Slashdot Mirror


Ancient Reptile Had Wings Like a Fighter Jet

anthemaniac writes "A reptile that lived 225 million years ago had triangular-shaped wings like the delta-wings of some jets. At least that's what a new computer model suggests. Researcher have generated several possible shapes for the wings of Sharovipteryx mirabili before, so this is just the latest guess (based on one fossil). Last fall NatGeo reported that the first biplane configuration was on a dinosaur. Maybe airplane designers should delve into the fossil record a little more."

157 comments

  1. Unlikely wing design. by BWJones · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would find that a true delta configuration would be unlikely as there would be little evolutionary advantage to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration for the low speed flying that this creature would be doing.

    The whole reason that flight engineers started adopting the delta wing configuration is that it allowed the shockwave for supersonic flight to be better controlled flight by moving the leading edge of the wing back behind the terminus. This is great for high speed flight, but miserable for low speed flight as it requires very high stall speeds that would be ....... unlikely in this creature.

    Furthermore, if one looks at just about any flying creature now or in the past, the leading edge of their "wing" has always been protected by bone, feather or both. To have an unprotected membrane as the leading edge of the "wing" that could be easily damaged would be devastating to the aerodynamic properties and the overall fitness of the organism. From these reasons, I would be much more likely to believe the first alternative reconstruction of Sharovipteryx mirabilis where the membranes could be protected and even gathered up when not in use, a function that would not be possible with standard articulation of the bones as presented in the figures of Dykes representation.

    --
    Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    1. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 5, Funny

      Ever considered the possibility that looking cool would be an evolutinary advantage?

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    2. Re:Unlikely wing design. by HolyCrapSCOsux · · Score: 4, Funny

      Of course it was not a good design. If it was, it wouldn't be extinct would it?

      --
      0xB315AA8D852DCD3F3DCA578FD2E0BF88
    3. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I would find that a true delta configuration would be unlikely as there would be little evolutionary advantage to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration

      Yeah, but the creature is extinct and becoming extinct is the top penalty for being evolutionarily non-optimal so that sort of makes sense. No?
    4. Re:Unlikely wing design. by path_man · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up! Funniest post all week!

      --
      The surest sign of intelligent life in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us. -- Calvin & Hobbes
    5. Re:Unlikely wing design. by exclusive_lock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agree. I would find far more feasible a wing design were a membrane connects all limbs, the body and the tail, just like a comet.
      It would match the upright flight attitude mentioned on TFA, although it wouldn't be what we could call a smooth glide.

      However, neither configuration would be as efficient as the wings of a bat, which probably lead to their extintion or evolution into a different design anyway.

    6. Re:Unlikely wing design. by aluser · · Score: 3, Insightful
      delta wings often have a fairly predictable stall (high angle of attack, "mush out"). It's also not /that/ bad for low-speeds: see almost any paper airplane :)


      Drag gets high at low speed/high AOA, but if the dinosaur was not a very good pilot the wing could make some sense

    7. Re:Unlikely wing design. by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not all that silly.

      If some crazy looking bird like you'd never seen before swooped down on you, you'd probably freak out and be at an evolutionary disadvantage.

      So yeah, as long as looking "cool" means looking unique and surprising.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    8. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is great for high speed flight, but miserable for low speed flight as it requires very high stall speeds that would be ....... unlikely in this creature.


      I'm sorry, but that's just wrong. There's plenty of hang gliders and kites that have delta configurations in the plan view. It works very well for low-speed light-weight rod & membrane structures.

      I'll agree that TFA going on about supersonic fighters with rigid wings is tedious and unneccessary sensationalism, but that mistake shouldn't be repeated here. Especially in a post modded 5 Insightful. ;)
    9. Re:Unlikely wing design. by firesquirt · · Score: 0

      It looks to me to be similar to a jumping animal like the flying squirrel rather than a bird like flyer. Of course we are looking at a computer guess and the computer can only make its model based on the information the living give it to use, whether it be right or wrong.

    10. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Brett+Buck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      >I would find that a true delta configuration would be
      >unlikely as there would be little evolutionary advantage
      >to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration
      >for the low speed flying that this creature would be doing.

            Probably, but not necessarily. Such wing configurations also allow much wider ranges of angle of attack/higher stall angles. I can see that being useful if you are trying to fly around in a forest.

              Brett

    11. Re:Unlikely wing design. by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      there would be little evolutionary advantage to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration for the low speed flying that this creature would be doing.


      Check out the Rogallo glider (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogallo_wing). It is simple, lightweight, and suitable for low speeds. The a and d configurations in TFA look similar.

    12. Re:Unlikely wing design. by rolofft · · Score: 1

      Of course it was not a good design. If it was, it wouldn't be extinct would it?

      My understanding (from watching the Discovery Channel) is that extinction is a gambit rarely predicated on good design. Mass extinctions periodically kill off most species on the planet. It's not the best designed who survive, but those who (through luck) have designs allowing survival through the particulars of the cataclysm: extreme vulcanism, ice age, drought, etc. Dinosaurs and Neanderthals were good designs for the ages they lived in.

      --

      "Give a man a fish and he will ask for tartar sauce and French fries!"

    13. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that measure, 99.99% of all species that ever existed are "not a good design" :-)

    14. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Funny
      "Of course it was not a good design. If it was, it wouldn't be extinct would it?"

