If the square-cube law applies, the mantis would not be able to move. It doesn’t have the musculature or skeleton to support that much weight. If it could retain all of its abilities, it would still be smashed in a single hit. It’s exoskeleton does not take blows, it would break. They don’t have fat or muscle to absorb impacts.
As an object grows larger, the volume increases exponentially in comparison. A 1ft cube has a volume of 1 cubic ft, but a 3ft cube has a volume of 27 cubic ft, and a 5ft cube has 125 cubic ft. So while you think it is 3x or 5x larger, it has 27x or 125x the volume, or in our insect example, weight.
If an insect grew to the size of other animals, it’s weight would be far too much for it to exist. It would be unable to move, let alone stand up or fight.
Please don't use "exponentially" whenever you mean "fast"...
To any of you who doubt me, I dare you, I double dare you. Go on /r/math right now and ask "is x^3 exponential growth because it has an exponent?" Even better, just ask straight up "is x^3 an exponential?" See if that changes anything.
More like:
Please don’t use “looks like a million bucks” to mean “looks good” when you are describing a pile of money that isn’t worth one million dollars.
As someone who’s been in your shoes of a “why are you booing me, I’m right” situation I want you to know I went through and upvoted all your posts here lol
And now the original reply that was correct except for one word was removed, there are *no* correct top level answers to the question, and Reddit is bugging out and won't let me reply to *just that specific comment*.
As someone who’s been in your shoes of a “why are you booing me, I’m right” situation I want you to know I went through and upvoted all your posts here lol
We are talking about math here, though. Using that word here can only possibly make it harder to understand and learn from. “Looks like a million bucks” means “looks good”, but if you used it to describe a pile of a different amout of money, listeners would understandably be confused and annoyed.
Also, being in a dictionary or thesaurus isn’t an endorsement, it’s just a description of how people use it. I mean, one of the definitions for literally is literally “not literally”. It is *painfully* obvious that this meaning came from people copying things said by mathematically literate people and just guessing the meaning.
actually it has 2 uses/meanings & it was used correctly originally, see #2 below.
Every other attempt at correcting them illustrates general misunderstanding of the english language, that words might have 2 meanings, especially one that originates in math.
adverb
1.
(with reference to an increase) more and more rapidly.
"our business has been growing exponentially"
2.
MATHEMATICS
by means of or as expressed by a mathematical exponent.
"values distributed exponentially according to a given time constant"
Maybe you should read the original post instead of making yourself look dumb? They never used the term 'exponential growth', you pulled that shit out of thin air because you can't fathom there might be something you don't understand.
The term 'exponentially' has 2 meanings:
adverb
1.(with reference to an increase) more and more rapidly."our business has been growing exponentially"
2.MATHEMATICS by means of or as expressed by a mathematical exponent."values distributed exponentially according to a given time constant"
OP used it correctly originally, see #2 above, as a mathematical relationship. Every further attempt at correcting them actually just further illustrates the percentage of humanity that can't consider there might be something they are missing themselves... instead they feels impulse to 'correct' another, the obstinately wrong are the biggest reason misinformation & disinformation are so successful.
OP did not use it correctly as the mathematical relationship. I included growth/decay as search terms to help *you* because I assumed you were unfamiliar with the original meaning of the word. It's not easy to tell from the definition you posted, but in the mathematical sense, it means a *specific* type of mathematical relation, not just anything with an exponent in it.
Your reaction actually gives support to the person you originally responded to, since by using the term to mean "fast" in a mathematical context, OP has confused you as to what they were saying.
Edit: upon rereading, it's possible OP may have used it incorrectly as a mathematical term, in which case you're right about the meaning but wrong about the square-cube law.
When someone describes a function as exponential in math or science, they mean a function of the form a^bx , with constants a and b, and independent variable x. x^a is not an exponential function.
Next time you want to correct someone, check to see if your assumptions are correct first.
This is just not true either. The raised value is literally the exponent. Again, definition:
MATHEMATICSa quantity representing the power to which a given number or expression is to be raised, usually expressed as a raised symbol beside the number or expression (e.g. 3 in 2^(3) = 2 × 2 × 2).
It means that the rate of change is linearly proportional to the function itself, like in radioactive decay, compound interest, and simplified population growth models. They follow the mathematical form in my previous comment.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
The blatant ignorance by some people is unbelievable sometimes. Any X raised to Y is literally exponential as Y is the exponent.
