Slashdot Mirror
First Flying Dinosaurs Had Biplane Structure
unchiujar writes to mention a BBC article about the design of the first flying dinosaurs. These possible early ancestors of avians apparently resembled biplanes in many ways, with legs hanging down in a fashion similar to WWI fighters. The researchers who made this discovery use this to argue the 'trees down' model of flight evolution, but the article points out this design may possibly be a failed evolutionary experiment. From the article: "Dr Chatterjee, from Texas Tech University in Lubbock, US, explained that two lines of evidence had led the team to this conclusion. Firstly, the researchers argue, dinosaurs and birds move their legs in a vertical plane, not sideways as the tandem flight pattern requires. Secondly, the feathers on Microraptor's hind legs are asymmetrical; one of the two vanes that extend either side of the shaft is narrower than the other. Aerodynamically, the narrow leading edge of these feathers should face forward in flight, against the direction of airflow. This would have given the flying reptiles lift. "
You'd think a flying spaghetti monster would have no trouble designing a flying thing...
This seems strange, and TFA doesn't really clarify, but from the picture it looks like the legs of the microraptor are fused together. this would seem to make it quite difficult to maneuver on the ground. And if they weren't fused, it seems it would have been difficult to keep the legs together to get the lift of the bottom wings...
I wonder if it might be better diagrammed with the bird using its legs in an "A" framed sort of way. Much like the V shaped stabilizers of the F117, only inverted. This would provide some lift, and stability in flight....
www.jmagar.com
-
Someone should tell Apple's lawyers about this bird - the 'Microraptor gui'. Sounds like prior art on a couple of their patents.
which is totally what she said
If it was a biplane, shouldnt it have two wings? are the feet the second pair of wings? Anyway the thing about biplanes is they need very little speed to stay in the air, due to all the wing area. Makes sense that this would be a early design in human and evolutionary flight.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
"Enough is enough! I've had it with this muthafuckin' snakes lookin' like muthafuckin' planes!"
I know several vertebrate paleontologists, and every time I hear them talk about this guy, the general impression I get is that he's kind of a crank. He's not, to put it mildly, well-respected in the vert paleo community, and his views on this are about as widely held as the view that Wensleydale cheese is the root taxon for frogs.
Biplanes had a significant structural advantage in that the two wings could be part of a truss. So, you get a lot of strength and stiffness out of minimum materials. Of course the struts and wires running between the wings contributed considerable drag. As speeds increased, the drag and the interference in pressure patterns between the wings meant that biplanes were no longer feasible.
Somehow I doubt that a biplane configuration was some kind of natural predecessor of the history of aviation. Other than reducing the necessary wing span, the dinosaur wouldn't pick up the structural advantage of a biplane. A modern version of tree-to-tree flight is the flying squirrel. The airfoil in that case is a flap of skin running between the front and back legs. I wonder if the scientists in the article have correctly reconstructed the dinosaur.
From July:
Ancient Reptile Had Wings Like a Fighter Jet
The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
It is interesting that people who don't believe in design can't help themselves and use the word "design."
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
the design of the first flying dinosaurs.
Oh dear.
Just another inbred lizard.
Design flaw was the wings dropped off when it got a fright - which was when it first leapt from the trees. Ouch! Evolution pulls a nasty one!
Nothing witty
Or it could be a suprisly good design. But the animal may had some other defect that cause it to die off such as Alergies to one of its major food source. Evolution doesn't create perfect life forms it creates ones that are good enough to survive. As well Evolution can go back to a more primitive model because in the current situation it could thrive. So for example if the Majority of the most intelegent people chose not to have children the next generation will not be as smart. But if the majority of the most intelegent people choose to have children each generation will be roughtly the same and perhaps smarter.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
The most frequent cause of their deaths: vines caught in their propellers. Second is running out of fuel.
It is interesting that some people get a chubby over the word 'design' whenever it shows up in evolution articles.
The "being who designed everything" makes mistakes?
I'm confused. Are you espousing ID/evolutionary creationism, or are you saying we were all created by the Greys?
