[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Birds again



>[snip]was incapable of
>taking off from the ground becasue the pectoralis muscles were apparently
>much less developed than in birds.  These muscles apparently provide
>additional power needed for a ground takeoff.  Without them, a bird can fly
>"from the trees down", but can't generate the extra lift needed for a "grou=
nd
>up" takeoff.

However, this type of takeoff is based on literally exploding into the air. =
 Granted, Archy wasn't designed for this type of takeoff, but what if it was=
 designed for takeoff occuring after building up speed (an airplane=
 analogy), as some people have suggested?

One of the biggest mistakes we can make is to compare modern birds to=
 Archaeopterix (with some 150my worth of evolution between them), especially=
 when we start to compare flight performance.  Certainly, there has been=
 some refinement and modification during this time.  Ultimately, the=
 question is: Does Archaeopterix have the adaptations for flight?  The=
 answer appears to be yes.  Could it fly like (or as well as) modern birds? =
 Perhaps not.  Is this relevant?  No.  Archaeopterix seems to be the first=
 example of dinosaurian flight, and a successful design at that.  To expect=
 it to be a perfect bird (and to perform like one) is to expect too much.

Comments, rebuttles, snide remarks?

Rob

***
The pun is the lowest form of humor,
  --Unless you thought of it first!!!