[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
RE: Evidence For a Feathered Velociraptor...
Just to touch base w/ the basics -- quill knobs DO allow "us" to postulate
stress on the attached structures, correct? Further, we can postulate that the
force was encountered while the evolving organism was performing exploits that
conveyed advantage, or that the attached structure needed protection against
daily wear and tear because it had some advantage-conveying function not
directly related to the encountered stress, or even both. Is this a point of
Also, I am still curious; current null hypothesis allows the word 'structure'
to be replaced w/ "feather"?
----- Original Message ----
From: Andreas Johansson <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org
Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 5:16:33 AM
Subject: Re: ADV: RE: Evidence For a Feathered Velociraptor...
On 9/27/07, Tim Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Aerodynamic load has (as I'm using it) nothing to do with flying. It
> > has to do with forces exerted by moving the feather through the air.
> > Given remiges, there would be aerodynamic forces acting on them. Given
> > the quill knobs, we can postulate substantial aerodynamic forces, but I
> > am not hypothesizing about what generated those forces, only that they
> > were present.
> No. Given only quill knobs we canNOT postulate aerodynamic forces for
> _Velociraptor_ with 100% confidence.
We don't need quill knobs to postulate aerodynamic forces for
_Velociraptor_. The animal plainly moved about on land, and thus
suffered aerodynamic forces.
What we can't postulate with certainty is a CONNECTION between the
quill knobs and aerodynamic forces.
Why can't you be a non-conformist just like everybody else?