Could Bats Ever Learn How To Hover?

[common_sense_seeker]

So, wait. Let me get this straight. You are referencing an article that talks about the bite strength of a particular species of ray to support the idea that rays are able to fly in air? Can you not see what is wrong with this?

The latest research on rays shows that cartilage has the capacilty to be stiff. A stiffer structure is needed to fly through the air, hence it IS conceivable that rays could achieve evolutionary true flight, just like the two-legged dinoaurs did. You got a problem with that?

 

[Enmos]

The latest research on rays shows that cartilage has the capacilty to be stiff. A stiffer structure is needed to fly through the air, hence it IS conceivable that rays could achieve evolutionary true flight, just like the two-legged dinoaurs did. You got a problem with that?

Evolutionarily seen pretty much everything is conceivable because it is unforeseeable. Maybe in 50 million years Elephants will fly. Of course, they will look like birds..
You have NO argument.

That said, fish have a major disadvantage in this case. How will they gain the ability of true flight while keeping the ability to swim (buoyancy, respiration, etc)?
And another thing, rays have been virtually unchanged for 450 billion years. What, according to you, could drive ray-evolution to develop true flight?

 

[common_sense_seeker]

That said, fish have a major disadvantage in this case. How will they gain the ability of true flight while keeping the ability to swim?

The rays have a perfect body plan for combined ocean and aerial flight. The use of special ligaments could have the body structure change in stiffness accordingly. This certainly is not beyond the power of nature.

And another thing, rays have been virtually unchanged for 450 billion years. What, according to you, could drive ray-evolution to develop true flight?

150 million years is the more appropriate figure. This gives it a major advantage in time, around double the length of time for evolutionary change compared to the birds, and bats have only been around for 45 million years. That's a huge advantage, where viral genetic symbiotic change could leap the body plan forward into unknown, hitherto unthought of corners of creation.

 

[Enmos]

:crazy:

 

[common_sense_seeker]

It's possible, that's all I'm saying. Everything else fits: bioluminosity, seeing in the dark, exquisite sense of smell, ability to detect faint electrical signals, such as the beating of a heart. A very special body plan that has many successful sub-species.

 

[Enmos]

It's possible, that's all I'm saying. Everything else fits: bioluminosity, seeing in the dark, exquisite sense of smell, ability to detect faint electrical signals, such as the beating of a heart. A very special body plan that has many successful sub-species.

What does that have to do with rays evolving the ability to fly??

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

It's possible, that's all I'm saying.

Good, you've said it. Is there any reason to keep this thread open? Anyone?

 

[iceaura]

Maybe to allow the posting of photos like this one, a picture of a bat hovering while drinking from a straw feeder: http://www.animalpicturesarchive.com/view.php?tid=2&did=28550

 

[ElectricFetus]

Quetzalcoatlus was build for flight, Ostriches are not. They were much lighter per unit of volume than Ostriches.

They weighed as much as 250kg (550lbs) and had wing spans smaller than your claimed 100 ft needed for 300lbs, certainly Quetzalcoatlus was a glider but it it could undergo powered flight long enough to get off the ground and to gain altitude.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

They weighed as much as 250kg (550lbs) and had wing spans smaller than your claimed 100 ft needed for 300lbs, certainly Quetzalcoatlus was a glider but it it could undergo powered flight long enough to get off the ground and to gain altitude.

Do you think that it could have been windier back then perhaps? More thermals?

 

[Enmos]

They weighed as much as 250kg (550lbs) and had wing spans smaller than your claimed 100 ft needed for 300lbs, certainly Quetzalcoatlus was a glider but it it could undergo powered flight long enough to get off the ground and to gain altitude.

I didn't claim anything like that..
And see post 19.

 

[common_sense_seeker]

Lift is proportional to the surface area of the wing, a two-dimensional measure. Mass is proportional to the volume of the animal, a three-dimensional measure. So as the linear dimension of an animal increases, the rate of increase of the mass is proportional to the 3/2 power of the rate of increase of the wing area. This means the wings must be proportionally larger for a larger animal. Compare a hummingbird's wings, which are smaller than its body, to a macaw's wings, which eclipse its body when unfurled, to a condor's wings, which comprise most of its silhouette in flight.

For a 300-lb ostrich to fly it would need something like a hundred-foot wingspan. And the breastbone necessary to anchor those muscles would be too large and awkward for it to survive, even if it evolved a clever way to fold up its wings when on the ground.

So yes, there is a maximum size for any animal when you're calculating its power of flight. IIRC the largest bird that can barely fly at all weighs around forty pounds.

It was fraggle rock who got it wrong then