      Unfortunately for this lizard the design was great...however the increased wingspan dictated that the larger wing membrane be comprised of a lighter material that also happened to smell like BBQ sauce.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    15. Re:Unlikely wing design. by thc69 · · Score: 1
      I would find that a true delta configuration would be unlikely as there would be little evolutionary advantage to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration for the low speed flying that this creature would be doing.
      Sorry, "little evolutionary advantage" doesn't stop something from happening. It has to cause problems before it disappears. If the reptile had the wings but they didn't stop it from competing, then it would survive and pass on the wings to it's offspring.
      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    16. Re:Unlikely wing design. by okster · · Score: 1

      Too right. Soft leading edge - yeah.
      BTW there are quite a few animals (placentals, marsupials, lizards) alive today that look a lot like drawing 'a'. So why go for the freaky, stupid idea? Publicity perhaps.
      Oh yes, and the pterosaurs (with membranes on the fore-limb) evolved from these things with membranes on the hind limb.
      Did these bright guys come up with an explanation of how you manage to run around (or climb) while you are gradually evolving flight at your rear? Lots of animals can walk on their hind legs for a short distance or grip a branch with them while reaching for another branch with the front. Not many (ie none) do it the other way around.
      This is the paleontologists version of cold fusion. Crazy story = more grant money

      --
      Found on some "what's new" notes for a product I was rolling out
      "Optimised query by using where instead of joins"
    17. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Captain+Sensible · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The writer of this comment seems to be unaware that delta wings:

      1 - predate supersonic flight

      2 - predate jet engines.

      During the 1920s and 1930 a large number of delta wing propeller-driven aircraft were designed. The most prolific designer was Hill of Westland-Hill (UK) whose series of Pterodactyl fighters is well-known by European aircraft designers. A number of German manufacturers also built delta-wing prop-driven aircraft.

      Deltas provide a stable wing platform and have benefits in having low stall speeds. The drag they generate, however, combined with the low-power engines of the pre-WWII era, limited their performance. The combination of delta wings with jet engines overcomes the drag issue. Swept wing aircraft tend to "fishtail" in flight but deltas are "hands-off" stable.

      A gliding reptile with configurable delta wings on its rear legs, a canard on the front legs and a long tail to provide stabilisation and manouverability would be a very active glider perhaps able to pursue prey in flight.

    18. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      periodically kill off
      Have randomly killed off. It's not like a rule of nature or something.
    19. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Adapted more for leaping through thick brush without breaking your wings perhaps, in search of fast-moving food?

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    20. Re:Unlikely wing design. by identity0 · · Score: 1

      Dude, don't ruin our childish fanasies with your boring "facts"! It would be so cool, like... TYRANNOSAURS IN F-14s!!!!

      I still bust out at that comic. Ah, Bill Waterston, I miss your genius.... Full comic here

    21. Re:Unlikely wing design. by kingsean · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't you think there's more to life than being really, really, ridiculously good looking?

    22. Re:Unlikely wing design. by TheShadowzero · · Score: 1

      No.

      --
      If history repeats itself, why can't we study the future?
    23. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1
      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    24. Re:Unlikely wing design. by vhogemann · · Score: 1

      I don't know... from the sketches this dino doesn't look like a flyer, it's more like a glider. And it's "wings" actually are a membrane connecting it's rear members with the tail, forming a triangle... It has nothing to do with the delta wing configuration of modern jets.

      Pehaps the article is trying to correlate this dino with jets just to gather some attention.

      --
      ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
    25. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Dannon · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but you have to admit. Wouldn't a supersonic reptile just be awesome?

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
    26. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Dausha · · Score: 1

      "I would find that a true delta configuration would be unlikely as there would be little evolutionary advantage to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration for the low speed flying that this creature would be doing."

      Yes, yes. Please remember that this is an extinct critter. Obviously, the wing configuration could not withstand the rigors of natural selection. After all, why are all fossils found examples of improvement of a species? Why aren't there more examples of critters that were obvious genetic dead ends?

      Besides, how do you know this was a low speed---or even flying---critter? It could have either been flightless, or perhaps been capable of speeds much closer to MACH than we anticipate. Perhaps the critter swooped down from great heights, attained amazing speed, and caught its prey completely off guard.

      We should be embracing the design by figuring out what it means, rather than discounting it because of some aerodynamic engineering psychobabbly claptrap. I mean, one bone makes this design very compelling and so it-must-have-been-so.

      --
      What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
    27. Re:Unlikely wing design. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Hang gliders use a delta wing and they don't fly particularly quickly.

    28. Re:Unlikely wing design. by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      I would find that a true delta configuration would be unlikely as there would be little evolutionary advantage to developing an inherently less stable "wing" configuration for the low speed flying that this creature would be doing.

      The whole reason that flight engineers started adopting the delta wing configuration is that it allowed the shockwave for supersonic flight to be better controlled flight by moving the leading edge of the wing back behind the terminus. This is great for high speed flight, but miserable for low speed flight as it requires very high stall speeds that would be ....... unlikely in this creature.


      This is where most pf us non-evolution experts screw it up. Evolution is a result, not a process. At the fundamental level, evolution describes the process whereby mutations occur and the ones that provide an advantage take precedence. It isn't like "evolution" sat down and said "hey, let us make a flying creature that ....".

      The wing pattern, if true, may well have been a simple mutation that got nowhere in the long term. However, it may also have gone on for a while, having offered a different advantage - one that had nothing to do with flight. This could range from insulative effects, reproductive effects, or defense effects (appearance often affects whether a predator chooses you or a different creature) to name just a few. We tend to think of the use of delta-shaped wings in terms of flight, particularly high speed flight. Yet this is only our "modern" bias.

      I find it interesting that the comments so far have been regarding the delta wing, and not regarding the bi-wing configuration. To me, that is much more interesting. What, if any, flight advantages would that provide the small creature? Does it truly represent adaptation from mere gliding to powered flight? The fact that these dinos had feathers is also interesting.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    29. Re:Unlikely wing design. by DaveInAZ · · Score: 0

      Well, to be fair, most of the extinct species we know about, aside from those we wiped out ourselves, were wiped out by the same cataclysmic event that killed off the dinosaurs. Or their descendants were, depending on the age of the fossil. But, as a general rule, most mutations DO have a negative survival value.