And if we were created by Greys, what would they have left to learn with anal probes?
I heard an interview about this back in October, if anyone would like to hear it...
It's not like the bunch of quacks that drummed up the "intelligent design" theory invented the word "design." Using it doesn't make anyone religious.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
Yeah, it's not turtles all the way down, it's designers all the way down.
The short-lived triplane dinosaurs couldn't get off the ground.
Proof that intelligent deezine wins.
Presidenshully yours,
George W. Bush
Anybody care to explain how chance/chaos/whatever can explain how complex systems like these flying dinosaurs evolved and adapted to meet the needs of their envrionment?
Anyone? Bueller? Anyone?
What?
Am I the only one to think the comparison to biplanes is a bit .... off?
Planes with tailwings, like the wings on the tail (you see on commercial planes (think Boeing 727), do NOT count as biplanes. Now about canards...
> There are dozens of times the Bible was curiously written (for contemporary eyes) it was, in fact, scientifically correct.
Curiously written? There's an understatement. I'm sure if your stretch your imagination to its limit with apologist interpretations the bible can also be used as a car repair guide.
> - THOUSANDS of years before e=MC2, the Bible had "Let there be light".
Seriously, use your noodle. This is meaningless gibberish.
Of course, all of this assumes that intelligence is strictly genetic, which it isn't. That said, I know a certain guy in Germany in the 1930's who would certainly have subscribed to your newsletter.
Finding other idiots on
In other news scientits have revealed the first fossil of humping dino's
Bert
And in fact, the ID folks specifically chose to use the words they did specifically to illicit responses just like yours. They hoped that they could use the choice of words to create confusion and hopefully trick people so they couldn't tell the difference between science and fairy tales.
With legs hanging down? I've never seen legs on a biplane?
The same could be said for most fiction written about past life on earth. That doesn't mean that the books should be moved to the non-fiction part of the library.
To follow your logic, Hawking could write a scientific book about physics, and right in the middle put in "I Stephen Hawking am supreme ruler of the universe. All life must obey me." This would instantaneously make it true.
"This would have given the flying reptiles lift."
Firstly, people that study fossils are called palaeontologists not archaeologists. Secondly, you clearly have no idea what the science of palaeontology is, how it's done, or how new discoveries shift theories (that's called science). PS. if the above is a standard slashdot troll: move along, nothing to see here, and in soviet russia, trolls slashdot you!
Except it wasn't the first design for non-insect flying animals.
Pterosaurs preceeding flying dinosaurs by 75 million years. Pterosaurs were single winged and enormously successful.
Modern birds evolved from the first flying dinosaurs, not from Pterosaurs, although Pterosaurs and dinosaurs had a common ancestor.
There are 4 independant times flight evolved: Insects, pterosaurs, birds, and mammals. 4 different wing structures developed, and in the latter 3 cases, 3 different bone arrangments to support the wings.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
I suspect that the aerodynamics of a wing structure are somewhat different from that of a ball of noodles.
no it assumes that intelligence is partly genetic, you only have to look at the different levels of intelligence between dog breads to show that that is true.
No cancer victims will be allowed on the saucers come Xday, so they're just doing the pre-flight inspections. We'll assume that for some reason, those who have been probed are somehow included in with the paying members. Maybe by paying my $30 to "Bob", I have certified that I don't have rectal cancer. Or that I'll eat my own rectal cancer on a plate if served fresh and steaming hot. Or kill me, Fnord, Ramen.
You're kidding, right? FSM would subcontract that shit out.
Lrrr: This is ancient Earth's most foolish program. Why does Ross, the largest friend, not simply eat the other five?
Ndnda: Perhaps they are saving that for sweeps.
my pet machine
Is it me or is dinosaur discovery actually dead?
I think it is you. I think most dinosaur paleontologists would say that this is a very exiting period. In the past two decades, the number of known dinosaur genera has skyrocketed and things like computer modeling and phylogenetic analysis have vastly increased our understanding of dinosaurs.
I have to think that most of the recent articles about these is to try to revitalize interest in the field but the simple fact is archeologists arn't that interesting.
