can observe those exceptions happening in living species today. You can never prove that these cases would have never happened for extinct species unless you had a time machine. For me egregious would have been if it only took a pair of cats to kill the mammoth, or if they managed to take it down in the first attack. Neither of those things happened so I feel the scene is fine, it's already noteworthy enough how the cats are portrayed breaking off after the initial attack and waiting for the mammoth to weaken and lag behind the herd before finishing it off. Does that make my standards too low? Maybe, but it's boring to look at nature through the restrictive lenses of "This couldn't have ever happened".
>young female saber tooth jumps on top of prey and promptly gets bumped off>bigger male saber tooth instantly launches at the throat and seals the deal>Narrator: WHO MADE THE KILL??
>>5078840He was saying "who made the kill" as in who was going to claim it to eat you dumbass.
>>5078749There's literally been cases of tigers in India killing fully grown rhinos on their own. Scimitar toothed cats were hyperspecialized megafauna killers that lived in packs. It's not at all inconceivable that they could potentially take down a bull mammoth after it being injured in an initial attack. Also if you watched the doc, originally they were probing the herd and only attacked the bull once it seperated itself from the rest of the mammoths and attacked one of the cats, it was partially a defensive move on the homotherium's part to try and save their pack member which luckily lead to a kill later off of the weakened bull. Nature isn't like an rts game, things that go against traditional conventions can and do happen.
>>5078851thanks for confirming what i said you absolute genius
>>5078825Not the anon you are talking to. The thing is the slam Mammoth gives to the Homotherium that jumped on it, it would most certainly have injured the cat, they show it did, but like it was a scratch. The cat literally jump on the side of the mammoth and on its truck iirc and gets slammed to the ice cold floor. That is really bad.
>>5077912>Strong emphasis of family unit with a female leaderSo orcas, elephants and wild horses trigger you?
>>5078891For Mammoths it was expected, there were no orcas nor horses, but it was applied to everything else.
>>5078825>It's pointless to be caught up in the specificsLike I said, it's not specifics. The whole dynamic was completely wrong.>That doesn't mean extraordinary exceptions could have absolutely never happened, because we can observe those exceptions happening in living species today.Cats taking down a bull mammoth that was injured by another bull or dying of disease is already an extraordinary exception. This was nonsense.>it's boring to look at nature through the restrictive lenses of "This couldn't have ever happened".If that's your mindset, why do you have standards at all? How do you know a pair of cats couldn't kill the mammoth on the first attack? After all,>You can never prove that these cases would have never happened for extinct species unless you had a time machine.>>5078853>There's literally been cases of tigers in India killing fully grown rhinos on their ownFirst, we don't know the circumstances of those incidents, so it's hard to draw conclusions from it. Second, female Indian rhinos aren't even comparable. A large male mammoth is several times the size of a female Indian rhino.>It's not at all inconceivable that they could potentially take down a bull mammoth after it being injured in an initial attackThe initial attack wouldn't have injured the mammoth enough for the homotherium to take down. Another bull mammoth is just about the only animal that could injure it that badly (and humans but they don't count).>originally they were probing the herd and only attacked the bull once it seperated itself from the rest of the mammoths and attacked one of the catsNo, one of the cats jumped onto the mammoth. That's stupid. We know how these types of animals hunt. They look for opportunities to separate the young while trying to outmaneuver the adults. If the male separated itself, the cats would avoid it and try getting to the rest of the herd. If attacking the most dangerous threat head on was how they hunted, they wouldn't live very long.
>>5078891>family unit with a female leader>wild horses
>>5078840Girl power.
>>5078922>Cats taking down a bull mammoth that was injured by another bull or dying of disease is already an extraordinary exception. This was nonsense.This tells me you just have different standards of what's believable and can't even conceive of possibilities that fall outside that framework you already set up for yourself. Personally I don't think it's wild to think that a group of smaller predators ganging up to take down a larger prey animal is something that could happen. I'd advise you just open up your mind a tiny bit more, but you seem to have a common problem a lot of prehistory enthusiasts have. Which is believing that we have already "Figured out" the exact way extinct animals would have lived or appeared, despite never having been observed by a modern humans eye. Our lack of time machines doesn't mean anything goes of course, there's still concrete things we can decide were true or false. There's several dinosaurs we know the exact coloration of for example. But I would be very careful about applying that to the behaviors of extinct animals, because that is way more difficult to "Prove", no matter how many trace fossils or modern analogues you use. It's fine to have scrutiny, paleontology is a science after all, but it's silly to think you can form an iron clad theory around every aspect of prehistory.
>>5078944>Personally I don't think it's wild to think that a group of smaller predators ganging up to take down a larger prey animal is something that could happenEither you somehow still don't comprehend the point after all this time or you're deliberately strawmanning me. A sub-adult elephant is already larger prey, far larger than what can normally be hunted. This wasn't speculation based on what we know. From the cats' behavior to the kill, this goes against everything we know.>Which is believing that we have already "Figured out" the exact way extinct animals would have lived or appeared, despite never having been observed by a modern humans eye.And this is an argument that young earth creationists use. "We weren't there to see what happened so we don't know for sure so we should accept anything." True, we don't know for sure, but we can gather evidence to get a pretty good idea. It seems to me irresponsible to portray something we have no evidence for, and indeed have good reason to believe doesn't happen, in something that's supposed to be a documentary.
>>5078973>A sub-adult elephant is already larger prey, far larger than what can normally be hunted. This wasn't speculation based on what we know.But this is speculation on your part, educated speculation, but still speculation. You cannot calculate the exact limits of what a pack of Homotherium could physically take down, and due to that it's impossible to disprove a broad statement like "These predators may have been able to take down an adult mammoth because they were specialized hunters of megafauna". You can gather evidence to infer something like "They would be unlikely to go after prey this large on a regular basis", but that's different from proving it couldn't have ever happened. It appears you just have a more conservative attitude to portrayals of prehistory then me, and that's fine. But I personally find it rash to call the portrayal of an event that was exceedingly rare at worst, to be something "irresponsible". A documentary isn't required to limit itself to only showing the most likely outcomes, it just needs to portray believable scenarios that aren't contradicted by up-to-date scientific evidence.
>>5078073...Cuz a giant monitor lizard isn't gonna scavenge when it gets the chance. Nuh uh, noooo way...:/
>>5078923...Yes, are you retarded?
>>5078973>It seems to me irresponsible to portray something we have no evidence for, and indeed have good reason to believe doesn't happen, in something that's supposed to be a documentary.Chances of it happening at least once were highly likely, but here is the thing, despite everything it is completely useless to portray as it is even an extrodionary occurence in extant animals, it adds nothing but pure consumer shock/awe value which detracts from actual more grounded approaches to showing these things. >>5078944>>5078999Just go watch Latest Sightings on youtube and similiar channels, there are some amazing moments captured that docs dont show, but none of them are ridiculous as what PP Ice Age portrayed in that Homotheriun vs Mammoth scene. The video you sent of real life counterpart situation plays much more differently and in a more believable manner, what PP did is bad and also constrained by runtime.
>>5079033Leader mare and the herd are still dependent on the stallion for protection.
>>5078999>but that's different from proving it couldn't have ever happenedI sure hope "you can't prove this didn't happen" isn't the bar for documentaries. We have no evidence or reason to believe this happens.>But I personally find it rash to call the portrayal of an event that was exceedingly rare at worstIt's not exceedingly rare at worst. It's exceedingly rare at best. Calling it exceedingly rare is generous. I would call it unprecedented.>>5079108>Chances of it happening at least once were highly likelyIf you asked me if homotherium ever took down a bull mammoth at least once in the entire history of the Earth, then yeah, I'd agree that it probably did happen. But the way Prehistoric Planet portrayed it, no, that didn't happen.>it adds nothing but pure consumer shock/awe valueDon't forget giving into the sensitivities of not showing cute mammal babies get killed.
>>5079033I can't see horses as a true family unit with a female leader like how elephants are when the herd is the harem of the dominant male.
>>5079133>If you asked me if homotherium ever took down a bull mammoth at least once in the entire history of the Earth, then yeah, I'd agree that it probably did happen. But the way Prehistoric Planet portrayed it, no, that didn't happen.They should have simply replicated that one instance that was captured in nature already, bit of a chase, a smaller mammoth and one homotherium trying to jump on its back like that lioness. To me it felt like they just did the Life On Our Planet scene again with cave lions.
