Both of the provided materials are discussing Agnostids' natural food.

Both of the provided materials are discussing Agnostids' natural food. The reading states three possibilities of what these primitive creatures might have been feeding on, whereas the lecture refutes each of the author's points and bolds out their weaknesses. First, the reading attributes Agnostides as predators, as if they prey on smaller marine creatures. However, the professor opposes this point by contrasting a normal predator vision and Agnostides' lack of such an organism. In other words, predators have to have powerful eyesight to catch their prey. But it seems like Agnostides are not blessed with such a vision or anything that allows them to prey on other living things. With this in mind, the author's first point is overturned. Second, the reading assumes that Agnostides were sea-floor dwellers, as their natural habitat relies on the bottom of the oceans. Nonetheless, the lecturer contends that sea-floor creatures lack the ability to move fast, and thus, they occupy a limited range of places, mostly their origins. On the other hand, Agnostides different many species have been located in many different areas around the globe. Since they had to move fast in order to be this distributed, it is unlikely for these creatures to be sea-floor dwellers. Again, the second point of the passage is surpassed. Third, the reading states that Agnostides were natural parasites, creatures that live on other animals and feed on their food or remnants. Conversely, the professor contends by mentioning that parasites' populations are usually small and limited for a large population of these dependant creatures will extinguish their hosts. Notwithstanding, Agnostides' population's size was enormous since researchers have found many different fossils attributable to them. Thus, the possibility of their being parasites is weakened, as well.