Points:
1. Please don't mutilate the English language.
2. I think you mean paleontologists, not archaeologists.
3. Just because you don't find it interesting, doesn't mean other people can't find it interesting.
They'll try to make up some interesting stuff about them but seriously, now you're saying 150 years of evidence is wrong because the first flying dinosaur was a biplane?
No one is making stuff up, and no one is saying that 150 years of evidence is wrong. Microraptor does not contradict any modern theories about dinosaurs.
Either the guys now are just making stuff up, or the guys before them were making stuff up, either way something about that pisses me off.
Modifying theories, and sometimes totally discarding them, in order to fit the evidence and to be able to make better predictions is how science works.
Hmm, I have a feeling that I'm responding to a troll, but that's ok, I felt like writing about dinosaurs anyway.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Were dinosaurs really "designed?"
It's probably a good thing the elder things' wing experiments had only limited success. On one hand, we might be able to fly, but on the other hand: flying shoggoths!
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I'd like to mod this +5 Ironic.
This story reminds me of a Little Ceaser's commercial from maybe 1988.
Guy: So what am I gonna do with this pizza box?
Clerk: You ever hear of origami?
Clerk frenetically folds pizza box.
Clerk: It's a pterodactyl.
Clerk runs with origami pterodactyl
Okay, I don't care if they had 1 wing, 2 wings or had 50, the point here is simple. I want my 'A' from my Evolutionary Biology class! My teacher was wrong! ha! and my research paper was right! What am I talking about? I argued in my paper that birds didn't learn to fly by running across the ground and spreading their arms out, but in fact lived in trees and were excellent climbers. He stated that the current science didn't support that, even though every Parrot species and Old WOrld species in the world climbs trees and glides from tree to tree. Anyway, which way did the legs hang? probablly down like the landing gear on a plane, and were for stablization and not lift. But hey.. what do I know.. my bio teacher said I had it wrong last time... haha!
Is how these dinosaurs managed to fire their machineguns through their propellers without shooting off the prop?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Achille Talon
Hop!
So, basically what you're saying is that you have a hard time understanding things that aren't movies, and you get frustrated and angry as a result, but blame the thing you don't understand.
Sounds like a personal problem.
The enemies of Democracy are
No, I don't think you understand; this is a book written thousands of years before Einstien, and came to the same conclusion as him. It listed the growth stages of plants, which only in the last 100 years or so has shown to be right. It talks about how "the heavens opened" to create a flood mentioned by something like 110 civilizations...and if the magnetic poles changed [see current speculations] the Van Allen belts would temporarily collapse...causing the hydrogen and hydrogen ions to come in contact with the atmosphere's oxygen, tada, instant massive flood.
I know the media and the culture tell you it's all myths and stories, but can you, scientifically, deny that this document is *at*least* worth going to that website and learning more? (http://DoesGodExist.com)
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
No that certain guy in Germany in the 1930's would not have subscribed to my newletter. His view was that Evolution is the edd all be all to existance and evolution only makes things improve. Evolution doesn't always make things improve, it just make it good enough to go to the next generation. My senerio has the people themselves choosing if they want to to have children not some force forcing them too or not. I would agree that inteligence is not strictly genetic, envrioment and genetics have and equal comparison. But there is the persons ability to lean is genetic. Then there is what the person learns or refuses to learn. But staticly those with the higher ability to learn tend to learn more then those who don't. There are exceptions... A lot of exceptions, but the scale is weighed. And if overtime the more intelegent people choose to fight their instinct and not have children then the chances of passing the genetic part of intelegence is loss.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
http://www.ge.com/stories/en/10676.html
[error processing directive.]
Mmmmmm... dog breads.
Finding other idiots on
Finding other idiots on
For all we know it was an amazingly good design. Amazing enough that they evolved both flight and brain power, increased their scientific knowledge sufficiently enought to design spacecraft and left the planet with all the other dinosaurs. Explains the sudden dissapearance perfectly well.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
Only on Slashdot would a post about Shoggoths get modded informative.
we won't see the article that reveals it was in fact TWO fossils superimposed
Or perhaps the question should be: How many siblings does he have?