>>5079108>The video you sent of real life counterpart situation plays much more differently and in a more believable manner, what PP did is bad and also constrained by runtime."Constrained by runtime" is the only real critique I would agree with for the scene. It would be better if more time was spent to portray the length of the hunt to justify the mammoth weakening, but as it is in the show the time between attacks is relatively vague. It could have been days, hours, or even half an hour. I feel like this vagueness was purposely done so that the viewer can headcanon whatever time window makes the most sense to justify the events, but at the same time it's probably just unintentional considering PP in general struggles with dedicating any sort of extended narrative to a single species.>If you asked me if homotherium ever took down a bull mammoth at least once in the entire history of the Earth, then yeah, I'd agree that it probably did happen. But the way Prehistoric Planet portrayed it, no, that didn't happen.The way PP portrayed it is pound for pound obviously taken from footage of lions taking down elephants. The exact circumstances aren't the same, but it would be more unlikely for an exact 1:1 mirror image to happen. These aren't lions with long teeth attacking furry African elephants in a white desert, they're entirely different genus's in an entirely different environment. Personally, I think something like >>5079162 would have been even worse to portray, because it just makes the entire sequence look like a lazy copy paste that plays it overly safe by only taking the exact behaviors we've already observed with extant analogues. That's how we got stuff like the female mimic pterosaurs people in this thread are complaining about, because the writers just thought "What if we slapped cuttlefish behavior onto pterosaurs since we know both exhibit sexual dimorphism?" without doing anything else to give the portrayal its own uniqueness.
>>5079162>To me it felt like they just did the Life On Our Planet scene again with cave lions.This was worse than the scene from Life on Our Planet. At least they got the general idea right.>>5079182>The way PP portrayed it is pound for pound obviously taken from footage of lions taking down elephantsIt was not "pound for pound". The cats are about the same size but the prey is like 5 times bigger.>It would be better if more time was spent to portray the length of the hunt to justify the mammoth weakeningThat would make it worse for the cats. They would be weakening even more.>The exact circumstances aren't the same, but it would be more unlikely for an exact 1:1 mirror image to happen.It was never a 1:1 mirror from the start. Not being a 1:1 mirror doesn't mean making up something outlandish.
>>5079270>This was worse than the scene from Life on Our PlanetNah this was much better than that one, especially from a direction and animation standpoint. Having the lions kill the mammoth with zero effort and then have a lion king moment didn’t help
>>5079280>direction and animation standpointWon't argue there. The writing had the right idea. They just fucked up the portrayal and execution. Here, the writing is what's egregious.
>>5079270>It was not "pound for pound". The cats are about the same size but the prey is like 5 times bigger.I'm saying that the general concept of "Felines pack hunting to take down a proboscidean" is obviously taken from lions hunting elephants. Like I said before, the specifics are irrelevant because the species involved are different and wouldn't have a perfectly mirror image dynamic to the modern analogue.>That would make it worse for the cats. They would be weakening even more.This is just a completely baseless assumption. Predators waiting for their prey to physically weaken before going for the finishing attack is par the course for dozens of different species.>It was never a 1:1 mirror from the start. Not being a 1:1 mirror doesn't mean making up something outlandish.It's not and that's the point. The species involved are removed from their modern analogues by hundreds of thousands of years, as well as occurring on completely different continents. It would be more outlandish if their interactions somehow functioned exactly the same despite these differences. A portrayal doesn't go into imaginary fantasy territory just because it decides to step slightly outside of the extremely conservative approach you're fixated on.
>>5079399>I'm saying that the general concept of "Felines pack hunting to take down a proboscidean" is obviously taken from lions hunting elephantsYou know what? No. Fuck you. Your premise was wrong from the start. The concept is taken from direct fossil evidence of homotherium hunting (juvenile and sub-adult) mammoths.>Predators waiting for their prey to physically weaken before going for the finishing attack is par the course for dozens of different species.Cats aren't persistence hunters.>inb4 well they're different animals that existed millions of years ago so you don't know for sure that they weren't persistence hunters so we can we just assume thatThe mammoth isn't just going to sit there and let the cats do whatever. The longer it goes on, the more they can get hurt by the mammoth, and the injuries the mammoth can give the cats is far more severe than what the cats can do to the mammoth.>The species involved are removed from their modern analogues by hundreds of thousands of years, as well as occurring on completely different continents. It would be more outlandish if their interactions somehow functioned exactly the same despite these differences.For the millionth fucking time, it's not about a specific modern day analogue. It's the dynamic between predator and prey animals in general. The homotherium not ambushing mammoths at night at a watering hole already makes the interaction different. No need to insert nonsense to make it more "believable".>portrayal doesn't go into imaginary fantasy territory just because it decides to step slightly outside of the extremely conservative approach you're fixated on.Holy shit you are frustrating to talk to. You just keep repeating your stance without engaging with any of the arguments. Let me give you another illustration. If we all had your mindset, we can see lynx singlehandedly take down adult deer and conclude it's believable for lynx to hunt healthy bull moose. That's the level you're operating at.
>>5079401>Cats aren't persistence huntersNTA but homotherium specifically was
>>5079412Huh, that's interesting. But that makes the case for them attacking an aggressive bull mammoth head on even weaker since their hunting strategy would be running down fleeing prey and they would have less power than lions.
>>5079416No, they still had the very muscular forelimbs of most scimitar toothed cats at the time which indicates that they were used to wrestling down larger prey.
>>5079429Really? I'm reading that homotherium had smaller claws and weaker forelimbs compared to smilodon and many living big cats as a result of adaptations for being endurance pursuit hunters, and that it relied on group hunting to compensate for their relatively weaker power.
>Gets a first time high quality appearance>Is shown starving and suffering...
>>5079429No big cat does all body pounces every time they hunt, its a thing reserved for skilled hunters and its basically a show how slick the takedowns are. Not everyone is a skill hunter and there is no way all those Homotheriums were.
>>5079401>You know what? No. Fuck you. Your premise was wrong from the start. The concept is taken from direct fossil evidence of homotherium hunting (juvenile and sub-adult) mammoths.Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Not to mention the fossil evidence you speak of were cache sites where Homotherium dragged the kills they made into caves, where they preserved more easily. For obvious reasons this wouldn't be possible with an adult mammoth, kill which they'd have to eat at the kill site.>The mammoth isn't just going to sit there and let the cats do whatever. The longer it goes on, the more they can get hurt by the mammoth, and the injuries the mammoth can give the cats is far more severe than what the cats can do to the mammoth.The mammoth is an animal, not a video game character that does whatever is most optimal for it's survival. After the initial attack the mammoth still has to follow it's herd on their migration, which is already physically taxing itself, and stacks with it's wounds to cause it to lag behind. I'm not sure what you find so unbelievable about this portrayal.>Holy shit you are frustrating to talk to. You just keep repeating your stance without engaging with any of the arguments. Let me give you another illustration. If we all had your mindset, we can see lynx singlehandedly take down adult deer and conclude it's believable for lynx to hunt healthy bull moose. That's the level you're operating at.I do engage with your arguments, but you keep insisting that we somehow have a concrete understanding of prehistoric behavior, which will always be a partially subjective concept since it can no longer be observed. At the end of the day our argument boils down to the fact that you don't want to accept that unlikely events were not impossible. You insist that it can be proven that the documentaries portrayal was objectively incorrect, when that's impossible due to the nature of paleontology.
>>5079501>For obvious reasons this wouldn't be possible with an adult mammothI can use your argument against you. How do you know they couldn't drag adult mammoths into caves? You weren't there to see it.>After the initial attack the mammoth still has to follow it's herd on their migration, which is already physically taxing itself, and stacks with it's wounds to cause it to lag behind. I'm not sure what you find so unbelievable about this portrayal.The wounds from the initial attack wouldn't weaken the mammoth enough for the cats to take down. Lions can't take down adult elephants in two attacks. But somehow, homotherium, with weaker forelimbs and a weaker bite force, can do it to a mammoth which has an additional layer of fur shielding it? What's unbelievable is how in the initial attack, the cats attacked the most dangerous threat head on when there were easier options. No predators act like that. Period. If they did, they wouldn't survive very long. You keep ignoring that point.>I do engage with your argumentsDon't just say you do. Actually engage. Do you think a lynx can kill a healthy bull moose? Do you think a human can kill a lion barehanded?>You insist that it can be proven that the documentaries portrayal was objectively incorrect, when that's impossible due to the nature of paleontology.And you insist that we should accept portrayals of something we not only have zero evidence for but have evidence against.
A group of 600 pound cats taking down a 6 ton animal is retarded
>>5079544>I can use your argument against you. How do you know they couldn't drag adult mammoths into caves? You weren't there to see it.If they were able to drag adult mammoths into caves, there would be adult bones mixed in with the juveniles and subadults we've already found.>The wounds from the initial attack wouldn't weaken the mammoth enough for the cats to take down. Lions can't take down adult elephants in two attacks. But somehow, homotherium, with weaker forelimbs and a weaker bite force, can do it to a mammoth which has an additional layer of fur shielding it? What's unbelievable is how in the initial attack, the cats attacked the most dangerous threat head on when there were easier options. No predators act like that. Period. If they did, they wouldn't survive very long. You keep ignoring that point.Why do you make the assumption that the cats went in targeting the bull? The attack can be viewed as them initially going after the herd to target the calf, but they end up attacking the bull in partial self defense due to it aggressively confronting them. After that, the bull suffers from its wounds and lags behind, making it a more favorable target than a mammoth calf guarded by an entire herd. The cats switch targets accordingly, this is something opportunistic predators do frequently in nature.>Don't just say you do. Actually engage. Do you think a lynx can kill a healthy bull moose? Do you think a human can kill a lion barehanded?A lynx is not a Homotherium and a lion is not a Homotherium either. I already pointed out why your vague comparisons aren't applicable hard evidence. I'm not obligated to continue indulging you in them because they're nonsensical.>And you insist that we should accept portrayals of something we not only have zero evidence for but have evidence against.We have direct evidence of Homotherium predating young mammoths. This is not evidence against the possibility they could hunt adults as well.