  2. Science-Creationism parser by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    A reptile that lived 225 million years ago had triangular-shaped wings

    You mean "6,000 years ago an all-powerful sky-wizard designed a miraculous flying beast and a mate for travel on Noah's Ark."

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Science-Creationism parser by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > A reptile that lived 225 million years ago had triangular-shaped wings
      >
      >You mean "6,000 years ago an all-powerful sky-wizard designed a miraculous flying beast and a mate for travel on Noah's Ark."

      You mean "Noahs Aircraft Carrier" (which was itself merely the CV-1 "Gilgamesh" dug out of mothballs with a new set of flags :)

    2. Re:Science-Creationism parser by nephridium · · Score: 3, Informative

      You mean "Noahs Aircraft Carrier" (which was itself merely the CV-1 "Gilgamesh" dug out of mothballs with a new set of flags :)

      I don't think so. The boat used in the Gilgamesh epos was 'as wide as it was long' and it only needed enough space for the 'essential' seeds so Utnapishtim could start anew after the flood. Noah's boat was version 2.0 based on a rectangular shape so steering it somewhere was definitely easier. It also was built to withstand a greater flood and according to creationists it was big enough to house all creatures including dinosaurs (which died out later) and enough rations of food for more than 7 months(!). Basically the bible's version is an exaggerated and updated version.

      The people allowed on the arch were the ancestors of the eastern Europeans et al (Japhet), Egyptians/Canaanites et al (Ham) and Arabs/Hebrews et al (Shem). Thus all the other humans nowadays native Americans, Chinese, Aboriginees etc. are either from another 'humanoid' flock or they could swim very very well ;)

      Interestingly the term 'caucasian' traces its origin to this biblical story: Japhet's children are said to have lived in the Caucasus region.

      --


      And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
    3. Re:Science-Creationism parser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No, you mean "6,000 years ago an all-powerful sky-wizard designed a miraculous flying beast and without a mate for travel on Noah's Ark."

      That's why we don't see flying lizards with delta wings today, and why the first aircraft had long rectangular wings, not cool delta wings like later jets.

    4. Re:Science-Creationism parser by sankyuu · · Score: 1
      Thus all the other humans nowadays native Americans, Chinese, Aboriginees etc. are either from another 'humanoid' flock or they could swim very very well ;)

      The 'other humans' may have built their own boats. Also likely took (mental) notes to come up with their own flood legend.

    5. Re:Science-Creationism parser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ass.

  3. They have this all wrong. by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Informative

    We need to stop looking at ancient fossils, we need to go and ask the only living relative of this creature just what they were for and how they looked.

    This reptile was clearly the ancestor of MC Hammer.

    Back in reality now (after a cold shower) some Bats have practically identical skin flaps between their legs even nowadays.

    As for diving into the fossil records, we should be trying to model our aircraft on living birds and bats and insects, at least then we don't need a computer to guess how it should work. I would rather put my trust into something when there are plenty of study models to base a design from, not a single sample guestimate.

    We can already soar like an eagle perhaps we need the manoeuvrability of a bat for urban airports?

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:They have this all wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I tried diving into a fossil record once, but those bastards at the museum threw me out.

    2. Re:They have this all wrong. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does a fast flying creature get fossilized?

    3. Re:They have this all wrong. by lahi · · Score: 1

      For a start, it falls like a stone.

      -Lasse

  4. What gets me... by Otter · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There's a red-tail hawk that hangs out over (or lives in) our office complex. Whenever I'm at the airport, I'm always struck by how similar his wingtips are to those on the CRJ-700.

    1. Re:What gets me... by Otter · · Score: 4, Funny

      Forgot to note that my mental image upon reading "Sharovipteryx" was of a blonde, tennis-playing, flying dinosaur, a lot hotter than you'd expect such a creature to be.

    2. Re:What gets me... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that be Sharapovteryx?

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
  5. fossil by PresidentEnder · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We know this animal from a single fossil; why do we think it flew? Not trying to troll, but the bone structure evident in that illustration looks perfectly suitable as a land animal, and kinda iffy as a flyer.

    --
    I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    1. Re:fossil by Joebert · · Score: 2, Funny
      why do we think it flew?

      Because secretly, we all want to hear that a new specimen was discovered complete with two fossilized jet engines that had been grafted into the creatures body.
      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    2. Re:fossil by MrFebtober · · Score: 2, Informative

      Fossils sometimes leave more than just bone. In this case, there must have been impressions in the fossil which indicated that the animal had some sort of membrane. It's also possible to tell when some animals have taken measures to lighten their bodies for flight. they have thinner, sometimes hollow bones and some organs reduce in size, anything to reduce weight. Also, in this case the long thin rear legs kind of hint that they were not just for terrestrial use.

    3. Re:fossil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hear they can do that now, for a minimum fee, in China.

    4. Re:fossil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bone structure doesn't look much different from other reptilians of that age, but in addition to bones, there are also impressions from a membrane of soft tissue -- pretty rare stuff, but not unknown (e.g., there are pterosaurs with preserved wing membranes).

      At best, it was a glider. The scientists aren't suggesting it had powered flight like birds, bats, or pterosaurs. They are suggesting a gliding habit more like the modern "flying lizard", Draco, but with some obvious differences because of the unique membrane geometry.

    5. Re:fossil by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First off, we don't think it flew; we think it glided. Second, the reason we think that because of the structure of it's back legs and hips.

