• mozz@mbin.grits.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    166
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    Just to put some context:

    • Predatory scorpions a couple feet long
    • Armored millipedes larger than a man; they were probably herbivorous but as the article notes they “would have had few, if any, predators.”
    • There is a theory, possibly not real well accepted but it makes sense to me, that trilobites were the creature that way-back-when invented effective predation shortly after evolving vision. (Before which the world was a fairly benign place.) The theory further supposes that the Cambrian Explosion was caused by every other organism on the planet having to scramble not to have their soft blobby flesh munched on at leisure by a limitless army of armored, invulnerable hunters, which they couldn’t see or avoid, but who could see and follow them.
    • Windex007@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      48
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      6 months ago

      I salivate whenever I hear about these ancient mega arthropods. Like, gigantic and armoured, whatever. But by modern standards, blind and incredibly stupid. And in that atmosphere you’d be constantly so well oxygenated. I don’t know why but I’m convinced these big fucks tasted like lobster.

    • Dr. Moose@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      6 months ago

      I really like that theory too. It further expands that vision is what granted us intelligence as creatures coming on land could see significantly further and thus start planning and reacting to distant changes giving birth to modern intelligence. To add, whales developed this intelligence and went back to the ocean to absolutely dominate it.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        This video is really interesting and made me realize what a huge evolutionary advantage it is to be able to remember things - something we take completely for granted, but isn’t required to survive.

    • Live Your Lives@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 months ago

      Why do you find that particular theory about the Cambrian Explosion compelling? I assume mankind is putting a similar pressure on many ecosystems today, so shouldn’t we be seeing that kind of evolutionary explosion happening now?

      • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Before: All phyla differentiated but all the creatures are soft and blobby and sort of unremarkable
        After: All of a sudden there’s trilobites everywhere, they can see and some of them hunt, and all creatures everywhere suddenly have all this armor and mobility and a lot of them have spikes

        I don’t really know (even enough to talk about what might be the competing theories), but it seems like it fits and it doesn’t seem all that farfetched. That said, it kind of seems like all the scientists think me and Andrew Parker are wrong though, so IDK.

        (Also - I didn’t know about this before as it’s semi-new, but apparently Anomalocaris also had eyes and hunted, so star power of the trilobites aside maybe those guys were involved as well. I have to say though the timing of the way it’s written in Wikipedia makes a little more sense if the sequencing is: Cambrian explosion -> some species turn into predators, as opposed to the other way around)

        What humans are doing to the natural world right now is a global extinction event (not much different from has happened a handful of times). It’s happening too fast for anything to adapt to except in the most short-term emergency ways. Mostly stuff is just dying.

        If we stay around for millions of years doing this same thing then I would expect the biosphere to develop defenses and then rebound into a new equilibrium with defense measures included against what we tend to do to it. Even that outcome wouldn’t really be another Cambrian explosion though, because everything before it was so universally blobby and unremarkable. That is actually exactly why I like this theory – the clear lack of a certain type of selection pressure before the explosion happened is as much as part of the theory (there must have been something missing from the threat matrix that suddenly arrived, and what was that thing?) as what things looked like after the Cambrian.

      • Azzu@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        Humans have only been dominant for a few thousand years. Give it like a million for enough evolution to happen and then ask this question again.

      • BlemboTheThird@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        6 months ago

        It is happening now but evolution takes a long time. If there were a ton of adaptations that happened in the next 10,000 years, that would be incredibly fast on an evolutionary timescale

      • TonyTonyChopper@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        6 months ago

        Humans are blitzkrieging the troposphere. Nothing could hope to evolve fast enough except fungi and bacteria I guess

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      trilobites were the creature that way-back-when invented effective predation shortly after evolving vision.

      The fact that their closet living relative, the horseshoe crab, has remained pretty much unchanged for up to 480 million years lends credence to the idea that their design works very well.

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    We’ve got some pretty big centipedes around here, and they’re one of very few animals I slaughter ruthlessly without remorse. I have a hammer for the express purpose of braining them. Fuckers don’t need an excuse to bite you, they just do. And, they love bedsheets, clothes, etc. Ironically, we also have house centipedes, and they get a pass. They’re hideous, sure, but anything that eats cockroach eggs (another one I kill without remorse) is A-OK in my book.

    • Isoprenoid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I needed a clarification, Wikipedia had your back.

      The Coleoptera, with about 400,000 described species, is the largest of all orders, constituting almost 40% of described insects and 25% of all known animal species; new species are discovered frequently, with estimates suggesting that there are between 0.9 and 2.1 million total species.

      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beetle

      • HidingUnderHats@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        31
        ·
        6 months ago

        Note that this is described species. Beetles are really easy to preserve and are often super cool. There are likely more species in other orders, but they haven’t had as much work done on them. Hymenoptera, for example, with all of the parasitic wasps probably has more species but they can be so freaking small and difficult to work with.

        Sorry, I am like a wanna be entomologist who works with akshual entomologists and this is one of the things that triggers them

        • MintyFresh@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          I recently heard a tidbit that we think there’s less bugs in the air because windshields aren’t as dirty. Like, if that’s our indicator on such a huge and fundamental part of life on this planet… Less bugs on the windshield. We have no idea

          • smeg@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            It’s not even very good logic (in my humble, non-expert opinion). There are more cars about, so even if the number of bugs was the same there would be less bugs per car, and that ignores that cars are more aerodynamic and so are probably just killing less bugs anyway!

            • vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              6 months ago

              The aerodynamic thing is where money is at. I drive a 91 jeep and I still have to use the windo washer at the gas station, cause the wipers are insufficient.

            • sep@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              6 months ago

              I imagined they used bugs per license plate for that. Since those are fixed size and vertical.

              • smeg@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                6 months ago

                There’s probably still a bit of aerodynamic effect, but yeah that sounds a lot more scientific!

    • maculata
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      Wot?

      John

      Paul

      George

      Ringo

      That’s FOUR. Only four.

  • Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    People see insects as extremely weak but they’re the ones who despite being a thousandth of your size can still consistently ruin your day. Now imagine that scaled up and given a lifespan which allows them to develop intelligence and you’ll start to understand why my insectsona would absolutely fuck up your dragonsona in a fight.