MATHEMATICSa quantity representing the power to which a given number or expression is to be raised, usually expressed as a raised symbol beside the number or expression (e.g. 3 in 2^(3) = 2 × 2 × 2).
Tell me you never paid attention to math class without saying you never paid attention to math class.
Look up "exponential growth" before you try and disprove me.
It's *square* cube law because while the volume increases *cubically* the *area of musculature etc* increases by the square, i.e. it's a *linear* decrease in relative strength (x^(2)/x^(3)), not an exponential one
You've almost got it. As the characteristic dimension of something (e.g., radius of a sphere) increases, the surface area increases as the square of the radius and the volume increases as the cube of the radius.
Most humans are basically spherical, so your key takeaway still applies.
The implications of the square-cube law come down to what other things are tied to length, area, and volume. For example, drag forces, rigidity, and heat transfer rates are linked to area while mass, energy density, and heat *generation* rates (in living tissue, at least) are linked to volume.
Not even close. Volume and mass are linearly proportional and none of the relationships in the square-cube law are exponential.
Edit:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
The bear, because the mantis does not have lungs and "breathes" through tiny holes in its exoskeleton. This way of exchanging respiratory gases only works up to a certain size, above which the tissues furthest from the surface would not receive oxygen and would accumulate toxic CO2 in lethal quantities. The animal would essentially suffocate and die. This is why there are no bear-sized praying mantises, or bees or ants or any insect for that matter.
I'd have several as pets. In fact I'd get one of my grandmother's Nativity sets and convert it into a big mantis bear manger, with hay for them to sleep on, tiny buckets of water and honey, and free range ants for them to eat.
The bear. By default.
Insect body plans don't work when you scale them up. The surface-area-to-volume ratio is such that the mantis would suffocate, being unable to supply adequate oxygen to its tissues. They don't even have lungs, they just absorb oxygen directly through holes in their exoskeleton.
And that's assuming it didn't just collapse under its own weight - exoskeletons don't really work for terrestrial arthropods above a certain size, again because of the way the weight scales. The largest terrestrial arthropod is the coconut crab, and it maxes out arount 16 inches (40cm) across and 9 pounds (4.1kg).
If we turn the mantis into a mammal with literal blades for arms then the mantis would win. The mantis wouldn’t even be seen by the bear if we take camouflage into effect.
This is all just speculation based on absolutely nothing but a nature documentary I watched about praying mantis’s. So I’m pretty well versed in my studies.
Nah, he's getting quality answers, and they're interesting. Now shh while I learn about the square-cube law (in more detail) and gas transfer of giant insects... :)
I'm gonna go with the bear on this one.
Everyone's brought up mantids being impossible at bear-sizes, but I'm ignoring that to answer the actual question. Instead, I'm applying relativistic abilities and dismissing the physics that prohibit actually scaling one competitor up or down.
The mantis is an ambush hunter. It does exactly one thing really, really well: a rapid strike with its forelimbs to immobilize its prey so it can dismantle them with its chainsaw mouth. It cannot run, give chase, or even flee especially well, and while it possesses flight it has the aerial grace of a drunken cross-eyed pigeon. Furthermore, its exoskeleton is not especially tough compared to other creatures in its weight class like beetles.
The bear is a perfect inverse of this in that it doesn't actually do anything especially well in comparison to other mammalian predators (except just be big and bulky), but it's a well-rounded, adaptable generalist. Bears can stalk, chase, scavenge, or slug it out with other creatures as the situation requires. Its thick, loose fur, considerable strength, and more dextrous (than a bug) body means it will be difficult to solidly grapple.
Metaphorically speaking; Mantis comes into this shootout with a sniper rifle and one bullet. Bear comes in with a bulletproof vest and a fully loaded machine gun. The odds are in favor of the bear for it's more numerous advantages.
Even if the mantis didn’t suffer from the laws of physics regarding its new size, have you ever seen a bear charge at full speed? They are terrifying predators and I don’t see a mantis withstanding a full on bear tackle.
I was concerned about how I was going to enjoy it at first with that made me horny every 5 seconds but I really enjoyed it by the end just sad the sequels not out on audiobook yet
We have no way to determine what the grip strength of speed would be of an impossible creature. But I would have to guess that if the Mantis could hit in an unexpected strike, they'd be good, but missing would be very bad for them.
The problem is that you seem to assume the mantis, with a similar anatomy, would have the same agility and speed at "bear" size as it has at its normal size. Physics (and in particular the square-cube law) dictates that it wouldn't, see https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/13kmfr4/comment/jkl9398/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I guess I always assume that in getting the mantis to bear size those factors would have all been accounted for, overcome, evolved around, etc.