>>5079553It's even worse than that. Homotherium max out at 440 pounds. A good number of them are probably under 400 pounds.
>>5079576Huh, all this time i thought it was Smilodon sized
>>5079564>If they were able to drag adult mammoths into caves, there would be adult bones mixed in with the juveniles and subadults we've already found.Or maybe they didn't because they didn't hunt any.>The attack can be viewed as them initially going after the herd to target the calf, but they end up attacking the bull in partial self defense due to it aggressively confronting them.They didn't need to attack the bull. If the bull separated itself from the rest of the herd to confront them, that just makes it better for the cats to get to the rest of the herd.>I already pointed out why your vague comparisons aren't applicable hard evidence.They're not vague comparisons. We can compare the size and power of these animals to see what they're capable of. These aren't fantasy creatures. They're animals bound by the same laws of biology and physics. Unless you have good reason to believe that homotherium was somehow 5 times more powerful than lions (spoiler: there isn't any).>I'm not obligated to continue indulging you in them because they're nonsensical.I'm literally using your own logic. These situations are about as believable as homotherium taking down a bull mammoth. You can't just accept one and disregard the others as nonsense without any justification.
>>5079588>Or maybe they didn't because they didn't hunt any.That's also a valid interpretation. The thing is that both our viewpoints are valid because neither can be proven to be objectively correct over the other. The documentary isn't being egregious for simply choosing one of these possibilities.>They didn't need to attack the bull. If the bull separated itself from the rest of the herd to confront them, that just makes it better for the cats to get to the rest of the herd.That's true, it doesn't mean that's what they would do in the moment every single time. These are meant to be living, breathing animals, not robots that can instantly calculate and take the most optimal path.>They're not vague comparisons. We can compare the size and power of these animals to see what they're capable of. These aren't fantasy creatures. They're animals bound by the same laws of biology and physics. Unless you have good reason to believe that homotherium was somehow 5 times more powerful than lionsThey are vague, you're comparing an animal that has no living descendants, with a killing technique (Saber-teeth) that does not exist today, to some unrelated living animals because they're all cats. That's not even mentioning the even more ridiculous other side of your comparisons, where you're trying to draw parallels between moose, African elephants, humans, and mammoths.>I'm literally using your own logic. These situations are about as believable as homotherium taking down a bull mammoth. You can't just accept one and disregard the others as nonsense without any justification.You're not, you're conflating unlikely events with even more improbable events to discredit my logic.
>>5078017The cub from the short-faced kangaroo died. But it only died so we could see the thylacoleo's cub survive. Normies can't standing le hecking cute babies die. You have to "cute-bait" them if your show wants to be successful
>>5078317They thought nobody would care for some bizarre tapir-giraffe creature.Well, guess what? I DID care.
>>5079596>The documentary isn't being egregious for simply choosing one of these possibilities.No, actually, the documentary isn't making any statement about the fossils at cave sites.>That's true, it doesn't mean that's what they would do in the moment every single time. These are meant to be living, breathing animals, not robots that can instantly calculate and take the most optimal path.I won't discount the possibility that there ever existed homotherium that directly attacked bull mammoths. Just that they wouldn't be successful or live very long. Why would a documentary portray this kind of anomalous behavior?>with a killing technique (Saber-teeth) that does not exist todayWe can still study it with comparative anatomy and conclude that they had a weaker bite force than modern big cats. But since we don't have a perfect understanding (which applies to everything), you think we should ignore all our evidence and just make shit up.>because they're all catsAnd they're all animals. They can't defy laws of physics and biology.>you're conflating unlikely events with even more improbable events to discredit my logicHow is it more improbable? You can't just state that without any support. It seems you don't know understand just how vast the difference in size, power, and durability was between homotherium and woolly mammoths. Yes, the disparity is lynx taking down bull moose levels of ridiculous.
>>5079638>No, actually, the documentary isn't making any statement about the fossils at cave sites.Homotherium attacking mammoths as a general concept is clearly derived from the direct fossil evidence showing they fed upon juvenile mammoths. The documentaries portrayal of the former naturally entails discussion of the latter, even if the documentary didn't spell it out to the viewer.>I won't discount the possibility that there ever existed homotherium that directly attacked bull mammoths. Just that they wouldn't be successful or live very long. Why would a documentary portray this kind of anomalous behavior?That's fair, but the documentary never makes any sort of comment implying the behavior was a common occurrence for them. The documentary chooses to portray it because showing the rare and most elusive events in nature is simply what docs do. If the criteria for what's allowed to be shown in a doc was based only on what animals did the most, most documentaries would just be hours of animals sleeping or roaming their territories.>We can still study it with comparative anatomy and conclude that they had a weaker bite force than modern big cats. Never said we should ignore evidence, I'm saying we shouldn't rush to definitive conclusions with incomplete theories. We know that saber cats had unique killing methods based on their teeth and musculature, so direct comparisons with modern cats should be taken with heavy scrutiny. >And they're all animals. Everything is made of the same things but everything is not made the same way. The abilities and limits of animals can vary immensely even within the same genus (Consider Panthera cats.). You can't just make broad comparisons and expect that to work as an argument.>How is it more improbable? Principle of parsimony, if Homotherium did hunt adult mammoths, it would make more sense for them to do it in packs than as a pair. But earlier you implied that both would be equally likely by my logic, which isn't true.
>>5079642>The documentaries portrayal of the former naturally entails discussion of the latter, even if the documentary didn't spell it out to the viewer.No, I mean the documentary doesn't make any statement about the lack of adult mammoth fossils with signs of predation by homotherium.>That's fair, but the documentary never makes any sort of comment implying the behavior was a common occurrence for them. The documentary chooses to portray it because showing the rare and most elusive events in nature is simply what docs do.Documentaries are supposed to portray normal behavior of animals. Rare events maybe, but they should reflect our understanding of what the animals were like. Rare is not the right word here. This is something totally anomalous to animals in general which we have no evidence for.>We know that saber cats had unique killing methods based on their teeth and musculatureAnd we know that gave them a weaker bite force than modern big cats.>The abilities and limits of animals can vary immensely even within the same genus (Consider Panthera cats.). You can't just make broad comparisons and expect that to work as an argument.Homotherium being five times stronger than modern day lions is an extraordinary claim which you have no evidence for but you keep hiding behind a vague "we don't know for sure so we can make shit up." Your only two options are to give evidence or admit you believe things you want without evidence.>Principle of parsimony, if Homotherium did hunt adult mammoths, it would make more sense for them to do it in packs than as a pair.So you're just going to keep ignoring that the size and power differential is about as ridiculous as that between the lynx and the moose? Actually, it's probably even worse.>But earlier you implied that both would be equally likely by my logicNo, I said you have no way to argue that it's egregious because your mindset is to accept anything you want without evidence.
Will you two stop talking about the Homotherium scene. The tangent went on too long.
>>5079738Yeah we can all agree the scene was retarded and move on
>>5079795No, we're not siding with anyone, just moving on.
>>5079737> Documentaries are supposed to portray normal behavior of animals. Rare events maybe, but they should reflect our understanding of what the animals were like. Rare is not the right word here. This is something totally anomalous to animals in general which we have no evidence for.You’re just trying to argue unknowable specifics here. We have no way to calculate how often Homotherium would try to hunt mammoths, or their success rate at it. Trying to categorize the likelihood of the event beyond something broad like “Rare” is the best we can do until new evidence appears.>And we know that gave them a weaker bite force than modern big cats.You act like this is a point against the docs portrayal, but we already know that scimitar toothed cats were using their teeth to shear off flesh because they were serrated. Which would’ve been useful for taking down larger animals via blood loss.> Homotherium being five times stronger than modern day lions is an extraordinary claimNever claimed this, this is the arbitrary goal post you set up as what you think would be necessary to be true to justify the docs portrayal.> No, I said you have no way to argue that it's egregious because your mindset is to accept anything you want without evidence.But I don’t, I just have different standards than you. I think there’s sufficient evidence to suggest homotherium taking down an adult mammoth would be possible based on our current understanding. Thats different from just making up baseless ideas, which is what you keep accusing me of. Having a different interpretation and drawing different conclusions isn’t lying just because you personally disagree with it.
>>5079796That anon isn't me and it looks like he sided with me.
