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