Weapons evolved as signals so males could predict fight outcomes before risking battle

Evidence

What if there was a way to tell who was going to win before entering into dangerous battle? If a male could discern that he was likely to lose beforehand, he might opt to just walk away. A male ceding a fight outright forfeits the chance of mating, but he lives to fight another day. Walking away when he might have won would be crazy, but ceding fights he would have lost saves time, energy, and risk. This is particularly true for the smaller contestants in poorer condition, since they’re the ones most likely to be maimed in the fray. The trick, of course, is to accurately predict who’s likely to win, and to do that, rivals must have an easy way to size each other up. They need a conspicuous indicator of the fighting ability of potential competitors. — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 370

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Extreme skew in mating success drives arms-race escalation in weaponry; Fighting is dangerous enough to favor assessment before battle; Deterrence works only when fighters can reliably predict battle outcomes (+10 more)

Related

• Weapons work primarily as deterrents that prevent fights rather than win them (similarity 0.89)
• Males that assess rivals before fighting survive and reproduce better. (similarity 0.89)
• Weapons primarily deter rivals rather than inflict harm in actual fights (similarity 0.88)
• Weapon costliness keeps signals honest by excluding weaker males (similarity 0.88)
• Deterrence works only when fighters can reliably predict battle outcomes (similarity 0.88)
• Weapon expense is what keeps signals of fighting ability honest (similarity 0.88)
• Deterrence amplifies the evolutionary payoff of extreme weapon size. (similarity 0.88)
• Weapon growth widens the gap between the best- and worst-armed males. (similarity 0.87)
• Weapons are better signals than body size because they vary from zero to enormous (similarity 0.86)
• Weapon escalation ends when costs outweigh benefits and cheaters invade (similarity 0.86)
• Fighting is dangerous enough to favor assessment before battle (similarity 0.86)
• Weapons evolve only when reproductive benefits exceed costs (similarity 0.85)
• Extreme skew in mating success drives arms-race escalation in weaponry (similarity 0.85)
• Weapon evolution needs both competition and economically defensible resources (similarity 0.85)
• Specific conditions are required before weapons escalate into an arms race (similarity 0.85)

Broader Connections

• Deterrence among animals requires reliable advance prediction of fight outcomes #corroborates (0.80) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 598
• Males that assess rivals before fighting survive and reproduce better. #corroborates (0.75) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 380
• Weapon size honestly signals fighting ability because growth tracks health and nutrition #expands (0.60) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 371
• Weapon expense is what keeps signals of fighting ability honest #expands (0.55) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 601
• Competition for reproduction drives evolution of nature’s biggest weapons #expands (0.50) — Emlen, Douglas J, Animal Weapons_ The Evolution of Battle, 136