>>5079805>We have no way to calculate how often Homotherium would try to hunt mammoths, or their success rate at it. Trying to categorize the likelihood of the event beyond something broad like “Rare” is the best we can do until new evidence appears.And what exactly would that new evidence be? I guess we also have no way of knowing how capable lynx are at hunting adult moose.>but both of those animals exist todayYeah, but how do you know it hasn't happened before and we just haven't observed it?>but we already know that scimitar toothed cats were using their teeth to shear off flesh because they were serrated. Which would’ve been useful for taking down larger animals via blood loss.Too bad they're still too small for a bull mammoth>Never claimed this, this is the arbitrary goal post you set up as what you think would be necessary to be true to justify the docs portrayal.That's an estimate of the size and power differential required to take down a big bull mammoth compared to a sub-adult elephant. Yes, the different is that massive.>I think there’s sufficient evidence to suggest homotherium taking down an adult mammoth would be possible based on our current understandingAnd what fucking evidence is that? You still haven't provided a single one. Not a modicum of evidence.
>>5079796I don't think there is arguing that a bunch of 400 pound cats taking down a 6 ton mammoth isn't retarded
>>5079816>And what exactly would that new evidence be? I guess we also have no way of knowing how capable lynx are at hunting adult moose.We can figure out the latter because those are observable, still living animals. You’re under the impression that we can find a “flaming gun” to form conclusions on paleo-behavior, like we can with modern animal behavior. The former will always have a level of subjectivity to it because even the best theoretical evidence can be questioned. The fighting dinosaurs are the biggest piece of evidence of active predation known, but some people argue that the Protoceratops may have been the aggressor. Thats a completely valid stance, since we have no way of observing what actually happened.> And what fucking evidence is that? You still haven't provided a single one. Not a modicum of evidence.Sabertooths are specialized for hunting megafauna. We have fossil evidence of homotherium feeding on mammoths. African Lions set a precedent for cats being capable of taking down proboscideans in groups. I believe these pieces of evidence put together are good enough to justify the docs portrayal. You do not, and you’re allowed to disagree, but that does not mean the evidence in front of us just ceases to exist.
I remember how paleotards were shitting blood when a cave lion took down a juvenile mammoth in "Life on our Planet"
>>5079822>We can figure out the latter because those are observable, still living animals.I literally addressed this in the next sentence. By your reasoning, it's possible that it has happened before and we simply never observed it. After all, we've only observed an infinitesimal fraction of every event that ever happened in nature, so we can't discount the possibility.>Sabertooths are specialized for hunting megafauna. We have fossil evidence of homotherium feeding on mammoths. African Lions set a precedent for cats being capable of taking down proboscideans in groupsYou keep using a vague comparison of hunting proboscideans when you're talking about an animal that compared to what we have evidence of is around five times as large, is incredibly aggressive, has a lifetime more experience dealing with predators, and frequently fights with other bull mammoths. I hope you realize how massive of a leap that is. This is why I keep bringing up the lynx and moose comparison. That is as good evidence as lynx hunting deer (and indeed, young moose) is for the lynx being able to take down a bull moose.
>>5079952>I literally addressed this in the next sentence. By your reasoning, it's possible that it has happened before and we simply never observed it. After all, we've only observed an infinitesimal fraction of every event that ever happened in nature, so we can't discount the possibility.Unironically yes, there is already a precedent for this in the form of historical records of animals doing extraordinary things that have never been observed in modern times. A few examples of this being cougars hunting bison, or packs of dhole killing tigers. These are things we probably won't ever observe again due to modern animals having limited ranges and populations thanks to human industrialization. Does this mean these events are impossible and all the historical accounts by different people were made by a collective of hallucinations? No. And to bring it back to the original subject, if the stars did align and one of these events were caught on film, it wouldn't be excluded from a nature documentary for being "anomalous". >You keep using a vague comparison of hunting proboscideans when you're talking about an animal that compared to what we have evidence of is around five times as large, is incredibly aggressive, has a lifetime more experience dealing with predators, and frequently fights with other bull mammoths. I hope you realize how massive of a leap that is. This is why I keep bringing up the lynx and moose comparison.I don't agree with your lynx comparison because by that same logic I could justify the documentaries portrayal by drawing a comparison with stoats that hunt rabbits ten times their size. You would probably be quick to call this comparison faulty because a stoat and homotherium aren't comparable due to their differences in anatomy, size and hunting methods. And I would completely agree with that, because the exact same logic applies to comparing a lynx to homotherium.
Glad to see dinoautists are still completely ruining threads with literallynothing arguments that go nowhere and last forever
>>5079977you mean paleoschizo having a schizo meltdown every time someone believes something other than his retarded shrinkwrap theories that were debunked in the 90s?
>>5079979No I mean the both of them
We need a Cenozoic season for daeodon, paraceratherium, megistotherium... A proper walking with beasts.
>>5079977>>5079979what too much time on hands does to a motherfucker.
>>5079961>if the stars did align and one of these events were caught on film, it wouldn't be excluded from a nature documentary for being "anomalous"Obviously, because that's evidence which you don't have. Now I'll address each of these comparisons which once again show you don't comprehend just how vast the size disparity is between homotherium and mammoths.>stoats that hunt rabbits ten times their sizeWe do have reliable data that stoats commonly hunt European rabbits, but it's mainly the males that weigh on average 9 oz. Even when we're looking at the upper end of the size range of the rabbits of 4.4 lbs, that's only 8 times as large. But I won't say the 10 times estimate is wrong, just exaggerated.>A few examples of this being cougars hunting bison, or packs of dhole killing tigersThere are accounts of these but they're considered unreliable by biologists. But let's give them the benefit of the doubt and consider these cases hypothetically. Whenever these extraordinary hunts occur of a predator taking down much bigger prey, it's always done by a large male specimen. Male cougars average ~140 lbs but large ones can get over 200 lbs (the largest on record was 232 lbs). It probably hunted a female bison which would be around 1000-1200 lbs. In the more unlikely scenario, males are on average ~1700 lbs but large ones can get over 2000 lbs, and even in that case, it's capped at around 10 times the size.There are two accounts from India of a pack of dholes killing a tiger, and explicitly one of them is a tigress while the other was male. Both are almost certainly false and the writers didn't even claim to observe it firsthand. But let's examine them. Male dholes are ~40 lbs while a female Bengal tiger averages ~300 lbs, so that's 7-8 times the size. Male Bengal tigers average ~500 lbs which is 12-13 times the size.But I can do you one better. Gray wolves are known to regularly hunt bison, and like homotherium, they hunt in packs to bring down much larger prey.
>>5079961>>5080244The wolves that hunt bison are the largest subspecies, the ones with males averaging ~110 lbs and females averaging ~90 lbs like the northwestern wolf or the Yukon wolf. These are packs of 9-13 with many males, and large males are required. The large ones can get up to 140-150 lbs (the largest wolf on record was 175 lbs). While it's rare for them to target adult bison, there are plenty of confirmed cases of it happening.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369604118_Wolf_Canis_lupus_predation_and_scavenging_of_reintroduced_bison_Bison_bison_a_hallmark_of_ecological_restoration_to_boreal_food_websThis study records 17 confirmed cases of wolves consuming adult bison and in 14 of those cases, they were female bison. 2 of the male bison were in old age, and the 1 case of a male bison in its prime, it's unclear whether it was hunted or scavenged. I looked for cases of wolves successfully hunting bull bison, but I found more cases of wolves hunting cow bison and I couldn't find any confirmed cases of them hunting a bull that wasn't basically already dying. The cows are roughly 7-10 times the size of the wolves, and it seems healthy mature bulls are generally invulnerable to predation. But those cases may exist. I think it's possible, especially at the lower sizes, but once we get to 2000 lb bulls, I start finding it highly unlikely, and that's still only pushing past 15 times the size.Now about ~400 lb lions/homotherium hunting sub-adult elephants/mammoths. The thing is, that's already their version of extraordinary events of predators taking down prey much larger than themselves. These sub-adults are like 5-10 times the size of the cats. A "big male" woolly mammoth? 30 times bigger at the lower end, well over 40 times bigger at the higher end. And if we compare the upper end of the size ranges of both animals, it's 440 lbs for homotherium and 18,000 lbs for the woolly mammoth. That's 41 times the size.
>>5080244>>5080245You two are retarded i swear to God. Ruined a thread for no reason. There is no excuse for the behaviour.