This happens all the time. Watch a documentary on evolution and you find biologists, zoologists, etc, saying things like "the Jaguar was made for the water" and "caribou decided it best to travel in groups." To me, this inexactness of speech warns of a possible inexactness of thought. If you're a strict evolutionist, it seems one should avoid words that connote intention or design. My honest take is that these folks see evolution as a kind of designer ala Richard Dawkins' "Selfish Gene." A bunch of algorithms manipulating matter towards survival. Of course, I don't see how you'd get Giraffe or Peacocks out of that. I would like to see someone take all the survival algorithms assumed to propel evolution and write a kind of simulation program. Just to see what you'd get. I'm betting on a world full of shoggoth. YeeHa!!
OK - this drives me nuts...
Who keeps doing these evolutionary experiments? At least the ID people are upfront about their aim of having God in control of everything.
Sometimes I believe the evolutionary camp tries to soften the scientific facts behind evolution by speaking of it ( evolution ) like it was some omnipotent being... a God if you will.
Which same conclusions did the bible reach that Einstein also reached? What does the bible say about relativity or the photoelectric effect?
From genesis 8:21, concerning the flood: "And never again will I destroy all living creatures, as I have done." Did other civilizations live to tell about it or didn't they?
What's the timeline for the flood anyway? The most recent pole reversal is said to be 780K years ago according to Wikipedia.
Aside from one lifting surface above another, there is NOTHING in common for these flying dinosaurs and early aircraft.
"If one accepted the evolutionary importance of the bi-plane formation, there were striking parallels between bird flight and the development of aircraft, said Dr Chatterjee." says Dr Chatterjee.
Biplanes make best use of the structural materials available at the time to make the most structurally sound wing area with the least weight.
The aircraft wings support each other. Such is NOT the case with Dr Chattarjee's flying dinosaurs.
Allowing for a little contortion on the part of the prehistoric critterz, it's not difficult for them to orient themselves as Dr Chattarjee requires for their feather layout to make sense and still maintain a for-aft arrangement of lifting surfaces.
See, the bible really can be used as a care repair guide.
If forums teach us anything, it is that logic and critical thinking should be required courses in the public schools.
"Either the guys now are just making stuff up, or the guys before them were making stuff up, either way something about that pisses me off. It just seems to be an attempt to say "look we are still doing stuff with the money you gave us" when by the very sound of it this is thought exercise at best."
What on Earth are you talking about? Microraptor was a new discovery made only a few years ago (~2003), and feather-bearing dinosaurs have only been discovered in the last 8 years or so. This has been a big surprise. People talked about the *possibility* for years, and here it is.
Why would you get "pissed off" about scientists making genuinely new discoveries that cause us to reconsider the previous interpretations? That is the nature of science. We don't sit around and assume the current interpretation is going to be correct *forever*, or sit around and be content with the evidence that is already available. The next logical step after discovering a creature with four wings with asymmetric (i.e. flight) feathers is to try to understand the aerodynamics of such an odd configuration. It hasn't been observed in any other flying vertebrate. How does the physics of that configuration work? I don't know how good or bad this paper is, but they are pursuing an obvious next step. I'm perplexed by your reaction to the discovery or the effort to understand it.
"Curse you Red Velociraptor!"
Chris Mattern
You are tranisitory to someone who isn't an idiot
National Geographic has better pics. View the photo gallery.
.. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
why can't we identify a currently living transitionary animal to a currently existing "latest and greatest" evolved creature?
EVERY population is "transitionary." Evolution occurs in populations, not individuals. Successful genes propagate through populations and unsuccessful ones are weeded out. Over time that genetic drift combined with division into subpopulations produces sufficient variances that we then see them in the fossil record as distinct. Fossil remains are rare, so what we have is a sparse sampling of what has lived. However, there are cases where in layer after layer the shifts in a population can be seen. The reptile-to-mammal transition for example, has lots of fossil examples of the incremental variations of populations over an extended period.
