Thread 5031085

tierzoo ranks animals but he never says what he's ranking them by, only what they can do
so now i'm wondering: how SHOULD animal success be ranked

By mortality rates, and specimen weight

>>5031086
Also biomes are a huge factor for an animals success. They can't adapt or change their environments like we can so that actually affects their rank as well

>>5031086
so is that like, percentage of the population that reaches reproductive age? and how does weight play into it

>>5031088
>so is that like, percentage of the population that reaches reproductive age?
Pretty much, also factor in things like reproductive strategies like baby spam (like fish having a million babies), and nurturing species (ones that raise their young)
>and how does weight play into it
Weight classes. That's how we do it for human fighters too

>>5031086
Mortality rates? Almost every large carnivore - bears, big cats, wolves, even orcas - has terrible mortality rates with fewer than 50% of them making it to adulthood.

>>5031091
Okay now for predators we factor in predation success rates

>>5031085 (OP)
I always thought it was survivability, in a Darwinian perspective, which is different from longevity. Just think "what are the chances this build makes kids before dying"

>>5031090
is that really a measure of success, or just a measure of r selection vs k selection

>>5031095
He believes the BS about African painted dogs having super high hunting success rates:

The data revealed that the dogs chased almost all of their prey over short runs rather than long pursuits. They didn’t coordinate their attacks, and they never showed signs of teamwork. On average, they killed just 16 percent of their targets.

In other words, nothing about their reputations bore out in the data. “It was really quite the opposite of what we expected,” says Tatjana Hubel, who was involved in the study.

(Needless to say big cats have even worse hunting success rates)

>>5031085 (OP)
By their ability to reproduce before dying

The reality is ranking animals in "tiers" is retarded on its face, as each animal has suffered through millions of years of evolution and almost always exists as a good example of their particular niche. Trying to compare slugs with octopuses or gorillas with orangutans is retarded. If everything on Earth was an "A tier" in any of his videos, then there'd be no biosphere at all.

Here is my ranking for animals that aren't under 100 pounds
>Wolves
F tier, total jobbers
>Big Cats
E tier, somewhat more competent than wolves
>Mega Herbivores
D tier Kwab's any land predator
>Crocodilians
C tier Better pray to animal Jesus for this one
>Elephants
B tier Kwab's even Saltie Crocs
>Sharks
A tier King of the animals
>Orcas/Whales
S tier The most busted of all. Can literally kill most other animals just by landing on them.

>>5031116
Sperm whales and humpback whales can kwab orcas and even pilot whales can chase off orcas

ai is telling me 1 in 5 people never have children, so I guess 80% reproductive success rate is S tier, and we can rank them from there
elephants are 70%

Animals should be ranked by how oofy-floofy-oofums they are. Ovcharkas are the oofy-floofy-oofiest creatures I can think of so they are, obviously, the best animals ever.

>>5031119
>even pilot whales can chase off orcas
This is the whale equivalent to smaller birds mobbing an eagle or a hawk but somehow we still get people talking about how pilot whales are an orcas worst fear

>>5031257
Orcas really do fear them though

Orcas mog

>>5031263
Sure

>>5031268
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-do-pilot-whales-chase-killer-whales-near-iceland-180978758/

>>5032753
>literally just mobbing behaviour
Oh my gosh guys pilot whales are litchrally an orcas worst nightmare

>>5031097
not even that makes sense, he ranked rats low on the rodent tier list. by that metric they should be S tier

Population size and length of presence/lineage in the fossil record. Whichever dinosaurs evolved into today's pigeons are some of the most successful animals ever because their progeny exist today. Extinction =/= failure, considering you can become "extinct" by evolving into something else. Ants are probably the most successful animals ever because they've been around for eons and they outnumber everything else on the planet, and it's not even close. They will probably also always exist as long as Earth holds life.

You could move the goalpost a bit if you accept extended phenotype theory. We would definitely be the most successful by far because the extended phenotype of humankind as a species includes the manipulation of every single aspect of nature to create things that will be observable on Earth forever. We've made tools out of everything from metal to animals (both while alive and dead). Our tools and buildings will always be discoverable in some capacity, and some of the animals we've bred will continue to reproduce for millennia even if we disappear. We've scarred the planet and removed species from existence.