Over half the thread (which was supposed to be about prehistoric planet mind you) has been two autists screeching at each other nonstop over a single scene most people wouldn't even look twice at
>>5080300>a single scene most people wouldn't even look twice atThat scene was retarded
>>5080301Literally nobody fucking cares you sperg
>>5080245Where can I get 140lb wolf frensFor science
>>5080244>>5080245You completely missed the point I'm making here by pulling out a bunch of figures about extant animals. Let's say I hypothetically did bring you an example of a modern predator taking down an animal 30-41 times its size in a pack, a perfect 1:1 analogue to the PP portrayal, proven to happen in verified research paper. Would you just completely accept that as evidence? I wouldn't, because Homotherium no longer exists, and their hunting method unique to saber-toothed predators no longer exists either. None of these comparisons work because every predator mentioned hunts in their own way, under different circumstances, against different prey items.From what I can understand after all of this, the basis of your argument is that we should only portray the unobservable with the observable. Maybe that's reasonable from your perspective, as you seem to be extremely conservative and believe documentaries should be limited to portraying things we know happened with 100% certainty. But for me, that just seems like the peak of absurdity, completely ignoring the uniqueness of prehistory and reducing it to a reskinned version of modern ecology. Even if we play it safe like how you describe, what we observe today will never be able to match up completely with what has never been observed in the past. Paleontology will always utilize some measure of subjectivity when portraying life that has never been seen.In that sense, I just don't find the PP segment as ridiculous as you see it. Even in this thread people have already brought up another portrayal that fits your complaints way better, that being Life on Our Planet showing a single cave lion take down a mammoth calf many times its size, only a few paces away from it's entire herd. You might lump them together, but PP's mammoth kill is different because it actually grounds it's portrayal with surrounding circumstances.
>>5080314>Let's say I hypothetically did bring you an example of a modern predator taking down an animal 30-41 times its size in a pack, a perfect 1:1 analogue to the PP portrayal, proven to happen in verified research paper. Would you just completely accept that as evidence? I wouldn't, because Homotherium no longer exists, and their hunting method unique to saber-toothed predators no longer exists either.I wouldn't accept it as evidence that homotherium did that but I would accept it as evidence that such a thing is feasible, which there isn't evidence of.>Even in this thread people have already brought up another portrayal that fits your complaints way better, that being Life on Our Planet showing a single cave lion take down a mammoth calf many times its sizeThat does not fit my complaints better because we know cave lions are capable of doing that have done that, even if the portrayal itself was bad.
>>5080315>I wouldn't accept it as evidence that homotherium did that but I would accept it as evidence that such a thing is feasible, which there isn't evidence of.If you don't accept comparisons as affirmative evidence, why would you accept them as negative evidence? Even if there's no perfectly 1:1 analogue to be found today, it does not completely disprove the possibility. We know the general concept (Felines socially hunting proboscideans) occurs today, so it's not a stretch to suggest variations of that concept could have also happened in the past.>That does not fit my complaints better because we know cave lions are capable of doing that have done that, even if the portrayal itself was bad.That scene showed a cave lion pouncing a mammoth calf three times its size, instantly taking it down and killing it so quickly the herd (That was just a few meters away) doesn't even try to help. Not only are the mechanics behind that ridiculous (Virtually no predator kills a larger prey animal that fast), the circumstances are as well.
>>5080260Yeah it would have been so easy to go "this scene is retarded" and move on
>>5077912I liked it well enough, but it was so fucking sanitized, which I guess is to be expected after the first 2 seasons. At least this season showed blood on the Smilodons' mouths and a little bit of blood on the bull mammoth (that was such a bullshit kill) which was more than we got with the Nanuqsaurus hunt where the pachyrhinosaurus had a practically bloodless death desire being eaten alive.>>5078044Framing Enhydriodon as being partially responsible for the extripation of Homotherium from Africa was absolutely bizarre. Like, it would have been the perfect moment to have a pride of lions bully the homotherium off the kill and shown how Panthera leo were better adapted to surviving the decline of the megafauna than the much more specialized Homotherium.>>5078073I'm hoping that we get a scene of Megalania killing a diprotodon in the next season. They showed a preview of it striking at something large, but that scene didn't make it into the show so my cope is that it'll be in the next season. Hopefully we also see Quinkana, Wonambi, and Dromornis so we actually see that Australia was not a totally mammal-dominated continent.
>>5080319>If you don't accept comparisons as affirmative evidence, why would you accept them as negative evidence?Holy shit are you hearing yourself? A predator hunting something 40 times its size is far beyond anything we know to be feasible. Even predators hunting prey much smaller than that is extraordinary and rare. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If we do get evidence of an animal capable of doing that, that upends our understanding what's feasible and we may consider the possibility of other animals being able to do that, particularly if they're similar, but we won't have evidence that they do until, well, we actually find evidence of it. Just like how some animals being able to hunt prey about 10 times their size isn't evidence of every animal being able to do that. That's how the burden of proof works.>We know the general concept (Felines socially hunting proboscideans) occurs todayHow are you denying every other comparison while still using this vague proboscidean comparison as if a mature bull mammoth isn't basically a completely different beast from a subadult and is astronomically harder to kill?>That scene showed a cave lion pouncing a mammoth calf three times its size, instantly taking it down and killing it so quickly the herd (That was just a few meters away) doesn't even try to help. Not only are the mechanics behind that ridiculous (Virtually no predator kills a larger prey animal that fast), the circumstances are as well.Look, it was bad, but that's not what my complaints were about. And yeah, a cat can't kill a young mammoth 3 times its size that quickly, but it's even harder for 5 of them to take down a full grown bull mammoth 40 times its size quickly.
>>5080427>Holy shit are you hearing yourself? A predator hunting something 40 times its size is far beyond anything we know to be feasible. These goal posts you set make no sense. We already know predators can hunt prey items massively bigger than themselves, we also know that things like pack hunting behavior and/or the prey animal being in suboptimal condition multiplies the feasibility of these occurrences. The documentary acknowledges these factors and makes sure to include them to justify the portrayal. Burden of proof doesn't mean fulfilling a hyper specific precedent with a 1:1 analogue, it means justifying the portrayal enough to make it a valid possibility that doesn't blow all immersion out of the water.>How are you denying every other comparison while still using this vague proboscidean comparison as if a mature bull mammoth isn't basically a completely different beast from a subadult and is astronomically harder to kill?Because paleontology concerns things that can't be observed, which means it's best to be vague when drawing comparisons, as you will never be able to prove the precise accuracy of those comparisons. Drawing a broad stroke by comparing general behaviors is safer than trying to make direct physical comparisons between completely different animals.>Look, it was bad, but that's not what my complaints were about. And yeah, a cat can't kill a young mammoth 3 times its size that quickly, but it's even harder for 5 of them to take down a full grown bull mammoth 40 times its size quickly.It's still more egregious than the PP scene. PP at least goes out of it's way to split the hunt into two separate attacks, imply the prey was weakening with the bull lagging behind the herd, and have the cats utilize their environment to jump onto the bull. It wasn't something they did "quickly" either when the writers purposely put an entire time gap between the two attacks.
>>5080347they’re still having the same argument. They’ll probably continue until bump limit
>>5080456>We already know predators can hunt prey items massively bigger than themselves>a hyper specific precedent with a 1:1 analogueDude, stop pretending a vague notion of "massively bigger" is evidence. Just acknowledge that it's in a completely different league already. Massively bigger isn't a binary. There's sedan massively bigger than you, and there's bus massively bigger than you. Sauropods are massively bigger too.>Drawing a broad stroke by comparing general behaviors is saferDrawing a broad stroke does not mean taking an absurd leap. Drawing a broad stroke would be "they're similar to these modern day animals which can hunt much bigger prey so we can expect them to hunt much bigger prey as well but we should be careful about estimating just how big their prey can get without evidence." Not "they can accomplish something that nothing in the world we know of can even get close to half of.">It's still more egregious than the PP sceneHow can you still call anything egregious? If you were consistent, you'd realize that your criticism (virtually no predator kills a larger prey animal that fast) falls to the same defense you're using. And you're only talking about a vague notion of speed. Not the hard numbers of the absolutely unprecedented size difference.>PP at least goes out of it's way to split the hunt into two separate attacks, imply the prey was weakening with the bull lagging behind the herdThe problem is that according to the narration, the bull's only injuries were from the previous hunt. If the homotherium can take it down when its only injuries came from the same pack, that's virtually the same as them being able to take it down uninjured. The bull needs to be so weak it's already collapsing to get taken down by cats that might as well be house kittens to it (not an exaggeration). Think about how weak you'd need to be to get killed by 5 4-month-old kittens. Can kittens injure you enough to get you to that point?
>>5080490>Dude, stop pretending a vague notion of "massively bigger" is evidence. But it is, it doesn't stop being evidence because it doesn't match your personal limits on what you find believable. >Drawing a broad stroke does not mean taking an absurd leap. Drawing a broad stroke would be-They are quite literally something unlike anything we know of in today's world. Thinking "If these modern animals can already achieve this, then these specialized animals could possibly have an even larger target range" isn't an absurd leap, it's just combining what we know about extinct animals with the precedent we find in modern ones.>How can you still call anything egregious? If you were consistent, you'd realize that your criticism (virtually no predator kills a larger prey animal that fast) falls to the same defense you're using. No, there's an obvious emphasis in PP on the time span of the hunt. Otherwise the script wouldn't have bothered splitting it into two separate attacks in the first place.>The problem is that according to the narration, the bull's only injuries were from the previous hunt. If the homotherium can take it down when its only injuries came from the same pack, that's virtually the same as them being able to take it down uninjured. There's a stark difference between predators killing an uninjured animal in one attack and waiting for it to weaken over the course of multiple attacks before finishing it. Those two scenarios aren't "Virtually the same" in the slightest. The bull weakens because after being attacked it has to continue following it's herd, dealing with exhaustion, blood loss and any other potential elements for the entire time-span between attacks.