      Animals have to be good at getting around. This animal's front legs are way shorter than its back legs, so it wasn't running on all fours. They don't say so in the article, but probably scientists looked at the structure of its knee joints, hips joints, and feet and decided there wasn't very much mobility -- therefore it was easily lunch running on two legs. Finally, its hip, knee, and foot joint stucture and long, thin leg bones probably look much like modern gliders.

      From this wikipedia article, there seems to be some debate as to whether it hopped and glided, or climbed trees and glided. It also seems as if some imprint of the rear membrane was in the fossil.

      But basically the method that I outlined above is how you tell how fossil animals moved. You look at their bone structures and decide what they were mechanically capable of, knowing that they had to be good enough to stay away from predators. Look at modern animal's means of locomotion, and decide what is most similar.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    6. Re:fossil by Joebert · · Score: 1

      A minimum fee ?
      They've been doing it soo long that there's regulations on it already ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    7. Re:fossil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We know this animal from a single fossil; why do we think it flew? Not trying to troll, but the bone structure evident in that illustration looks perfectly suitable as a land animal, and kinda iffy as a flyer.

      I completely agree. They can prove it had a membrane between it's back legs but it's a stretch saying it flew. Stability wise it's a poor place for a wing structure. It's more likely the membrane was used for swiming.

      One ugly little fact bird dinosaur fanatics overlook is the origin of feather and early forms of wings date back to the origins of dinosaurs and mammals. Not at the end of the dinosaurs reign as you'd assume. Birds seem to be a case of parallel development not highly evolved dinosaurs. The earilest feathers have been found on lizards not dinosaurs. I think there's a lot of comfort in thinking dinosaurs are still around but there's no reason to believe that's true. There's a fair amount of dogma still guiding the sciences. Flying reptiles are called reptiles due to a debate over leg orientation. Most believe they were splay legged meaning reptiles eventhough their hips were clearly like dinosaurs so they would have walked and ran like dinosaurs. Low activity was another reason but it's been proven at least some flapped their wings so that was another error. I never understood why it was so easy to accept birds as being modern dinosaurs but the pterosaurs had to be reptiles. Dogma has established these two things as fact and it isn't letting go easily.

  6. CAD by berenixium · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What do the latest simulations look like?"
    "The computer suggests that the bird had 'fighter plane'-like wings..."
    "Let me see that hardcopy!"
    "...WTF? A concorde-type nose? Who the **** has been messing with my simulation-apps again? ****ing undergrads!"

    1. Re:CAD by kfg · · Score: 1

      Who the **** has been messing with my simulation-apps again? ****

      Perhaps less time needs to be spent messing around with computers and more time spent messing around in the field looking for data worth a damn.

      KFG

  7. No one has said it, though it MUST be said... by PixelPirate · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I, for one, welcome our reptile fighter-j.... ah never mind, too easy....

    1. Re:No one has said it, though it MUST be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have just fouled myself

  8. Re:Hello... by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Is this some sort of religiously inspired ID nonsense?

    You know, I have come up with the perfect compromise for the creationists. We scientists will gladly start using "might have evolved" and "may have lived millions of years ago" if you will change the Bible to say "Moses may have parted the red sea" and "God could have said 'let there be light'".

  9. What NOT to do by Odin_Tiger · · Score: 5, Funny
    Maybe airplane designers should delve into the fossil record a little more.
    The first and only known rear-limb delta-wing-glider type creature. Oh, and it's extinct. Maybe the rear-oriented delta-wing airplane design isn't such a great idea after all? >:P
    --
    Unpleasantries.
    1. Re:What NOT to do by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      These creatures also didn't fly at sub-sonic speeds either. Perhaps nature failed by *not* providing a set of jet engines for them. :P

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:What NOT to do by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      What it *really* needed to survive natural selection was a set of Sidewinder missiles...

      Chris Mattern

    3. Re:What NOT to do by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      I dunno ... many (thousands?) of bipedal creatures are extinct now as well. Walking upright on two legs Must be a bad idea.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  10. Prior art by Gax · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A reptile that lived 225 million years ago had triangular-shaped wings like the delta-wings of some jets.

    No, some jets have delta-wings like reptiles that lived 225 million years ago.

    1. Re:Prior art by IHSW · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded that comment insightful needs to read this comment:
      http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=191641 &cid=15746590

      The delta wing structure was invented because it's useful/required for supersonic aircraft, and that reason alone. Please stop spreading propaganda.

    2. Re:Prior art by honkycat · · Score: 1

      Lighten up, Francis.

    3. Re:Prior art by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Yeah, stop the propaganda for 225 million year old reptiles - their influence in our daily life is big enough as it is !

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
  11. Designing machines based off of dinosaurs? by PrescriptionWarning · · Score: 3, Funny

    Seems like a bad idea if you ask me, because last I checked they all died. Its probably also why nobody has made a machine based off the dodo. Stupid dodos.

    1. Re:Designing machines based off of dinosaurs? by El_Smack · · Score: 1


      "Its probably also why nobody has made a machine based off the dodo."

      I read "dildo" instead of dodo, and I'm thinking, "Man, there are all sorts of machines based on those!"

      --


      There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    2. Re:Designing machines based off of dinosaurs? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Wow, I had no idea they sold those at Amazon. That's probably the last place I thought I'd find those. Next to walmart that is. Although, it would go nice as a recommended item when purchasing erotica.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    3. Re:Designing machines based off of dinosaurs? by CCFreak2K · · Score: 1

      I see you haven't played GTA3 and tried to fly this thing. I guess there's a reason why they called it the Dodo.

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    4. Re:Designing machines based off of dinosaurs? by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      I guess there's a reason why they called it the Dodo.