But really-- read a book. This is not rocket science, and popular books on evolutionary details are not hard to read. Asking a question like "how come there are no transitions" merely shows how ignorant you truly are about the subject. The question itself is erroneous as it presumes ridiculous things like a reptile suddenly giving birth to a half-bird or something which has nothing to do with how evolution works. Trotting out dated creationist canards does not speak well for your education. If you wish to argue against evolution, find out what it is first before you start asking "how long have you been beating your wife"-type questions.
If you're a strict evolutionist, it seems one should avoid words that connote intention or design.
I don't see that the word "design" implies a conscious or self-aware "designer." Design can be produced by filtered randomness and automated processes. Intelligence is the accumulation of information (knowledge). The problem here is not that scientists utilize the word "design" but that ID'ers have convinced you that "design" or "intelligence" presume a consciousness.
Got a reason that won't work? Feel free...
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
The language isn't mechanically unjustifiable: a jaguar's morphogenesis stems from its genetic blueprint, and within its population that blueprint has changed through the process of evolution. In other words, an individual jaguar undergoes a process of being "made"-- starting with conception; on the species level a jaguar is also "made" via evolution. Ultimately when you see it in action, you say "it was made for the water." meaning, remarkably well-suited to the water.
The language is also justifiable for practical reasons: information wants to be anthromorphisized. Especially in a documentary, like you're talking about. Zoology documentaries are made for mass appeal, and so we can marvel at the (generally amazing) form and function of the zoological life that share the planet with us.
"inexact" speech doesn't appear in reputable textbooks and won't feature prominently in a technical conversation with a biologist if the topic is design and motivation. Casually (or excitedly) describing something within a documentary is totally different than pronouncing or formulating a definition or denotation (in which case possible misconstruals or implications would be more avoided).
Evolution is a "designer" in an abstract sense. We're human beings and we prefer to talk about things in figurative ways.
Giraffes & peacocks arise over timescales beyond our casual comprehension because of the mutability of genetic make-up across the generations, the divergence of populations, and physical environments that lend advantages and disadvantages to various biological forms. They don't just poof into existence, they have a dizzying set of ancestors and relatives like a lot of other animals, which are well detailed in the archeological record. Additionally the flashiness of peacocks is a common (but variably implemented) feature in the animal kingdom. As an interesting tangent about giraffes: the "eating food that's higher on trees" is a joke that was evidently originally created to deride darwinism rather than make sense of it, even though it still gets popularly cited as fact; a different and more empirical 'story' for the notable feature of giraffes-- long necks-- is that male giraffes are often observed to fight, by swinging their necks, even accomplishing killing blows, and the longer your neck the more tremendous your leverage. Within a small population the elimination of (shorter necked) male competitors would provide a huge boon to the representation of a long-necked giraffe in the local gene pool in subsequent generations. I'm no expert though and i've only heard this second hand.
Engage a credible biologist in a discussion-- or in publication-- instead of watching them in a documentary and you'll probably see a different presentation. All the same, "Design" (noun) commonly means "form", not "[Thing] That Was Made By Omnipotent Creator", and doesn't connote conscious intention. Drawing the inference that someone who uses the word "design" is making a theological claim and therefore isn't a "strict evolutionist" is absurd.
Whoops-- definitely didn't mean "archeological" record there. (Such an archeological record would definitely be valuable...and ridiculous.)
Fossil record.
Steel plating on the leading edges of the prop blades on a dinosaur? What the hell are you smoking?
It is the lower surface of the propellor blade that would be struck by the bullets.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Yes. Evolution.
A designer doesn't have to be anthropomorphic or supernatural.