>>5080426Let's hope they fix the eyes for next season as well kek
>>5080492>They are quite literally something unlike anything we know of in today's world. Thinking "If these modern animals can already achieve this, then these specialized animals could possibly have an even larger target range" isn't an absurd leapAlright, now I'm waiting for you to claim that an extinct "specialized" cat that can run 3 times faster than a cheetah is believable. Or maybe that it's evidence of velociraptors being able to take down sauropods. Sure, that's even more absurd, but we already have a precedent of predators hunting massively bigger prey, and just because it doesn't match your personal limits on what you believable doesn't mean it's not evidence.>No, there's an obvious emphasis in PP on the time span of the huntI'm not talking about the time span. You can't use "virtually no predator kills a larger prey animal that fast" as an argument because we're talking about extinct animals so we don't know what they're capable of. This is the exact argument you're using.>dealing with exhaustion, blood loss and any other potential elementsI repeat, would blood loss from a kitten attack weaken you to that state?Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, so I'll make this the one thing I won't let you keep dodging: why do you think it's believable for homotherium to hunt bull mammoths but it's not believable for lynx to hunt bull moose? Be specific. We can even make it a group of 5 lynx to match the numbers since even though they're usually solitary, they're known to sometimes hunt in groups, but maybe that's making it too lopsided for the lynx. You can even consider a scenario where the lynx leave after an initial attack then return later to finish it off. If you say that it's believable for lynx to kill bull moose, I'll end it here.
>>5080505>Alright, now I'm waiting for you to claim that an extinct "specialized" cat that can run 3 times faster than a cheetah is believable. Bringing up unrelated ideas that are many times more ridiculous than the simple idea of a megafauna hunter hunting megafauna is just a poor attempt to attack the plausibility of this idea. You keep making random comparisons and I keep telling you why it doesn't work.>I'm not talking about the time span. You can't use "virtually no predator kills a larger prey animal that fast" as an argument because we're talking about extinct animals so we don't know what they're capable of. This is the exact argument you're using.Once again you're conflating the idea of subjectivity applying to a field based in the unobservable with a "Anything goes" pass. Doesn't work like that.>I repeat, would blood loss from a kitten attack weaken you to that state? Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, so I'll make this the one thing I won't let you keep dodging: why do you think it's believable for homotherium to hunt bull mammoths but it's not believable for lynx to hunt bull moose? Be specific. We can even make it a group of 5 lynx to match the numbers since even though they're usually solitary, they're known to sometimes hunt in groups, but maybe that's making it too lopsided for the lynx.I've already told you, you're the one who keeps dodging what the documentary itself portrays. Homotherium is a specialized megafauna hunter, with adaptations as extreme as serrated teeth. This is a fundamentally different creature from a Lynx, you can't compare them just because they're both bob-tailed cats. Why do you think extremely specific comparisons that ignore dozens of differing variables somehow makes sense as an argument?
>>5080511>the simple idea of a megafauna hunter hunting megafaunaA megafauna hunter hunting something many times the size beyond the capabilities of anything we've seen. Lions are already specialized for hunting megafauna, and certain prides like the savuti lions are specialized for hunting elephants. What justifies homotherium being many times more powerful? And once again I can use your same argument against you. What's so ridiculous about the simple idea of a fast animal being fast?>Once again you're conflating the idea of subjectivity applying to a field based in the unobservable with a "Anything goes" passHow is one subjectivity based in the unobservable and the other an "anything goes" pass? If anything, a predator that goes for an instant kill bite is far more believable.>This is a fundamentally different creature from a LynxLynx are also extremely powerful hunters that can hunt deer many times their size, some even over 300 lbs, and they do it alone unlike the big cats. Lynx hunting bull moose is just a specialized deer hunter hunting deer, which we obviously have evidence of. Sure, it's a big leap from what we've observed them hunt, but it's still a smaller leap than going from hunting subadult mammoths to a big, mature bull mammoth.
>>5080521>A megafauna hunter hunting something many times the size beyond the capabilities of anything we've seen. Lions are already specialized for hunting megafauna, and certain prides like the savuti lions are specialized for hunting elephants. What justifies homotherium being many times more powerful? And once again I can use your same argument against you. What's so ridiculous about the simple idea of a fast animal being fast?What are you talking about? Lions are generalist predators, that's the entire reason they persisted after the Pleistocene while other large predators died out. There's also a difference between anatomical adaptations and behavioral adaptations that you neglected in your poor attempt to "use my same argument" against me. The Savuti lions hunting elephants was a learned behavior, homotherium evolved for it.>How is one subjectivity based in the unobservable and the other an "anything goes" pass? If anything, a predator that goes for an instant kill bite is far more believable.Principle of parsimony, you can still infer which possibilities are more likely based on their simplicity. A predator that can instant kill massively larger prey would require so many costly adaptations it'd be impractical compared to one that just wears down it's prey.>Lynx are also extremely powerful hunters that can hunt deer many times their size, some even over 300 lbs, and they do it alone unlike the big cats. Lynx hunting bull moose is just a specialized deer hunter hunting deer, which we obviously have evidence of. Sure, it's a big leap from what we've observed them hunt, but it's still a smaller leap than going from hunting subadult mammoths to a big, mature bull mammoth.Again, Lynx and homotherium have completely different dentition, which is the literal foundation for figuring out what a predator does. It doesn't matter how much you try to push your comparisons, they don't work as hard evidence.
>>5078559Isn't this based on the clip from Planet Earth of the male Bower Bird doing his display dance for younger males he mistook for females? It was quite a well known segment.
>>5080528They mention that and other animals which engage in sexual mimicry in the after credits segmenthttps://youtu.be/IH5IGhi2Pu8?si=1aWlWa5q2CVmbuXL
>>5080525>What are you talking about?Isotope analysis shows that the average size of homotherium's prey was 200-300 kg. That's well within the range of lion's preferred prey of 190-550 kg and the types of prey they hunted are very similar. Male lions are also shown to regularly be able to take down cape buffalo bulls. The idea you're pushing that lions are vastly inferior at hunting megafauna simply isn't true.>A predator that can instant kill massively larger prey would require so many costly adaptations it'd be impractical compared to one that just wears down it's prey.Cats already hunt by going for the throat. If anything, it's far more believable and practical for a cat to evolve to get very efficient at it than whatever monster adaptations would be required to hunt something 5 times bigger and stronger by an even higher amount compared to what any other cat can bring down, which not only would barely expand its potential prey since very few animals can even get close to that large but would also make it engage in incredibly dangerous and risky behavior.>Again, Lynx and homotherium have completely different dentitionYou keep saying lynx and homotherium aren't the same thing but that's not a reason to disbelieve that lynx can't take down a bull moose.
>>5080668Isotope analysis is irrelevant here since we already agreed that the documentaries portrayal is a fringe case, these animals obviously wouldn't be taking down bull mammoths every month, or even year. It also isn't a substitute for direct observations of their hunting prowess. Yes, we can observe lions regularly taking down buffalo, no homotherium are alive today so we cannot do the same for them. But we can take a look at their physical adaptations and infer they'd be better at it than lions.>Cats already hunt by going for the throat. If anything, it's far more believable and practical for a cat to evolve to get very efficient at it than whatever monster adaptations would be required to hunt something 5 times bigger and stronger by an even higher amount compared to what any other cat can bring down, which not only would barely expand its potential prey since very few animals can even get close to that large but would also make it engage in incredibly dangerous and risky behavior.Going for an immediate kill bite entails overpowering your prey to minimize the threat of injury from it struggling against you. Since doing that gets exponentially harder with greater size differences, it's more feasible for a predator to evolve towards wearing down larger prey over a long period of time instead. Ironically the "instant kill bite" cat you speak of already exists in the form of Smilodon.>You keep saying lynx and homotherium aren't the same thing but that's not a reason to disbelieve that lynx can't take down a bull moose.Already told you that machairodonts have no modern analogs and are vastly different from modern felines, much less a lynx. That's reason enough.
