They were for proprioception/balance. Not "display."
The idea that a hypercarnivore at the sheer mercy of environmental selection would have superfluous bodyparts that didn't directly contribute to fulfilling its massive caloric needs (e.g. hunting) is absurd. Predators are subject to pure environmental selection far more than prey. Either they hunt successfully or they fucking die.
Plenty of modern-day hypercarnivores have novel forms of sensory perception not preserved in hard remains. I posit that Abelisaurid arms were involved in some sort of novel sensory function - perhaps most meaningfully as a way to balance a fast, massive animal on two legs.

>>16707731 (OP)
>The idea that a hypercarnivore at the sheer mercy of environmental selection would have superfluous bodyparts that didn't directly contribute to fulfilling its massive caloric needs (e.g. hunting) is absurd
It has horns

>>16707734
That doesn't contradict anything I wrote.

>>16707735
Except the entire part about it not having superfluous body parts that don’t directly contribute to its caloric needs

>>16707735
It does if you aren't maintaining those horns were for caloric intake despite any evidence to that effect.

>>16707739
>>16707740
So I see you're ignoring the entire question of the arms. Then let us discuss Carnotaurus' horns.
YES, I DO posit that the horns were primarily used in hunting.
Carnotaurus has uniquely reduced jaws for an Abelisaurid. If other Abelisaurids had larger jaws yet no horns, then it stands to reason Carnotaurus had smaller jaws because its HORNS aid in hunting.
How? Maybe if you weren't a dork you could imagine something. But, to help you out, I will remind you that many prey species were also bipedal, and thus subject to being easily knocked off balance by a heavy strike with a Carnotaurus' horns. Bipedal (at least when running) ornithischians and smaller theropods.

>>16707741
That is retarded. If they were to make up for a small skull then why did the similarly small-headed aucasaurus not have any horns while the big-headed majungasaurus did? Also things like allosaurus and ceratosaurus exist which had crests for display, not even horns

>>16707731 (OP)

>inb4 feathers

Sexual signaling.

>>16707741
How do you mention it having a shitty delicate head and jaw and come to the conclusion that it was ramming into prey head first at full speed all in the same post

>>16707744
Regarding Aucasaurus
>Its skull was not as short or as deep-snouted as that of Carnotaurus. Also, instead of horns, it had a pair of low ridges above each eye.
>>16707858
>How do you mention it having a shitty delicate head and jaw
I didn't mention that, dumbfuck.
Is this board nothing but retards unable to analyze arguments?
Over the years, several paleontologists have come forward with studies supporting the idea that Carnotaurus had a head and neck capable of withstanding shocks.

bump… *rawr*

>>16707885
>Its skull was not as short or as deep-snouted as that of Carnotaurus
But still much shorter and more fragile than majungasaurus which has horns
>Also, instead of horns, it had a pair of low ridges above each eye
So display structures

>>16708311
>So display structures
Why does the idea of headbutting prey (or intraspecific rivals) make you shit and piss and cum?
Why are dorks obsessed with the idea of hypercarnivores devoting such intense caloric expenditure to "display" (i.e. the ARMS)?
"Horns" in large theropods probably DID play a role in display (though Carnotaurus and Abelisaurids, generally, show adaptation to blunt force absorption in their necks/skulls), but small bumps and ridges =/= huge fucking shoulder muscles. The huge fucking shoulder muscles and bizarre range of motion in Abelisaurid arms are MOST LIKELY not for "display." Why would we assume that a hypercarnivore has such caloric expenditure in display when no extant hypercarnivores do? Why do we not start at the assumption of normalcy?

>>16708316
>Why does the idea of headbutting prey (or intraspecific rivals) make you shit and piss and cum?
Why does the idea of sexual display structures make you foam at the mouth and shake in anger so badly that you felt the need to make a thread on it?
>Why would we assume that a hypercarnivore has such caloric expenditure in display when no extant hypercarnivores do?
Lion manes. Gharial gharas. Elephant seal noses. You also just said horns in theropods likely did play a role in display, and for a lot of them like allosaurus, ceratosaurus, dilophosaurus, etc those horns/crests were way too delicate to use in hunting

>>16707731 (OP)
>The idea that a hypercarnivore at the sheer mercy of environmental selection would have superfluous bodyparts that didn't directly contribute to fulfilling its massive caloric needs (e.g. hunting) is absurd
Definitely. Hypercarnivores never have display structures.

>>16708598
Don’t be ridiculous

>>16708598
A lion's mane in primarily to defend its neck in conflict with rivals. How do you not know that?

>>16708614
This does not equal two massive shoulders and arms with a bizarre range of motion.
Facial displays are probably the most common kind in dinosaurs/birds. They are a low caloric input.

>>16708633
No it’s secondarily for defending its neck. It is primarily for attracting mates. How do you not know that?
>Another hypothesis suggests that the mane also serves to protect the neck in fights, but this is disputed.[72][73] During fights, including those involving maneless females and adolescents, the neck is not targeted as much as the face, back, and hindquarters. Injured lions also begin to lose their manes.[74]
>>16708635
So now it’s not hypercarnivores never have display structures that don’t contribute to caloric intake but instead they do have them if the caloric intake is low? Why even talk about carnotaurus using its horns to hunt then

>>16709118
>It is primarily for attracting mates.
Visual appearance is barely a determiner for which lions' offspring actually survive to reproductive age. Male lions kill each other for females, and then kill the defeated lion's offspring.
Another fucking dork theory
>erm, yikes, chud, are you suggesting that lionesses don't give their full "consent" CLEARLY they choose the prettiest male

>So now it’s not hypercarnivores never have display structures
fuck it I worded it poorly - but it's a GENERAL RULE that calories are far stricter for hypercarnivores than herbivores/generalists. Therefore, when theorizing on what purpose a hypercarnivore's limbs/organs served, we should ask what is MORE LIKELY, display, or hunting/killing?

>>16709124
>Another fucking dork theory
What is a dork theory is suggesting that a bit of hair is shielding anything from a 3000 N bite and 4 inch teeth. When a lion wants to kill another lion a mane is not going to stop it. Maneless lions in places like Namibia are not particularly more likely to get injured during fights than heavy maned lions, nor are other big cats like tigers
>we should ask what is MORE LIKELY, display, or hunting/killing?
Speculation. You said with total confidence the arms are for either one thing or for another totally unrelated thing. You have no idea what the arms were for and neither does anybody else

>>16709127
>shielding anything from a 3000 N bite and 4 inch teeth. When a lion wants to kill another lion a mane is not going to stop it.
Are you retarded? It's to give something else to bite onto instead* of the throat. It's to obfuscate the throat and make it harder for the opponent to find a good angle of attack. Do you lack ALL intuition?

>>16709130
Do you have ANY education? I suggest you go and actually watch videos of lions fighting because the neck isn’t a major target for them, mane or not. And when they do go for the throat they clamp down as deep as possible. These aren’t bears where they just grab the skin and shake where long hair would provide a buffer. There is no biting on the mane instead of the throat. When lions kill each other it’s often by breaking the lower spine so why don’t they have a mane running down the back as well?

>>16709288
>I suggest you go and actually watch videos of lions fighting because the neck isn’t a major target for them, mane or not.
Fucking retard.

>>16709430
>he thinks the video doesn’t get recorded if the lion dies
Fucking retard

this post is evidence of a moral omnipotent having reason to hold a soul-extincting grudge due to malicious note of technical delays