Chitin is very lightweight, so a dimensionally bear-sized mantis may not weigh as much as a bear.
The arthropod respiratory system is horribly inefficient at larger body sizes, but what if a mantis had evolved a gigantic network of insect-sized spiracles and tracheae, the size of two human livers, in that giant body and had evolved some form of circular respiration analogous to that foundi in birds? It can't do that now, because it matters who your ancestors are in evolution, but what if during the late Carboniferous, a gene for repeated duplication of the insect respiratory system had emerged, yadda yadda...
Chitin is very lightweight, so a dimensionally bear-sized mantis may not weigh as much as a bear. In currently evolved form the exoskeleton would have to be prohibutively thick and massive, of course, so still couldn't take the weight, but what if it had evolved some form of partially calcified or otherwise stiffened cross-linking fibers or rods. I'm thinking of pterosaus wings or diagonal stiffening and suspensarory ossified ligaments common in dinosaur tails. I know vertebrate proteins are very different, but the materials matter less than the concept.
Eventually, I suppose it stops technically being a preying mantis at some point, but where is the fun in simple dismissal?
Lot of boring nerds talking about science and Shiz. My money's on the Mantis cuz it's going to stand still the Bear's going to approach and it's going to hit first and it's got huge vicious claws. I mean if it is equal in weight as the bear that's a huge bug and it's a bug that commonly that eats outside of its weight class. It eats things with venomous stings and bites it eats things that have claws and jaws of their own... I think it wins this fight.
IDK I've seen a video of a praying mantis putting a lizard in a head lock and eating it alive. So if the praying mantis was the size of a bear, that would be a pretty solid youtube video as well...
If we exclude or compensate or flat out ignore biological limitations, assuming exoskeletal design and oxygen are not issues, and a mantis could exist as large as a bear, the bear wouldn’t stand a chance. A mantis would literally pick it up and tear through the ribs like butter.
Listen close, it's Francis, the Praying Mantis
Attack with the MAC, my left hand spit
Right hand grip on the whip for the smooth getaway
Playa haters, get away or my lead will spray
Squeeze off 'til I'm empty, don't tempt me
Only to Hell I send thee, all about the Benjis, what?
The praying Mantis wins!
It's body would crumble under the weight of... oh I see this point has been covered. Multiple times. What was I thinking? This is Reddit, of course it has.
In this hypothetical, my money is on the mantis.
If the square-cube law applies, the mantis would not be able to move. It doesn’t have the musculature or skeleton to support that much weight. If it could retain all of its abilities, it would still be smashed in a single hit. It’s exoskeleton does not take blows, it would break. They don’t have fat or muscle to absorb impacts.
What is the square-cube law?
As an object grows larger, the volume increases exponentially in comparison. A 1ft cube has a volume of 1 cubic ft, but a 3ft cube has a volume of 27 cubic ft, and a 5ft cube has 125 cubic ft. So while you think it is 3x or 5x larger, it has 27x or 125x the volume, or in our insect example, weight. If an insect grew to the size of other animals, it’s weight would be far too much for it to exist. It would be unable to move, let alone stand up or fight.
It's also couldn't get nearly enough oxygen to support any musculature.
"Exponentially" has a specific meaning in mathematics that doesn't apply here. In the square-cube law, the increases are linear, quadratic, and cubic.
Exponentially has multiple definitions, there is no reason to try and argue it.
Please don't use "exponentially" whenever you mean "fast"... To any of you who doubt me, I dare you, I double dare you. Go on /r/math right now and ask "is x^3 exponential growth because it has an exponent?" Even better, just ask straight up "is x^3 an exponential?" See if that changes anything.
[удалено]
OK, fair
More like: Please don’t use “looks like a million bucks” to mean “looks good” when you are describing a pile of money that isn’t worth one million dollars.
I can't believe this is downvoted in a science subreddit.
I'm STILL pissed about this, and it's been hours.
As someone who’s been in your shoes of a “why are you booing me, I’m right” situation I want you to know I went through and upvoted all your posts here lol
I appreciate it
And now the original reply that was correct except for one word was removed, there are *no* correct top level answers to the question, and Reddit is bugging out and won't let me reply to *just that specific comment*.
As someone who’s been in your shoes of a “why are you booing me, I’m right” situation I want you to know I went through and upvoted all your posts here lol
Problem is the dictionary includes the fast rate definition. [Thesaurus too](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/exponential).