>>5080680>Isotope analysis is irrelevant here since we already agreed that the documentaries portrayal is a fringe caseThe point was to show that lions and homotherium show similar capabilities in hunting large prey. If homotherium were really exceptionally better, then you'd expect evidence that they regularly took down larger prey than lions did (which already have one of the highest if not the highest average prey size of all terrestrial predators today), but that isn't the case. You don't need to be regularly taking down adult mammoths. There's a lot of prey between 300 kg and even 3000 kg (size of a small adult female mammoth).>But we can take a look at their physical adaptations and infer they'd be better at it than lions.And what physical adaptations do they have that would make them over 5 times better (compared to an animal they're weaker than I might add)?>Since doing that gets exponentially harder with greater size differences, it's more feasible for a predator to evolve towards wearing down larger prey over a long period of time instead.I'm not arguing that it's believable. Just that it's far more believable than them taking down prey 40 times their size when, by your own admittance, they already have difficulty with prey many time smaller than that.>Already told you that machairodonts have no modern analogs and are vastly different from modern felines, much less a lynxWhy do you think an animal has to be a machairodont to even just hunt prey ~20 times its size? If anything, all the evidence I see shows that lynx are even better at hunting prey massively larger than themselves.
>>5080692>The point was to show that lions and homotherium show similar capabilities in hunting large prey. If homotherium were really exceptionally better, then you'd expect evidence that they regularly took down larger prey than lions did (which already have one of the highest if not the highest average prey size of all terrestrial predators today), but that isn't the case. You don't need to be regularly taking down adult mammoths. There's a lot of prey between 300 kg and even 3000 kg (size of a small adult female mammoth).Except preservation bias in the fossil record makes that a moot point. I can go to Africa and spend years collecting data on lions, finding precise values for how much, when, and where they hunt large animals. Throughout their entire range, for every separate population. You cannot do this with homotherium, taking isotopic analysis and suggesting it can be compared on level ground to actual field observations is ridiculous. >And what physical adaptations do they have that would make them over 5 times better (compared to an animal they're weaker than I might add)?More muscled fore limbs, elongated canines, and serrated teeth. The fact you even need to ask me this has me beginning to see why you find the docs portrayal egregious in the first place.>I'm not arguing that it's believable. Just that it's far more believable than them taking down prey 40 times their size when, by your own admittance, they already have difficulty with prey many time smaller than that.And I find vice versa to be more believable. You don't need to find any comparisons to deduce that waiting for prey to weaken is a more optimal strategy for a predator, when the ultimate goal is survival and self-preservation.
>>5080701>Except preservation bias in the fossil record makes that a moot pointOnce again, "our evidence isn't perfect so I can just reject that and make shit up." You just say preservation bias and disregard the 200-300 kg value from scientific study without how preservation bias can skew the results. That is not science.>More muscled fore limbsHomotherium actually had weaker forelimbs. The build of their forelimbs was slender and in between that of the lion (built for taking down large prey) and the cheetah (built for speed).>elongated canines, and serrated teethLet me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Your position is that 10-50% longer canines and serrated teeth can allow an animal to take down prey 5 times bigger than what another animal the same size is capable of? Also, here's something I found that's ironic in the context of you talking about inferences from physical adaptations. This is Mauricio Anton stating that homotherium couldn't hunt adult proboscideans because its long canines limited how wide it could open its mouth.https://chasingsabretooths.wordpress.com/2013/05/16/a-clash-of-titans-lion-vs-scimitar-tooth-cat/>when the ultimate goal is survival and self-preservationWhen attacking a big male is just about the worst thing you can do for survival and self-preservation, so it wouldn't make sense to evolve such an extreme adaptation.I noticed you dodged the lynx issue again, so let me get clarification on your position.>machairodonts hunting prey 40 times their size: totally believable>any other animal hunting prey 20 times its size: ridiculous, absurd, completely outlandishDid I get that right?
>>5080849>Once again, "our evidence isn't perfect so I can just reject that and make shit up." You just say preservation bias and disregard the 200-300 kg value from scientific study without how preservation bias can skew the results. That is not science.No, I am stating that your evidence isn't hard enough to reach a completely objective conclusion around the documentaries portrayal.>Let me make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Your position is that 10-50% longer canines and serrated teeth can allow an animal to take down prey 5 times bigger than what another animal the same size is capable of? Also, here's something I found that's ironic in the context of you talking about inferences from physical adaptations. This is Mauricio Anton stating that homotherium couldn't hunt adult proboscideans because its long canines limited how wide it could open its mouth.I see no reason to discount the possibility. These are adaptations for hunting larger prey that lions lack. They suggest a killing technique more suited to taking larger animals than the strangle method modern lions are limited to. Beyond that broad statement you can't make more conclusive claims since we have no way of directly testing how exactly how effectively these weapons would wound a mammoth.>When attacking a big male is just about the worst thing you can do for survival and self-preservation, so it wouldn't make sense to evolve such an extreme adaptation.As stated earlier, animals don't behave like robots that do the most optimal thing in every situation. My point is that survival supports the homotheriums portrayed persistence hunting strategy, not that it would completely restrict their behavior and prevent outliers like the documentary shows.
>>5080927>completely objective conclusionNothing is completely objective but what we can have is something accurate to our current evidence and data. Not a single paleontologist says that homotherium's longer canines and serrated teeth allowed it to hunt adult mammoths.>These are adaptations for hunting larger prey that lions lack.They also have adaptations that make them worse at hunting larger prey than lions like weaker forelimbs. Their longer canines limit how wide they can open their mouths which shows they weren't adapted for hunting adult proboscideans. This is something actual paleontologists have studied and concluded.>My point is that survival supports the homotheriums portrayed persistence hunting strategy, not that it would completely restrict their behavior and prevent outliers like the documentary shows.It would take crazy adaptations to hunt a bull mammoth and it wouldn't be useful for much else since nothing else can get even close to that size.I need to make sure I understand your position so make your answer clear. Is this your position?>10-50% longer canines and serrated teeth allow homotherium to take down prey 5 times bigger than what lions the same size can accomplish, and presumably if other animals evolved this, it can let them accomplish the equivalent (note that there's no empirical evidence of this and it's just your belief)>machairodonts hunting prey 40 times their size is totally believable but any other animal hunting prey 20 times its size is absurd and outlandish
Did Procoptodon and Thylacoleo really run as fast as a morbidly obese dude with asthma?
>>5081002>Nothing is completely objective but what we can have is something accurate to our current evidence and data. Not a single paleontologist says that homotherium's longer canines and serrated teeth allowed it to hunt adult mammoths.A conclusion that isn't objective isn't something that needs to be followed absolutely. Is there a greater possibility that PP's portrayal was inaccurate? Sure, but it isn't "Wrong" either, since we can't objectively prove it was.>They also have adaptations that make them worse at hunting larger prey than lions like weaker forelimbs. Their longer canines limit how wide they can open their mouths which shows they weren't adapted for hunting adult proboscideans. This is something actual paleontologists have studied and concluded.Forelimbs are actually a good point, that was my error, likely mixed it up with Smilodon. It doesn't discount my original point however, as their forelimbs were built for endurance rather than power. This is something that has more value against massively larger animals you aren't going to be overpowering anyways. Also, their canines weren't as exaggeratedly long as Smilodon's, could handle stress better, and again, were suited for rending flesh due to their serrations. >It would take crazy adaptations to hunt a bull mammoth and it wouldn't be useful for much else since nothing else can get even close to that size.Evolution isn't a goal oriented process, it's a matter of "Whatever works well enough". Even if Homotherium didn't have the theoretically best toolset for hunting megafauna, that doesn't mean it couldn't do it if an opportunity presented itself. (As the documentary portrays)
>>5081113We can't continue our discussion if I don't have a correct understanding of your position. Again I'm asking you, is this an accurate representation of your position?>homotherium's longer canines and serrated teeth allowed it to hunt prey 5 times larger than what lions can manage>machairodonts hunting prey 40 times their size is totally believable but any other animal hunting prey 20 times its size is absurd and outlandish
>>5081149>We can't continue our discussion if I don't have a correct understanding of your position. Again I'm asking you, is this an accurate representation of your position?No, I already stated my position back at the start of this debate. What the documentary portrayed is believable enough given the current fossil evidence available. A scenario being unlikely doesn't make it unscientific, nor does it revoke it's place in a documentary.
>>5081152>NoAlright, then tell me where I misunderstood you. You are arguing that homotherium can hunt prey 5 times larger than what lions can, and you justified it by saying longer canines and serrated teeth. Are there any other adaptations you haven't mentioned? If not, wouldn't it be accurate to say that you believe the longer canines and serrated teeth are what allow homotherium to accomplish this? Next, you called the idea of lynx hunting bull moose ridiculous, treating it as not even worthy of consideration. The only reason you gave is that a lynx is not a machairodont. Unless there's some other reason you failed to mention, does that not entail that you think machairodonts are in a special class of their own? Or are there other animals you believe can accomplish similar feats?
>>5081168>Alright, then tell me where I misunderstood you. Vague comparisons to extant animals aren't applicable hard evidence here because extinct animals cannot be observed. I am not saying Homotherium can hunt prey 5x larger than what lions can, that is just you putting words in my mouth by trying to narrow my position down to an objective conclusion. A conclusion which you seem to be under the impression has to be true in order for the documentaries portrayal to hold merit. Something which, as I stated before, is impossible to perfectly decipher due to the incomplete fossil record and the subjectivity that gives paleontological interpretations.