      Yeah, that plane was a huge challenge to fly. I always wondered why they made it have such unlikely short wings. At least it made me able to "drive" it to my garage on the second island.

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  12. Re:Hello... by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 0, Troll

    no, now shut up or we won't share any future technologies based on science with you.

  13. Re:Hello... by nmoog · · Score: 1

    I was thinking that the title should really read "Fighter Jet Has Wings Like an Ancient Reptile", seeing as the fighter jet came 200 million years later and all...

  14. Huh? by tacokill · · Score: 1

    You are saying that this looks like a CRJ-700?

    You lost me. Well, I mean - they both have wings, I guess. But I don't think the CRJ-700 can bend it's wings.

    1. Re:Huh? by Otter · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you don't see it in those pictures, because they're shot (reasonably enough) from below, not from an office window above and head-on to the hawk. This one comes closest to catching it.

    2. Re:Huh? by truckaxle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think he meant more like this Red Tail hawk demonstrating a sort of winglet which provides a small aerodynamic advantage. However the hawk's adaptation may have been more of a stealth improvement (quiet when approaching prey) but efficiency and stealth may have been a mutual benefit in this adaptation.

  15. Wings like a fighter jet... by Lazbien · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't even want to speculate about the missiles.

    1. Re:Wings like a fighter jet... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      They were heat-seeking moisture missles.

    2. Re:Wings like a fighter jet... by 4D6963 · · Score: 1

      I don't even want to speculate about the missiles.

      In spite of his fighter jet-like wings, I'm pretty sure he was more like a bomber, just like the rest of the birds ;-)

      --
      You just got troll'd!
  16. Wings like a fighter jet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, built by the lowest bidder? Or by friends of the senator?

  17. Who said it was advantageous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    While I might just misunderstand, it looks like this lizard developed flight on its own. This means the question isn't "is this form of flight more advantageous than other forms of flight?" but "is this form of flight more advantageous than no flight at all?"

    And for all we know, maybe the configuration wasn't advantageous. Maybe the delta configuration was too problematic to work in the long term. After all, the lizard did go extinct.

  18. Re:Hello... by Jsutton1027w · · Score: 0, Troll

    By the way, just wanted to let you know that part of your username is spelled wrong. It's actually YHWH. Perhaps you should read the appropriate article on Wikipedia:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YHWH#Using_the_vowe ls_of_YHWH

  19. Re:Hello... by donutello · · Score: 4, Funny

    Yeah, but the lizard failed to file for a patent and thus lost its right to claim the original design.

    --
    Mmmm.. Donuts
  20. Innovation can also help.. by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

    For what flying animal flies like a helicopter?

    1. Re:Innovation can also help.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maple seeds?

    2. Re:Innovation can also help.. by barakn · · Score: 1

      No animals that I know of, but there are plenty of helicopter seeds. Maple the best example.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  21. Cool QWZX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...And I for one welcome our jet-powered reptilian overlords.

  22. I hate those blurbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Maybe airplane designers should delve into the fossil record a little more."

    Or not. Shut the fuck up.

  23. Re:Hello... by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    read it yourself.

    "This is a discussion of transcription of 'YHWH'. For the deity these letters represent, see Yahweh."

    "Many sacred name ministries who believe that YHWH consists of four vowels pronounce these four vowels as "ee-ah-oo-eh" and believe that indicates God's name was either "Yahweh" or "Yahuweh"."

    but I guess if you had decent comprehension skills you wouldn't be a fundamentalist. or maybe you just didn't RTFBible in the first place.

  24. that's just as good of a guess by MrFebtober · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ever considered the possibility that looking cool would be an evolutinary advantage?

    Sexual display often drives evolution. The brighter the feathers, the bigger the tusks, the stinkier the stink gland, it can all lead to natural selection. If that's what you meant by "cool," then you may have something there. In this case, it could be that the bigger the rear-leg skin flaps, the more attractive to the female. Lots of birds have huge feathers that are only for display. In some cases they make flight impossible, but display takes priority. Any reason why that couldn't be what's going on here?

    crap, I just contradicted my other post.

    1. Re:that's just as good of a guess by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      I've often wondered whether humans will evolve to the media's standards of beauty. Maybe its just me being 23, losing hair and feeling old and ugly for the first time, but I SWEAR that people have as a whole gotten more attractive.

      Of course there are several huge holes in this theory, such as my impressions being skewed based on LOCAL levels of physical attractiveness (as defined by mass media) and also the fact that there's no way evolution could work that quickly...is there?

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:that's just as good of a guess by jackbird · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Go down to your local DMV and spend a morning observing a more or less random sample from the general population. My guess is you'll drop that view right quick and consider the alternative hypothesis that you're hanging out in places where young, attractive people tend to congregate.

    3. Re:that's just as good of a guess by ElephanTS · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, evolution does not work that fast. What you're seeing is an image-obssessed society spending and working more on their appearance. I tend to share your opinion - people today are better looking - but it's mainly presentation. But also good lookingness (to get a bit Blue Steel here) is closely tied to evolutionary fitness (healthy=attractive) so perhaps people are generally healthier. Evolution would only have an effect if the least good-looking were not able to breed because of it. Although this may be the case for a small number of men (insert slashdot joke here) I don't think it's going to be evolutionarily significant.

      On a similar topic, have you ever noticed people from 50 years ago looked different to people now. I used to think that was due to presentation (ie, fashion, hairstyles, grooming etc) but now I think it's down to dietary differences and developmental factors. People in the UK, increasingly look younger than they used to too due, I suspect, to better living and working conditions.

      --
      spoonerize "magic trackpad"
    4. Re:that's just as good of a guess by ben+there... · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Everything's more attractive when you're 23...

      especially when you're drunk.

