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. "
Not an evolutionary experiment but a bad first design. The being who designed everything used this as a first attempt to join birds and reptiles and failed. Thus, we now have true birds and true reptiles with no overlapping structures.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Sounds like a load of Lubbocks to me
which is totally what she said
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
-
My Biplane dinosaurs get 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the ways I likes it?
"There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
And here I thought it was some dead Eurotrash dude.
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
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
The most frequent cause of their deaths: vines caught in their propellers. Second is running out of fuel.
I heard an interview about this back in October, if anyone would like to hear it...
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?
minute5. A7 home,
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...
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.
I mean come on. We've been studying these guys for centuries (first dinosaur discovery in the 1850s). 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. 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? What's next? Actually the original dinosaur was a rocket ship that aliens landed in but they died because of a cold?
Dinosaurs had a cool section of time (Jurrasic park) Archeologists have had two (Tomb raider, and Indiana Jones) but articles like this just makes me shake my head because it means one of two things. 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.
With legs hanging down? I've never seen legs on a biplane?
"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!
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?"
yet...
i'm open to a reasoned explanation to the following question.
why can't we identify a currently living transitionary animal to a currently existing "latest and greatest" evolved creature?
it seems all the great scientific minds ASSUME a 100% extinction rate for 100% of all transitionary entities.
this doesn't make sense to me.
a cat and a dog DO NOT have the EXACT SAME "survivability index," if you will, yet they coexist just fine and dandy. some of these intermediaries to dogs surely have a closer "survivability index" to a dog than a cat. yet, 100% of all intermediary dogs are extinct.
yes, this could happen to one species, but 100% of all species?
that's *highly* unlikely, imho, and DEMANDS a rational explanation.
i mean, there are more than 1 million species, some say up to 50 million, YET NOT A SINGLE LIVING TRANSITIONARY ENTITY CAN BE IDENTIFIED.
now, ad hominem can just go take a deep breath. if you are *certain* macro-evolution exists then there *is* a reasonable explanation for this seemingly unexplicable scenario. i'd even bet you could win an award somewhere by researching this and coming up with a valid reason why 100% of 100% of all transitionary life forms have gone extinct, leaving us with only "latest and greatest models."
as i said, "because one is more adapted" is not a reason. no species that exist today have exactly the same adaptibility to any environment, either. the transitionary life forms wouldn't be as well adapted just like cats aren't as well adapted for some environments when compared to dogs.
i've never seen this issue addressed in any form or fashion. it seems this is just something that is so assumed that it is taken for granted.
anybody care to take a crack at answering this question?
paradigm paralysis: a terminal disease of certainty.
question *everything*.
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
http://www.ge.com/stories/en/10676.html
[error processing directive.]
we won't see the article that reveals it was in fact TWO fossils superimposed
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
Points:
1: When calling someone out for mutiliating the English language it is always best to attempt to spell "exciting" correctly.
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.
Yes, that would have helped.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water