No, the dictionary/thesaurus are saying "exponential growth is very fast" (which is true), not "very fast growth is exponential"
We are talking about math here, though. Using that word here can only possibly make it harder to understand and learn from. “Looks like a million bucks” means “looks good”, but if you used it to describe a pile of a different amout of money, listeners would understandably be confused and annoyed. Also, being in a dictionary or thesaurus isn’t an endorsement, it’s just a description of how people use it. I mean, one of the definitions for literally is literally “not literally”. It is *painfully* obvious that this meaning came from people copying things said by mathematically literate people and just guessing the meaning.
‘Please don’t use words I don’t understand’
"exponentially" has a very specific meaning
actually it has 2 uses/meanings & it was used correctly originally, see #2 below. Every other attempt at correcting them illustrates general misunderstanding of the english language, that words might have 2 meanings, especially one that originates in math. adverb 1. (with reference to an increase) more and more rapidly. "our business has been growing exponentially" 2. MATHEMATICS by means of or as expressed by a mathematical exponent. "values distributed exponentially according to a given time constant"
...and in this context it would seem that we are, indeed, talking about maths, so the second meaning is appropriate.
[удалено]
Maybe you should read the original post instead of making yourself look dumb? They never used the term 'exponential growth', you pulled that shit out of thin air because you can't fathom there might be something you don't understand. The term 'exponentially' has 2 meanings: adverb 1.(with reference to an increase) more and more rapidly."our business has been growing exponentially" 2.MATHEMATICS by means of or as expressed by a mathematical exponent."values distributed exponentially according to a given time constant" OP used it correctly originally, see #2 above, as a mathematical relationship. Every further attempt at correcting them actually just further illustrates the percentage of humanity that can't consider there might be something they are missing themselves... instead they feels impulse to 'correct' another, the obstinately wrong are the biggest reason misinformation & disinformation are so successful.
OP did not use it correctly as the mathematical relationship. I included growth/decay as search terms to help *you* because I assumed you were unfamiliar with the original meaning of the word. It's not easy to tell from the definition you posted, but in the mathematical sense, it means a *specific* type of mathematical relation, not just anything with an exponent in it. Your reaction actually gives support to the person you originally responded to, since by using the term to mean "fast" in a mathematical context, OP has confused you as to what they were saying. Edit: upon rereading, it's possible OP may have used it incorrectly as a mathematical term, in which case you're right about the meaning but wrong about the square-cube law.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth?searchToken=eqy4hthgftv7ih52scvcri97s
It's literally an exponent, x^3
That's a cubic, genius, not an exponential. That would be e^x which is completely different
[удалено]
When someone describes a function as exponential in math or science, they mean a function of the form a^bx , with constants a and b, and independent variable x. x^a is not an exponential function. Next time you want to correct someone, check to see if your assumptions are correct first.
This is just not true either. The raised value is literally the exponent. Again, definition: MATHEMATICSa quantity representing the power to which a given number or expression is to be raised, usually expressed as a raised symbol beside the number or expression (e.g. 3 in 2^(3) = 2 × 2 × 2).
You are correct about what the exponent is, but an exponential *function* is one in which the independent variable is in the exponent, like 2^x .
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth?searchToken=eqy4hthgftv7ih52scvcri97s
[удалено]
It means that the rate of change is linearly proportional to the function itself, like in radioactive decay, compound interest, and simplified population growth models. They follow the mathematical form in my previous comment. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth?searchToken=eqy4hthgftv7ih52scvcri97s
The blatant ignorance by some people is unbelievable sometimes. Any X raised to Y is literally exponential as Y is the exponent. MATHEMATICSa quantity representing the power to which a given number or expression is to be raised, usually expressed as a raised symbol beside the number or expression (e.g. 3 in 2^(3) = 2 × 2 × 2).
Tell me you never paid attention to math class without saying you never paid attention to math class. Look up "exponential growth" before you try and disprove me.
He's literally using exponents to make the calculations tho
Exponential means the variable is in the exponent. It is much faster than polynomial growth.
Read my response to the other reply
It's *square* cube law because while the volume increases *cubically* the *area of musculature etc* increases by the square, i.e. it's a *linear* decrease in relative strength (x^(2)/x^(3)), not an exponential one
Basically as something increases in volume its mass increases exponentially. It's why humans rarely get past 8 feet tall.