>>5031116
okay but outside of fiction or human meddling, a whale will never "land" on anything in a way that won't injure it. "Landing" on something on the ocean floor is it's only realistic option, and doing that quickly enough to kill, for instance, a great white shark would fracture bones immediately

>>5031116
Whales can't be S-tier when humans almost mogged them to extinction but stopped because we felt bad

>>5034456
>What are you without that Iron Exo Suit Tony?

>>5031116
>>5034456
>>5034493
Fine I'll revise it
>Wolves and Humans with no weapons
F tier
>Big Cats
E tier
>Mega Herbivores and Stone age humans
D tier
>Crocodilians
C tier
>Elephants
B tier
>Sharks
A tier
>Orcas/Whales and Medieval Humans
S tier
>Modern Age Humans
SS tier

>>5032832
Orcas are scared of them though

>>5031085 (OP)
Why does he rank rhinos so low?

>>5031085 (OP)
It's literally a joke anon
The gag is he's treating organisms like video game characters
The thumbnails even have hit markers and damage numbers
His conclusions are not meant to have scientific validity, they are the sloptube equivalent of the "but really, what can an elephant even do?" pasta

>>5035246
See >>5031268

>>5031085 (OP)
Why doe he rate rhinos and whale sharks so low?

>>5031085 (OP)
how long its lineage existed and what niche it occupied as an example the most successful apex predator on land ever was probably Allosaurus, The thing was a menace for the entire 7 million years of the Morrison and is probably the most prolific predatory animal from there a full 75% of all theropod remains from the formation are Allosaurus

>>5037465
wrong, it was the mighty megalosaurus

Animals should by ranked by how much biomass the species as a whole contains

>>5031108
this. the only common aspect among all forms of life is the drive to keep reproducing and existing

>>5037496
Nonhuman apes would be D-tier then

>>5037496
cow GODS won
human KEKS lost
i believe under this metric it would be:
#1 ants
#2 cattle
#3 humans
#4 termites
#5 probably krill but idk

>>5037619
The sun never sets on the ant empire

>>5037619
actually it turns out krill are number 1 and copepods are number 2, putting humans at #5
but ants and cattle still btfo humans

ahem

>>5037640
Tartigrade Gods...
We won

>>5037640
actual reddit animal

>>5037689
fuck off

>>5037786
He’s not wrong though

>>5037790
immature contrarianism is peak reddit

>>5031085 (OP)
He's always rated them the same way, by how effective they are at fulfilling their natural role in the ecosystem

>>5037795
For someone who bitches about how reddit animals that literally nobody cares about are you seem to really love reddit’s favourite extremophile

>>5038067
That doesn't make any sense since almost all extant species fulfill some role in the ecosystem

I mean any animal that isn't extinct is S tier by default

>>5031085 (OP)
Its a fun popsci video why are giving it so much thought

these videos are cringe as fuck and you should be embarrassed to watch them

>>5039127
>Its a fun popsci video why are giving it so much thought
You say this, but Tierzoo actually is quite defensive to criticism online about the accuracy of his content. Which you wouldn't expect from a guy who just doesn't care about what he puts out.

>>5039265
he's still buttblasted that the paleontology community ripped apart his dino videos

>>5039265
Didn't he admit most if his "research" is browsing wildlife footage on YouTube to see which animals win which matchups?

>>5031085 (OP)
dont even need to watch his stuff to know it's a desperate autist's attempts at making himself the king or specialist of whatever the fuck anyways. you shouldnt care about that.

tier lists are the most autistic shit you can come up with and is basically the dead end of autisto intellectualism. yeah sure buddy, everything has to fit in tight little boxes you can stack atop one another. fucking eejit.

>>5039137
This

>>5031085 (OP)
by how competitive each build is for it's available maps in the current meta of the game

>>5041087
Tierlists are fun

>>5041603
The problem is that real life isn't a zero sum game like a competitive MMO, it's a complex biosphere with niches and even predator-prey relationships aren't entirely all take no give.
Under TierZoo's logic, something like krill would be "low tier" because they don't have any obvious physiological super-traits and get eaten by everything, and yet zooplankton and phytoplankton make up most of the biomatter on the planet. And no, that doesn't make them "A-Tier' or something, that's just how biospheres work.

>>5040170
That was funny, even people who are fans of Tierzoo say those episodes are bad.