    5. Re:that's just as good of a guess by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 2, Funny
      Everything's more attractive when you're 23...

      especially when you're drunk.
      ... and your mating prospects are slashdottian.
      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    6. Re:that's just as good of a guess by marcello_dl · · Score: 1

      Does the plastic surgeon count as evolution, now? :->

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  25. varying the speed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "To control speed, the researchers think the reptilian glider varied the spread of its legs."

    Just like my girlfriend.

  26. Me too! by wonkavader · · Score: 1

    If I draw a picture of a squished thing which is different from previous pictures of a squished thing -- you know, something no one will ever be able to verify -- can I get an article about my pretty picture, too? It'd look good on my grant applications.

    1. Re:Me too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it. The specimen is beautiful, but, because there is only one of them, and the appendages and membrane are folded up to some degree, there is plenty of debate about the exact geometry. That part of your criticism -- that the interpretation is hard to verify -- is correct. But, hmmm... some evidence, multiple possible interpretations, ways to test and potentially negate the aerodynamic functionality of some of the possibilities via computational and/or wind tunnel modelling. Gee, where have I heard of that kind of general methodology before?

      Sure, draw whatever picture you like, but that isn't the scientific method. These scientists are testing possibilities just like any other scientific question. That's why their paper passed peer review and got published, and you're posting your rather sardonic comment to /. The art isn't the important part -- that's just an attempt to communicate the meatier results.

      Don't get me wrong -- be skeptical -- but the article deserves a little more credit than you imply, and if you really want to critique it, you should test their claims with your own analysis.

    2. Re:Me too! by wonkavader · · Score: 1

      From the article, I have to both agree with what you say and disagree -- yes, they're trying and testing (I agree) but that's absurd in this context, because no test you ever do will tell you what shape this little fella was. (Short of cloning, growing up and looking.)

      What they're doing is showing what a neat little design their model is. The question is A and they're testing B. No matter how interesting B is, it's A you need to look at, and that's almost pointless, because there's no way to test B. Testing A nicely doesn't make it relevant.

      A famous (I'll leave off her name, but her work appears in most basic psychology texts) was in a talk once where a a linguist was proposing a theory about the cognitive functions of languange. When she asked what made him think this theory was correct, he responded that the theory was elegant. Her response: "I can come up with eight theories to explain this while sitting on the toilet. How do you KNOW?" He had no aspects which could be tested. His theory had no less nor no more value than "God works us like puppets."

      Neither do these folks. They know that the shape they came up with is cool, and it's possible that the thing was shaped this way. But they'll never know. They have no tests. This ain't science -- it's a computational exercise, with cool pictures.

  27. Wishful thinking by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Looking at the fossil then at the wing configurations IMO (b) appears to be more likely, ie. bat-like. I reckon 'delta wing fighter-like' is nothing more than a case of wishful thinking so these paleontologists can drum up some media attention.

  28. Hm. by solafide · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does anyone else see something wrong with basing something on one bone that's been fossilized? When mainstream scientists can't even explain exactly how these bones lasted as long as they think they did?

    1. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Uh, no, because if it was a tooth, for example, *alot* can be determined from that "one bone". Same for many other individual bones, though most are not as diagnostic as teeth.

      Then there's the fact that this specimen consists of a pretty complete skeleton with preservation of soft tissues, so your question kind of misses the point. This isn't "one bone".

      "When mainstream scientists can't even explain exactly how these bones lasted as long as they think they did?"

      Check out the general references on Wikipedia's taphonomy page. The book that is most relevant is the one on vertebrate taphonomy. You might also want to look up the term lagerstatten (damn, how do you make an aumlaut in here? It doesn't take the usual HTML codes. There should be an umlaut over the second "a"). The Karatau locality in Kyrgyzstan is pretty special because of the soft tissue impressions (i.e. a conservat-Lagerstatten). While there are plenty of questions, preservation isn't as problematic as you imply.

    2. Re:Hm. by barakn · · Score: 1

      Maybe, but what does that have to do with this? There was more than one bone. RTFA, whydontya? And the process of fossilization is very well characterized. Once something is ensconced in rock it can last a long time. What strange pseudoscience told you otherwise?

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    3. Re:Hm. by solafide · · Score: 1

      I'll admit I didn't read the article, but the summary said that the sim was based on one bone.
      As for the process of fossilization, how did the rock get there?

    4. Re:Hm. by barakn · · Score: 1

      No, it said it was based on one fossil. A series of bones from the same organism, especially if still articulated together, is considered as one fossil. As for the formation of rock from softer stuff, the answer lies in pressure, deposition of minerals by fluids, lots of time, and a variety of other factors I've neglected to mention.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    5. Re:Hm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the process of fossilization, how did the rock get there?

      It didn't start out as rock, more like mud, or silt say, fine
      particles anyway that enveloped the corpse, initially preserving it
      and then over time turning into rock, and the creature into a
      fossil. Wikipedia has a decent article on the process:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossilisation

  29. It Ain't All That Great... by Cap'nPedro · · Score: 1

    Did I see this on The Flintstones once...?

  30. The reason for the Ancient Reptile's Extinction: by Toxicgonzo · · Score: 1

    Tyrannosaurus rexs in F14s.

  31. Re:Hello... by rob1980 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Guys, leave the parent poster alone. Everybody knows dinosaur fossils were put in the ground to test man's faith in the almighty Lord our God. /rolls eyes

    Also, God bless George W. Bush!

  32. Mod parent up by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

    I second the grammar nazi!
    I didn't notice at first. Must be tired. It's a terrible typo/non-sensical sentence. At last I can rest peacefully.