Getting back to our 1.91274248123187e+21 grams of water... Let's convert to kg and get 1.91274248123187e+18. Let's assume that, rather than forming high in the atmosphere the water, on average, forms at about the middle of the troposphere at roughly 9,000m. Using the formula for gravitational potential, that means that the whole process of the water falling had to dissipate 1.68876033667962e+23 joules of energy. If it's done uniformly over the course of 40 days (was it 40 days?), that's 4.88645930752205e+16 watts of continuous power over the surface of the earth. Given an estimated surface of the Earth of about 5.1006426135478e+14 square meters, that's just shy of 100 watts of extra energy per square meter. To put that in perspective, according to Wikipeda, North America receives an average of 125-375 watts per square meter over a the course of a 24 hour day, you're talking about a pretty significant extra chunk of extra heat to deal with over time. Again, the amount of water you're dropping is proportional to the *cube* of the depth you want the flood to reach, and 5m isn't exactly enough to reach mountains (or even hilltops or tall building walls). The whole result is pretty unpleasant.
There are probably some glitches here or there in the calculations, but I think that the reasoning is pretty sound as off-the-cuff calculations go--without even asking where all the extra water went. So my question is, do the people who propose these nutjob hypotheses even do a sanity check?
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Really? Obviously you've not *seen* this series. Until you do, understand that you'll be considered a bigot...but whatever you want to do; you know best.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Yes, really. None of what you said in any of your posts has an ounce of merit.
That's where the question of a *localized* flood comes in. But thanks for calling me a nutjob, anyway. That method is sure to assist you in convincing people you're open-minded in the future.
And where'd it go? Don't we lose both oxygen and water each day, slipping out into space? It makes at least as much sense as manmade-global-warming or other arguments that get such worldwide play.
This isn't *in* the Bible, it's an attempt to explain things like the waterfall-gouge that's found southwest of Portugal, and a search for more evidence of the flood.
All the replies I get are like this; they all make assumptions based on their own experiences, which, these days is from the media and culture. BUT IF THEY'D GO SEE THE SERIES, they could decide for themselves. (This is what the left calls being "open minded".)
As a Christian (not because of this series) I find it interesting how people will HACK their way into a site to see an child raped (for example) but the best way to keep people out is to express a faith in God. People will go to great lengths to settle the issue for themselves. Odd, isn't it?
I find it similarly odd that, despite all this checkability, people still dismiss it, or consider it the opposite of science.
SEE THE FILM...then make up your own minds. I promise you- no DRM, no taxes, and no one's gonna hold a gun to your head. It's just worth watching.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
And where'd it go? Don't we lose both oxygen and water each day, slipping out into space?
If you wish to employ an analogy, you should demonstrate -- mathematically -- that your analogy is valid.
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
It is, however, a large enough flood to have been "mentioned by something like 110 civilizations" so it's not exactly a tiny one. And of course, if you are holding up the Bible as a source of infallible revealed knowledge, you have to remember that the Bible does in fact claim that the flood was worldwide.
Well, I was actually calling whomever came up with the original hypothesis and started spreading it around without sanity checking it a nutjob, mainly because it totally contradicts huge bodies of data and physics and doesn't appear to have a lot of data supporting it. As for being open minded, I did take the time to do some calculations, which proved to be a disaster for the hypothesis. Unless I've done something demonstrably wrong, energy and chemistry concerns alone (some very fundamental concerns) make the whole idea a non-starter, regardless of how well it explains gouges in Portugal and jibes with classical mythology.
Run the numbers. How much water had to disappear over how much time? How high does water vapor float in the atmosphere? Does a water molecule have sufficient velocity to escape the upper atmosphere? I think that you'll run into some severe constraints on the very idea, especially if you posit only a few thousand years since the flood. We're talking about a tremendous change in atmospheric pressure alone. As for global warming, there *are* good calculations that support the feasibility of the hypothesis. Not to mention the fact that global warming proponents are suggesting a change in the balance of the atmosphere to change its insulation properties and you're proposing the ex-nihilo creation and destruction of quantities of matter that simply don't exist anywhere in our atmosphere.
Well, I'm not familiar with this particular gouge, and googling around doesn't produce much. Why could it not have simply been caused by--a waterfall? Unfortunately, if you're going to posit a worldwide flood occurring in recent recorded history, you'll have more than a waterfall gouge to explain.
I've poked around the site, and it seems like the same set of special pleading, assertions unsupported by data, and ideas that clearly haven't been smell checked against known history or basic physical law. If you want to talk about specific details, feel free. I had fun with the last calculation.