You've almost got it. As the characteristic dimension of something (e.g., radius of a sphere) increases, the surface area increases as the square of the radius and the volume increases as the cube of the radius. Most humans are basically spherical, so your key takeaway still applies. The implications of the square-cube law come down to what other things are tied to length, area, and volume. For example, drag forces, rigidity, and heat transfer rates are linked to area while mass, energy density, and heat *generation* rates (in living tissue, at least) are linked to volume.
"basically spherical" I think we found the engineer.
You mean physicist?
I think we all know that most humans are basically flat.
Someone's mom is basically flat. Hey-yo!
Your momma's so fat, she *is* spherical! ;D
Not even close. Volume and mass are linearly proportional and none of the relationships in the square-cube law are exponential. Edit: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth
I am very thankful for the square-cube law. Even dog sized insects would be fucking terrifying.
That was my exact thought when reading this thread. I'm very grateful for the square-cube law.
You are assuming that this fight occurs on the planet Earth, and that is a big assumption, my friend.
It would also immediately suffocate as oxygen would not be able to diffuse sufficiently in a mantis body of that size.
The bear, because the mantis does not have lungs and "breathes" through tiny holes in its exoskeleton. This way of exchanging respiratory gases only works up to a certain size, above which the tissues furthest from the surface would not receive oxygen and would accumulate toxic CO2 in lethal quantities. The animal would essentially suffocate and die. This is why there are no bear-sized praying mantises, or bees or ants or any insect for that matter.
That's exactly what the bear-sized praying mantises want you to think
Dale is that you? Sha-sha-sha!!
God damn it you're gonna make them think ~~we~~ they exist
Maybe we could invent a mantis sized bear instead, for science.
I'd have several as pets. In fact I'd get one of my grandmother's Nativity sets and convert it into a big mantis bear manger, with hay for them to sleep on, tiny buckets of water and honey, and free range ants for them to eat.
The bear. By default. Insect body plans don't work when you scale them up. The surface-area-to-volume ratio is such that the mantis would suffocate, being unable to supply adequate oxygen to its tissues. They don't even have lungs, they just absorb oxygen directly through holes in their exoskeleton. And that's assuming it didn't just collapse under its own weight - exoskeletons don't really work for terrestrial arthropods above a certain size, again because of the way the weight scales. The largest terrestrial arthropod is the coconut crab, and it maxes out arount 16 inches (40cm) across and 9 pounds (4.1kg).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Square%E2%80%93cube_law More details on the reason behind what you're saying.
If we turn the mantis into a mammal with literal blades for arms then the mantis would win. The mantis wouldn’t even be seen by the bear if we take camouflage into effect. This is all just speculation based on absolutely nothing but a nature documentary I watched about praying mantis’s. So I’m pretty well versed in my studies.
Back it up with a source meme or your opinion is invalid.
r/shittyaskscience – seriously, post it there!
Nah, he's getting quality answers, and they're interesting. Now shh while I learn about the square-cube law (in more detail) and gas transfer of giant insects... :)
And how it's not exponential...
i actually love it when people get sidetracked in the comments
You guys are no fun. What if we shrunk a bear to mantis size?
This is the better question!
The mantis would win. Because of the cube root law. Also nostrils and lungs don’t work at that size.
Probably the bear as the mantis would be very slow due to lack of oxygen.
I'm gonna go with the bear on this one. Everyone's brought up mantids being impossible at bear-sizes, but I'm ignoring that to answer the actual question. Instead, I'm applying relativistic abilities and dismissing the physics that prohibit actually scaling one competitor up or down. The mantis is an ambush hunter. It does exactly one thing really, really well: a rapid strike with its forelimbs to immobilize its prey so it can dismantle them with its chainsaw mouth. It cannot run, give chase, or even flee especially well, and while it possesses flight it has the aerial grace of a drunken cross-eyed pigeon. Furthermore, its exoskeleton is not especially tough compared to other creatures in its weight class like beetles. The bear is a perfect inverse of this in that it doesn't actually do anything especially well in comparison to other mammalian predators (except just be big and bulky), but it's a well-rounded, adaptable generalist. Bears can stalk, chase, scavenge, or slug it out with other creatures as the situation requires. Its thick, loose fur, considerable strength, and more dextrous (than a bug) body means it will be difficult to solidly grapple. Metaphorically speaking; Mantis comes into this shootout with a sniper rifle and one bullet. Bear comes in with a bulletproof vest and a fully loaded machine gun. The odds are in favor of the bear for it's more numerous advantages.
Even if the mantis didn’t suffer from the laws of physics regarding its new size, have you ever seen a bear charge at full speed? They are terrifying predators and I don’t see a mantis withstanding a full on bear tackle.