  33. You all are forgetting something by LordVaderSithLord · · Score: 1

    The Flying Spaghetti Monster only created a mountain and dwarf. All hail our delta-winged overlords

    1. Re:You all are forgetting something by woot+account · · Score: 1

      A mountain, trees and a midget. Dwarves were created by Aulë the Smith.

    2. Re:You all are forgetting something by psxman · · Score: 1

      Not quite; it was a midgit that the FSM created. There's a difference.

  34. prior art? by bitt3n · · Score: 1

    So could some defense contractor use an aspect of this fossil's design as evidence of prior art in a patent dispute?

  35. Re:Hello... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    Personally, I'm going with Larry Gonick on this one. All praise Yahoo-Wahoo!

    Chris Mattern

  36. Re:Hello... by RsG · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    If by "god" you mean "the flying spaghetti monster" (praised be his noodly appendage), then yes. Ramen, brother!

    Also, the FSM won't bless Dubya as long as he refuses to wear the full pirate regalia when preaching the FSM-inspired ID theory.

    --
    Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
  37. Jet exhaust by lastninja · · Score: 4, Funny

    Considering that most dinosaurs were herbivores and ate a lot of beans and grass, not only did they have delta-wings of some jets, they probably had jet exhaust engines aswell :).

    --
    John Carmack fan, browsing at +5 since 1999.
  38. It's possible. by jd · · Score: 2, Informative
    Some such displays are to get attention by being more outrageous. Others are an indication of physical health or adequate nutrition. A stunted wing might well have indicated that an animal was in trouble, and oversized wings might well have been much more attention-grabbing. With only a single fossil to go by, it's hard to tell anything, but I think you might very well be right, if this is a representative example.


    (It could equally well have been a freak one-off mutation that was wholly incapable of propogating further. Given the low probability of fossilization that would seem unlikely, but given the very high number of fossil collectors, if such an animal did fossilize, it would likely be found sooner or later.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  39. It would have been single jet by jd · · Score: 1

    Assuming it ate large numbers of beans, that is.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  40. Extinction != Bad design by gd23ka · · Score: 1

    Not really. There have probably been hundreds of thousands of "good designs" that have been wiped out because of global catastrophes or simple because the environment gradually changed. An organism that transports oxygen with blood based on copper instead of iron, is not necessarily obsolete but just not called for at the moment.

  41. Cool by 123abc · · Score: 0

    How come all the cool animals are extinct?

    1. Re:Cool by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just the cool animals. 99%+ of everything that ever was is extinct.

  42. I wonder... by celotil · · Score: 1

    Given that there's generally at least a tiny bit of truth in legends, and knowing that the bombardier beetle can emit a kind of hot chemical spray from its butt to defend itself, I wonder if the ancient reptile looked anything like the little guy in this picture (sorry it's not a better image).

    Isn't he cute? His name's Errol.

    --
    Te Quiero, Puta!
  43. Then again, it might have had... by dinohum · · Score: 1

    wings like a hang glider... like the "Rogallo wing" which is a delta planform, not because of compressibility reasons pertinent to supersonic flight but because the delta shape allows easy pitch control without a tail. I suppose we can't PROVE that the beast didn't go mach 1+ but pro'lly it didn't....

  44. Rodan lives!!! by dnorman · · Score: 1
    --


    It is pitch dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  45. Thank God... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that comet wiped them out when it did or soon they would've evolved Hellfire missiles and us puny humans wouldn't have had a chance.

  46. oblig... by flibbajobber · · Score: 0

    I know of another creature, vaguely reptilian to the less-informed, with triangular "wings". It is sleek like a fighter-jet (perhaps more so than this dinosaur)...



    ... and comes with frikkin' lasers on it's HEAD!

  47. cool by uberjoe · · Score: 1
    You mean with missiles on it?!?!!?!!!?

    Sweet!

    --

    The days of the digital watch are numbered.

  48. Re:Extinction != Bad design by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, such an animal would be quite tasty when served raw.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  49. Delta wing is crap! by megaditto · · Score: 1

    All future fighters use forward-swept wings, like X-29 (US) and Su-47 (Russia):
    Image-google su-47 for some cool in-flight images.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-47
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_X-29

    --
    Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    1. Re:Delta wing is crap! by klmth · · Score: 1

      Forward-swept wings have a significant disadvantage: the incoming air will tend to produce high rotational forces that will try to rip the wings off. The reported top speeds of the SU-47 and X-29 are 1.6 Mach, which is a bit lower than that of the F/A-18 (2.0 Mach) and F-16 (1.8 Mach). Apparently the new composite for the SU-47 has made the wings stronger, but the new high speed has not been disclosed.

  50. Well....No by barakn · · Score: 1

    The creature was a glider, not a flier. Its entire "flight" was a controlled stall in a peculiar almost-vertical configuration that would have allowed it to grab onto things with its forearms as it fell. Also, the almost-vertical configuration means that it's hard to consider any edges as being "leading edges." The large area of the tail membrane would make it a more likely target than the forearm membranes.

    --
    "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
  51. Did it also fart ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean for propulsion purposes. This way it will have both the delta-wing and a jet engine, so the resemblance to the modern jet fighter is even better.

  52. Pterobot! I choose you! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the scientists who came up with this have been watching too much Japanimation.

  53. Know nothin by cdn-programmer · · Score: 1

    Squid use a delta fin and they have been around for something like 450 million years.

    Ha!