Well, I think the point is that the idea is, in fact checkable, and it fails the check. If you can propose some dimensions for the flood and a timeframe, we can re-run the numbers and see if it's even viable. If it's viable, it's worth exploring further. If it doesn't even correlate to known reality, why waste the time?
As for the film specifically, time has some value. A text summary of the evidence is a good quick read. Video is just too low information density for me at the moment. It takes too much time to ge
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
Fry: Look out! We're heading straight for those trees!
Leela: Yeah, yeah, relax. Trees down.
Trees: (mechanical voice) Trees down.
[The trees go down and Fry and Leela ski over them.]
Fry: Cool. Hey, what do you do if you want the trees up?
Trees: (mechanical voice) Trees up.
[The trees go up and one takes Fry with it.]
Fry: (hoarse) Trees down!
Trees: (mechanical voice) Trees down.
Yeah, I should...but I have no idea of the numbers employed. You seem to be under a misconception: this entire thread is speculative. None of it is *in* the Bible, but is a search to support the most unprecedented, best-known activity in human memory.
I'd *love* to discuss this with atmospheric theorists, or people at NASA (part of the reason for bringing it up here) but I'm not a mathmatician. Logitian, maybe, because I love to figure things out.
Please; look at the video. This guy is a dyed-in-the-wool scientist (geology to be specific) and he has some fresh, new ways to look at this. His initial goal was to locate "every dumb thing in the Bible", but after three passes, he couldn't find anything that, given a few variables, didn't agree with our level of science at that time.
Then he asked, if there is a creation, there must be a God? And looking for things like a "mark of the creator" (like a certain style attributed to Frank Lloyd Wright houses) he found the Fibbonachi spiral: animals bearing this same mark, though it has nothing to do with mating, feeding, or survival, yet they're there. You've seen'em, too BTW, but you didn't notice.
So please- take a look. If you've got Democracy Player, its in there. Just start the torrent and let it go. All your questions, and most of your answers will be there.
And feel free to contact me with questions, though John Clayton has an email address, too [rather not get'im slashdotted...] I'm Brian@Fahrlander.net.
Cheers!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
All good points; but rather than belabor this forum with non-tech stuff any further, get the video. (If you were local to me, I'd bring it over on DVD to save you time.)
The first video's kinda dull, since it sets the ground rules. But from the second to the last, it's pretty cool. It's *not* "belive this 'cause it's in the Bible". It's "isn't it interesting the Bible's right _here_." It's not hard to understand, and has all the details, including the formulas, too.
And when you've seen a couple, feel free to write me. If he's wrong about anything, he'll want to know, too- he's that kinda guy. Write me first [so we don't Slashdot'im]: Brian@Fahrlander.net
This is NOT the same old, tired view you're used to seeing. That's why I suggest it.
Enjoy!
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Points:
1: When calling someone out for mutiliating the English language it is always best to attempt to spell "exciting" correctly.
why can't we identify a currently living transitionary animal to a currently existing "latest and greatest" evolved creature?
An analogy: do you understand that German, English, and Dutch are all descended from the same ancestral language? And likewise that French, Spanish, and Italian are all descended (all "evolved") from Latin?
Think about this for a while, and you'll realize that your question is equivalent to "why does no one currently speak Middle English"? It's not a stupid question, but you certainly shouldn't conclude, from the fact that no one now speaks Middle English, that modern English did not develop out of it.
And if people did still speak Middle English, you would consider it either a separate language or a dialect of modern English, and you would still ask, why don't the transitional forms exist? Why doesn't anyone speak Anglo-Frisian, or Proto-Norse?
To give a simpler answer to your question, the transitional animal to the dog is the wolf.
Now, I took it to mean that I needed to use a lighter on the petrol to start the car.
Didn't turn out so well... damn interpretation!
Despite the questionable validity of these claims; part of the definition of a dinosaur is that it is terrestrial. Flying reptiles would be a more accurate label.
Design, by definition, needs intention.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Yes, that would have helped.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water