Anyone got Webms?
>>5081244>I am not saying Homotherium can hunt prey 5x larger than what lions canWell you seemed to have been arguing that, using longer canines and serrated teeth as justification. The largest prey lions have been observed hunting (that doesn't involve the prey being nearly dead) are sub-adult elephants ~1-2 tons. A mature bull woolly mammoth is ~5 times that size. So either you think Prehistoric Planet's portrayal is inaccurate, or you think it's believable for lions to hunt bigger prey (how much bigger?). Which is it?
>>5078044>I still don't get why Enhydriodon was even included despite it being an early pleistocene animal.Good. We need to get more people interested in otter paleontology. The current phylogeny is all fucked up and has lots of unanswered questions, like how the ancestral lineage of Enhydritherium arrived in America from the Old World millions of years before the Bering land bridge existed and how much are modern Enhydra/sea otters related to Enhydriodon.The Wikipedia article is surprisingly detailed:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhydriodon
>>5081298>So either you think Prehistoric Planet's portrayal is inaccurate, or you think it's believable for lions to hunt bigger prey (how much bigger?). Which is it?Neither, you're making a poor attempt at forcing a false dilemma here. Just to show you why that's flawed, I'll write one too for you. From everything I've read from you so far, this is my understanding of your position.>Using incomplete fossil evidence and comparisons to similar extant animals, we can conclude that it was absolutely impossible for homotherium to hunt a bull mammoth. Regardless of the situation, circumstances, or health of the target. The sole exception being a bull mammoth that is on deaths door anyways, from reasons unrelated to the homotherium.>This conclusion is so iron-clad we can say it is true with total certainty, to the point where any portrayals that stray from it would be "egregious" or outright "irresponsible" to broadcast as scientific media. Our understanding of paleontology is great enough to be confident in this, in spite of any possible unknowns and subjectivity.So do you think PP's portrayal was possible, or do you believe that paleontology is advanced enough to know exactly how prehistory played out? Which is it?
Autism
Thanks, I hate it.
>>5081487The siberian punycorn
>>5081042Its a humiliation ritual, what do you think?
>>5081427>Neither, you're making a poor attempt at forcing a false dilemma here. Just to show you why that's flawed, I'll write one too for you.If it's a false dilemma, you can just explain how it's a false dilemma and show what went wrong in the logic to arrive at it.>So do you think PP's portrayal was possible, or do you believe that paleontology is advanced enough to know exactly how prehistory played out?Science is always incomplete and science is never about knowing exactly how something played out. However, an understanding of animals, biology, and simple physics tells us that the mechanics of homotherium trying to take down a bull mammoth is so infeasible that the chances of success is even lower than that of lynx trying to take down a bull moose. But I do like how your false dilemma parody has a tacit admission (maybe unintentionally) that the Prehistoric Planet portrayal does not accurately portray scientific findings. It's essentially, "Either Prehistoric Planet is correct or paleobiology is correct."
>>5081591>If it's a false dilemma, you can just explain how it's a false dilemma and show what went wrong in the logic to arrive at it.You reached it by making a bunch of vague comparisons between animals with vastly different biology, lifestyles, and environments, completely ignoring the variability all these things could have. You then proceed to insinuate that either PP's depiction of homotherium was wrong, or our understanding of the hunting ability of African lions is secretly flawed. This is a completely unfounded correlation between two wildly different things.>Science is always incomplete and science is never about knowing exactly how something played out. However, an understanding of animals, biology, and simple physics tells us that the mechanics of homotherium trying to take down a bull mammoth is so infeasible that the chances of success is even lower than that of lynx trying to take down a bull moose. Completely missing the point of me creating my own false dilemma by trying to attack it. But I do feel obligated to point out here that you admit that science is incomplete and we have no way of knowing exactly how things played out. Which means that PP's portrayal is in fact something that could have happened, by your own admission, regardless of how low you think the probability is. Since no matter how much evidence you gather, it's impossible to bring that probability to zero. Of course I know that's not what you meant, and since the false dilemma I made wasn't serious in the first place feel free to ignore this part.
>>5081608>You reached it by making a bunch of vague comparisons between animalsActually it's a specific comparison between specific animals about their specific sizes (in fact you were the only one making vague comparisons of "the concept of felines hunting proboscideans" while brushing off that subadults and bulls aren't even close to comparable). Your complaint isn't that the comparison is vague. Your complaint is that the comparison is invalid because homotherium and lions are different animals, pointing to their longer canines and serrated teeth which you use to justify homotherium hunting bull mammoths, which is our first premise. The second premise is that our scientific findings show that the size of prey lions can hunt is maxed out at subadult elephants. If both premises are correct (and you've been accepting the second premise), then the conclusion is that homotherium can hunt prey 5 times larger than what lions are capable of. That's simple numbers. You can't weasel your way out of that. But for some reason now you don't want to acknowledge that.>Which means that PP's portrayal is in fact something that could have happened, by your own admission, regardless of how low you think the probability is. Since no matter how much evidence you gather, it's impossible to bring that probability to zeroI don't think you understand how science works. Nothing has zero probability. But we still don't put creationist ideas in documentaries or even entertain them even though "the probability isn't zero."
Homotherium actually hunted mammoths by targeting their pressure points with lightning-fast palm strikes infused with chi. There is no evidence for that but we can't rule out the possibility, this shit happened like a million years ago or something.
>>5081042Thylacoleo invested entirely into bite force and forgot about speed. Procoptodon was just cursed from the start
>>5081714>Actually it's a specific comparison between specific animals about their specific sizesYou don't seem to understand that this is where your comparisons fall apart as evidence. You can't make specific comparisons when one side of the comparison has never been observed in the flesh. It's completely lop sided to correlate animals we can directly observe the feats of to animals we can only make estimates around based on preserved fossils. Trying to use "Simple numbers" to make objective conclusions about paleontology is something you simply can't do. This isn't a math problem.>I don't think you understand how science works. Nothing has zero probability. But we still don't put creationist ideas in documentaries or even entertain them even though "the probability isn't zero."An animal we already know for certain was capable of tackling large prey, hunting an even larger animal than they usually would, doesn't go into creationist territory at all. I'm not sure what you think the standards are for documentaries, but filmmakers catching a rare behavior on camera don't just go "Well we can't use this footage, it's too anomalous to what these animals usually do".
>>5081828>Trying to use "Simple numbers" to make objective conclusionsHoly shit you are impossible. This isn't about what "objective conclusions" you can draw about numbers. It's about whether you can even acknowledge the numbers themselves. Let me break it down for you.>Homotherium can hunt "big male" mammoths>The largest prey lions can hunt are subadult elephants>A mature bull woolly mammoth is ~5 times the size of a subadult elephantDo you disagree with any of these statements?>doesn't go into creationist territory at allIt does when you have no evidence and use the same arguments as them to justify your belief.>but filmmakers catching a rare behavior on camera don't just go "Well we can't use this footage, it's too anomalous to what these animals usually do"You can use that comparison if you want if it makes yourself feel better so you can tell yourself "even though paleontologists say this didn't happen we might find evidence of it later" while ignoring that there's no evidence that anything remotely close to this was done by any animal ever. It's like imagining a land animal that can run multiple times faster than a cheetah. Sure, if we find evidence that such a creature existed, we wouldn't ignore it for being too anomalous (notwithstanding that it'll be highly scrutinized before being accepted since it's such an extraordinary claim), but that's if. You can imagine all sorts of amazing scenarios.
>>5081877>Holy shit you are impossible. This isn't about what "objective conclusions" you can draw about numbers. It's about whether you can even acknowledge the numbers themselves. Let me break it down for you.Whether the numbers can be acknowledged or not is still you trying to make an objective conclusion about them. Something which, again, we can't calculate due to the gaps of information in paleontology. Comparing homotherium to a lion tells us nothing about how the former would've specifically functioned in the flesh, beyond the broadest characteristics. (Like if felines could potentially pack hunt or not, if they were tackling large prey in general, etc.) Trying to tease out exact statistics from broad concepts is a fools errand.>You can use that comparison if you want if it makes yourself feel better so you can tell yourself "even though paleontologists say this didn't happen we might find evidence of it later" while ignoring that there's no evidence that anything remotely close to this was done by any animal ever. It's like imagining a land animal that can run multiple times faster than a cheetah. Sure, if we find evidence that such a creature existed, we wouldn't ignore it for being too anomalous (notwithstanding that it'll be highly scrutinized before being accepted since it's such an extraordinary claim), but that's if. You can imagine all sorts of amazing scenarios.Paleontologists never said it didn't happen, because even they know it's subjective territory with no black or white answer. If anything it's your claim that would need future evidence to cement itself, as what we have now can't give the definitive answer you insist exists.