  54. this is evolution, not ID by misanthrope101 · · Score: 1
    Evolution works on what exists already, and makes incremental, accumulated modifications as driven by selection by the environment. That a particular wing implementation may be an evolutionary dead-end has little bearing on the individuals who are given an ever-so-slight advantage over their peers. If a variation gives an advantage now, it gets passed on now even if, down the road, a different wing configuration would have been a better "design." Even using the word "design" implies, wrongly, that an objective was being reached for by evolutionary processes, but in fact there is no objective, only the bare fact that a variation rendered some individuals more likely to survive and reproduce than the others in their population, and the changes accumulated because they continued to be selected for, resulting in increasingly divergent change. There are many evolutionary dead-ends that would be better if any sentient, capable entity "designed" them. These very dead-ends indicate a lack of design, because they show a consistent lack of look-ahead planning for long-term advantage.

    Granted, your post wasn't ostenibly about ID. But the language and thinking by which ID creeps into the debate was there, and I wanted to clarify the point. I'm not attributing any agenda or anything like that.

  55. Function over form by bitrex · · Score: 1

    Though as a previous poster mentioned the delta wings do look pretty cool, but if this is the correct wing configuration for the creature it seems like would definately be an advantage for hunting. Some birds (modern descendents of dinosaurs) can hit 100 miles per hour or more in an attack dive, and having delta wings would allow this dinosaur to achieve high dive speeds while still maintaing some control. Maybe it's possible that given this creature's low weight (1/10th of a pound) that it devloped this wing configuration through evolution because it spent its life completely airborne, and so a wing configuration based on high-speed attack was more important than being able to fly at low speeds for say, takeoff and landing.

  56. Wing leading edges are all but unprotected by enmity. · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Furthermore, if one looks at just about any flying creature now or in the past, the leading edge of their "wing" has always been protected by bone, feather or both.

    That's not true. The leading edge of a bird's wing is called the patagium, and is simply skin that is stretched from the humerus to the carpal joint. The leading edge of a bat wing is similar, but in bats, all the skin of the wing is referred to as the patagium, while the leading edge is called the propatagium. In either case, the leading edge of the wing is very vulnerable to damage; one of my veterinarian friends, who volunteers at a raptor rehabilitation center, sees many cases where the bird's patagium has been torn (bird vs. cat, bird vs. barbed wire fence, etc), and generally in those cases the bird never flies again. It's actually one of the most vulnerable areas on a bird.

  57. CG Model by Eljas · · Score: 1

    At least that's what a new computer model suggests.

    You mean the artist using Photohop?

  58. Re: Hello... by this+great+guy · · Score: 1

    The lizard probably figured that the patent would have expired during those past 225 million years anyway.

  59. Note to born agains: don't read parent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note to Storming-Mormin, Raining-Baptist, Overcast-Catholic and Cloudy-Muslim.

    Do not read parent. It is sarcastic of religion and God's story of Noah's boat for animals (and giant reptiles). It was probably written by humanist logical scientists.

    One should accept God's word as a child would. That simplifies the problem.

  60. Birds can retract their wings into delta shape. by master_p · · Score: 1

    Having a delta wings configuration does not offer anything over the classic bird wing configuration, because when birds want to dive they retract their wings into delta shape. Not only delta, but then can almost make wings disappear and dive like a rock.

  61. One simple request by Scud · · Score: 1

    You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have sha^H^H^H S. mirabilis with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads!

    --
    I dream in binary.
  62. Arthur, Human Box Kite that Flies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let's make a box, and call it the "Arthur's Brain Box" > http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/ 19/0026239 While Arthur's brain is safely contained in the box, let's fix his body, at least bring him up to the level of our aP2 lab rats > http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/1 9/0116249 We'll use our brand new toys to do these things "for Arthur" whether he really wants to or not, sort of like imminent human domain > There's a new laser > http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/1 9/1553242 as well as many new-fangled tools we can try out er use > http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/1 9/1710200 because we still have ze painful memory of how MAD Arthur got the last time we left tools inside his but tocks... Well, let's see. Fixed body, brain running optimium speed from a secure lock box. Maybe we can give Arthur something special he will treasure a long time > We can add a few specks of that 225,000,000 year old dinosaur DNA we found > http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/1 9/2057223 . hahahahahahaha Arthur, ARTHUR! You can wake up now Arthur. Time to go to work and looks like you'll have to really fly.

  63. HA! by sigzero · · Score: 0

    Guessing as usual...!

  64. Know your references by lobotomir · · Score: 1

    I believe parent is Calvin and Hobbes reference. Therefore, mod up.

  65. The DMV (Department of Motor Vehicles) is where Americans queue up to get their driving licenses renewed.

    --
    Take off every 'sig' !!
  66. weird science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As far as I can remember this mutant thing was a poor prototype for fighter jets dinosaurs produced (or rather bred and raised, if you will). The project failed miserably and was abolished long long ago. It's funny to see how monkeys found a spare part to exactly this model in 225 million years and how they repeat old design mistakes in jet fighters these days.

    PS. mod this informative ;-)

  67. Aerodynamics? Really? by DaveInAZ · · Score: 0

    ...a new membrane configuration for S. mirabilis, one they say is unique because it is grounded in aerodynamics. Ummm...are these the same aerodynamics theories that say bumblebees can't fly? "At low flight speeds, there is no real reason to have a wing this shape, but delta wings work efficiently at fast speeds, especially supersonic," Dyke told LiveScience. Is he really saying these little lizards were supersonic? Or even aspired to be? I guess that would explain the lizard-shaped splatmarks on the petrified trees.

  68. Moron.... by woolio · · Score: 1

    Also, God bless George W. Bush!

    You had a pretty good chance of being moderated as "+5, Funny" before that line.

  69. Evolution works by seeks2know · · Score: 1
    "Maybe airplane designers should delve into the fossil record a little more."

    Evolution really works. Survival of the fittest means that the wing design of present day birds has a definite advantage over early wing designs that died out.

    I believe that airplane designers will ultimately emulate the flexible wing design of today's birds.