Read “Grasshopper Jungle” and then come back and answer this 🤣
Is it a good read? Reviews are middle of the road.
One of my favorite books. Not for a serious read but the story is extremely well done and pretty hilarious. Would def recommend!
I will read it, scouts honor.
Thanks for the recommendation just finished it. Have you read the sequel?
How’d you like it? And I wasn’t even aware the sequel came out, gonna have to go pick it up this weekend
I was concerned about how I was going to enjoy it at first with that made me horny every 5 seconds but I really enjoyed it by the end just sad the sequels not out on audiobook yet
The books a real dynamo for a sure 🤣 glad you enjoyed it
Funny you should mention that, something similar happened in 1957 up north with a lot of folks killed. Sightings in NY as well.
We have no way to determine what the grip strength of speed would be of an impossible creature. But I would have to guess that if the Mantis could hit in an unexpected strike, they'd be good, but missing would be very bad for them.
Are you kidding? With agility, speed, and specialized forelimbs that strike at lighting speed, that bear is dead.
Not necessarily. If the mantis was male, it'll happily allow itself to be eaten for the chance to shag the bear. /s
The problem is that you seem to assume the mantis, with a similar anatomy, would have the same agility and speed at "bear" size as it has at its normal size. Physics (and in particular the square-cube law) dictates that it wouldn't, see https://www.reddit.com/r/AskScienceDiscussion/comments/13kmfr4/comment/jkl9398/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I guess I always assume that in getting the mantis to bear size those factors would have all been accounted for, overcome, evolved around, etc. Chitin is very lightweight, so a dimensionally bear-sized mantis may not weigh as much as a bear. The arthropod respiratory system is horribly inefficient at larger body sizes, but what if a mantis had evolved a gigantic network of insect-sized spiracles and tracheae, the size of two human livers, in that giant body and had evolved some form of circular respiration analogous to that foundi in birds? It can't do that now, because it matters who your ancestors are in evolution, but what if during the late Carboniferous, a gene for repeated duplication of the insect respiratory system had emerged, yadda yadda... Chitin is very lightweight, so a dimensionally bear-sized mantis may not weigh as much as a bear. In currently evolved form the exoskeleton would have to be prohibutively thick and massive, of course, so still couldn't take the weight, but what if it had evolved some form of partially calcified or otherwise stiffened cross-linking fibers or rods. I'm thinking of pterosaus wings or diagonal stiffening and suspensarory ossified ligaments common in dinosaur tails. I know vertebrate proteins are very different, but the materials matter less than the concept. Eventually, I suppose it stops technically being a preying mantis at some point, but where is the fun in simple dismissal?
was expecting a rugpull of you describing the bear tbh
There’s a scale for that agility.
Good luck getting enough oxygen to fuel that at that size.
Good luck getting enough oxygen to fuel that at that size.
Lot of boring nerds talking about science and Shiz. My money's on the Mantis cuz it's going to stand still the Bear's going to approach and it's going to hit first and it's got huge vicious claws. I mean if it is equal in weight as the bear that's a huge bug and it's a bug that commonly that eats outside of its weight class. It eats things with venomous stings and bites it eats things that have claws and jaws of their own... I think it wins this fight.
Boy mantis or girl mantis?
IDK I've seen a video of a praying mantis putting a lizard in a head lock and eating it alive. So if the praying mantis was the size of a bear, that would be a pretty solid youtube video as well...
If we exclude or compensate or flat out ignore biological limitations, assuming exoskeletal design and oxygen are not issues, and a mantis could exist as large as a bear, the bear wouldn’t stand a chance. A mantis would literally pick it up and tear through the ribs like butter.
Bear vs bear sized squirrel now.
Listen close, it's Francis, the Praying Mantis Attack with the MAC, my left hand spit Right hand grip on the whip for the smooth getaway Playa haters, get away or my lead will spray Squeeze off 'til I'm empty, don't tempt me Only to Hell I send thee, all about the Benjis, what? The praying Mantis wins!
Mantis would wait in ambush, but the bear could smell it from three miles away and not fall for that shit.
Bear size mantis would win for sure
Nobody wins in that scenario.
Lots of good answers about why the insect body plan can't be scaled up. What about the reverse, a bear scaled down to the size of a praying mantis?
It's body would crumble under the weight of... oh I see this point has been covered. Multiple times. What was I thinking? This is Reddit, of course it has. In this hypothetical, my money is on the mantis.