Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

mr_jim_lahey t1_j5kjwam wrote

Reply to comment by hazpat in Trilobite tridents could be the oldest evidence of male sexual combat — Fighting for mates may be a behaviour that dates back over 400 million years by marketrent

The significance of the paper is literally that it shows strong evidence that the horns were not for foraging/feeding in mud:

> A unique teratological specimen of Walliserops trifurcatus showing four, rather than three tines, is inconsistent with possible hypotheses connecting the trident to feeding techniques and suggests a sexually selected function. Malformations in a variety of living organisms support this conclusion. Morphometric comparisons to similar structures used for intraspecific combat in dynastine beetles show that the trident occupies a comparable shape space consistent with the hypothesis that it was a sexual combat weapon, the oldest reported example of its kind.

Have you ever written a scientific paper, or do you know any scientists? Do you think they just sit around and spout out random ideas that don't stand up to 2 seconds of idle speculation from laypeople? Because that seems to be the assumption inherent in your very confident assertion that these scientists are wrong based on your "first glance".

1

hazpat t1_j5kmklt wrote

Are you an author on this? You sound offended that a person can use the same visual comparison techniques as the authors and come up with a different speculation. Each time you redundantly quote the article, it is a section that uses visual assessment to say the structures on these aquatic creatures "looks like" what land creatures use in combat.

In your opinion once an article is published it can't be incorrect and nobody should question it? Jenny McCarthy vibes on that.

−1

mr_jim_lahey t1_j5kqstq wrote

The thing I find offensive is the arrogance and disrespect for science in general to think that your non-expert, non-peer reviewed opinion that is specifically and methodically refuted in great detail by actual experts who wrote an actual peer-reviewed paper holds any weight. It's like telling an astronomer that they're wrong about the earth orbiting the sun because to you it looks like the sun is going around the earth.

3

hazpat t1_j5lfmm5 wrote

You realize they say multiple times they need more evidence to support their hypothesis right?. They aren't even sure if the species exhibits sexual dimorphism. You seem hyper invested in these authors initial untested hypothesis, you also seem to keep assuming this article has to be true because of peer review... it's literally a hypothesis open for discussion

−1