|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 7, 2016 7:57:51 GMT 5
If my memory serves me right, people in the past on interspecific conflict forums would cite metabolism as an advantage/disadvantage between two given combatants in a matchup. Of course, to be more precise, endotherms were sometimes seen as having an inherent advantage over ectotherms.
I would guess that in a location too hot or cold, there's no question that it wouldn't bode well for the ectotherm in a fight. But if it was just right, is being an endotherm still really an advantage and an ectotherm a disadvantage? By extension, would being anything intermediate between the two truly be more helpful than one extreme yet inferior to another? Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 7, 2016 10:21:19 GMT 5
If my memory serves me right, people in the past on interspecific conflict forums would cite metabolism as an advantage/disadvantage between two given combatants in a matchup. Of course, to be more precise, endotherms were sometimes seen as having an inherent advantage over ectotherms. I would guess that in a location too hot or cold, there's no question that it wouldn't bode well for the ectotherm in a fight. But if it was just right, is being an endotherm still really an advantage and an ectotherm a disadvantage? By extension, would being anything intermediate between the two truly be more helpful than one extreme yet inferior to another? Discuss. A higher metabolic rate is an advantage, that does not mean ectotherms are at an inherent disadvantage however as their metabolic rates can in fact get quite high. |
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Aug 9, 2016 5:59:51 GMT 5
I think not. My higher metabolic rate won't help against a cobra.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 9, 2016 6:55:47 GMT 5
I think not. My higher metabolic rate won't help against a cobra. Yes it will, if you had the metabolic rate of say a sloth you would fair much worse. |
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Aug 18, 2016 21:18:33 GMT 5
It's that sort of thinking that leads people to think mammals and birds are always>reptiles. Yeah, riiiight.
|
|
|
|
Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 18, 2016 21:40:44 GMT 5
^That's a strawman. No one here is trying to claim mammalian or avian supremacy by stating that metabolism is relevant. It's been explicitly stated that ectotherms--which all extant non-avian reptiles are--can attain high metabolisms, hence ectothermic reptiles are not necessarily at an inherent disadvantage in fights with endothermic mammals or birds. Hell, VD even gave an example of a mammal that would be at a metabolic disadvantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 19, 2016 1:10:33 GMT 5
Not to mention that this is also an argument from adverse consequences. Surely, something that triggers mammal or bird fanboyism is undesirable, but this is simply irrelevant to its truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by Venomous Dragon on Aug 19, 2016 1:43:57 GMT 5
It's that sort of thinking that leads people to think mammals and birds are always>reptiles. Yeah, riiiight. you must not be very familiar with me. also birds are reptiles |
|
|
|
Post by jhg on Aug 19, 2016 21:46:51 GMT 5
It's that sort of thinking that leads people to think mammals and birds are always>reptiles. Yeah, riiiight. also birds are reptiles Good one! |
|
|
|
Post by creature386 on Aug 19, 2016 23:28:59 GMT 5
What?
OK, you obviously have a very rudimentary understanding of taxonomy, so I'll keep it short:
If birds aren't reptiles, crocodiles (who are more closely related to birds than to lizards) aren't either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ceratodromeus on Aug 20, 2016 1:19:47 GMT 5
birds aren't reptiles, they're birds. duh
|
|
