Valich,
I know. I understand. All I'm saying is to curb your enthusiasm. The threads aren't 'archived' no. But they are dead. Long dead. An occasional ressurection is not something to comment on. But three pages is. Do you understand what I'm saying about burying those threads? There are threads that were active or semi-active on the front page that were written recently and have now been pushed back three pages and will never be responded to again.
Most of those threads you ressurrected will never be responded to because you overloaded the system.
I'm not going to go on about this. This is my last post on the subject. Don't take my words too harshly. I see that you're the sensitive sort from the way that you reacted to things people said in some thread on some insecure guy being stupid. I'm just trying to get it through to you that you need to curb your enthusiasm a little.
Just a little.
It's for your own good as much as the good of the forums. I imagine that you're interested in having fruitful discussions, right? Three pages of dead threads isn't going to do that. The only ones that are going to get responded to (mostly) are going to be any that just so happened to be on the first page when you stopped. (I say mostly because a number of people use the new posts search and might respond to the threads that are buried in the normal forum view.
Now. I'd be more than happy to go back and delete those posts now that you've got the message (whether you understand me is another question. I've done all I can do.)
What say you?
On topic:
First. I'll comment on the side topic that developed. The issue of the high cost of scientific journals.
I find this despicable. 10 dollars an issue?! 100 dollars a year?! And these are non-profit organizations? Yeah. Right. And if you believe that I've got a bridge for sell you might be interested in.
Thank god for piracy.
If only Tesla had been the founder rather than his nemesis Edison. Edison the businessman. Exploiter of genius. He sold a few bridges in his day.
I find it ironic that the original issue of Science was 10 cents and the modern issues are 10 dollars.
Alright.
On to the evolution of flight.
I find the evolution of flight to be one of the most amazing manifestations of the evolutionary principle. (How interesting is it that we primates have an innate fascination with flight? We're practically born wishing we could fly. An adaptation to our ancestors' lives in the trees, I suspect.)
Not only is the purity of flight amazing, but the development of feathers in particulars is truly awe-inspiring. That such complex structures could evolve as spandrels (exaptation rather than adaptation) highlights the complexities that are possible through simple processes. I sometimes wonder which is a greater accomplishment for evolution: the evolution of flight? Or the evolution of the human mind and language? Both required multiple exaptations that were of dubious benefit to the host organism before being co-opted for the eventual purposes of the modern day.
As to the methods of flight. I'd be surprised if they didn't use some type of different mechanism. Birds depend on feathers for flight. Their wing motion is in a figure eight pattern in order to utilize the propensities of their feathers (also important are the finger feathers (that's not the term. I don't know the proper term.) that extend from the wingtips and act as propellers when the bird needs that extra propulsion.)
A flying dinosaur would have none of those mechanism and therefore would fly differently. As to how the arms would hang... Well. I suspect that their wings hang much as modern birds do. Every picture I've seen looks like your typical animal with arms outstretched. I don't doubt that there were some minor differences though.
But, I would suspect that their wing motion would be more akin to bats (except that bats are far too small to model the motions in a proper way... But still would be more of a match than birds, I suspect.)
A question to ask is how soon did feathers develop. This is still up in the air. It's possible that pterasaurs were feathered and this would change their wing dynamics drastically.
I know. I understand. All I'm saying is to curb your enthusiasm. The threads aren't 'archived' no. But they are dead. Long dead. An occasional ressurection is not something to comment on. But three pages is. Do you understand what I'm saying about burying those threads? There are threads that were active or semi-active on the front page that were written recently and have now been pushed back three pages and will never be responded to again.
Most of those threads you ressurrected will never be responded to because you overloaded the system.
I'm not going to go on about this. This is my last post on the subject. Don't take my words too harshly. I see that you're the sensitive sort from the way that you reacted to things people said in some thread on some insecure guy being stupid. I'm just trying to get it through to you that you need to curb your enthusiasm a little.
Just a little.
It's for your own good as much as the good of the forums. I imagine that you're interested in having fruitful discussions, right? Three pages of dead threads isn't going to do that. The only ones that are going to get responded to (mostly) are going to be any that just so happened to be on the first page when you stopped. (I say mostly because a number of people use the new posts search and might respond to the threads that are buried in the normal forum view.
Now. I'd be more than happy to go back and delete those posts now that you've got the message (whether you understand me is another question. I've done all I can do.)
What say you?
On topic:
First. I'll comment on the side topic that developed. The issue of the high cost of scientific journals.
I find this despicable. 10 dollars an issue?! 100 dollars a year?! And these are non-profit organizations? Yeah. Right. And if you believe that I've got a bridge for sell you might be interested in.
Thank god for piracy.
If only Tesla had been the founder rather than his nemesis Edison. Edison the businessman. Exploiter of genius. He sold a few bridges in his day.
I find it ironic that the original issue of Science was 10 cents and the modern issues are 10 dollars.
Alright.
On to the evolution of flight.
I find the evolution of flight to be one of the most amazing manifestations of the evolutionary principle. (How interesting is it that we primates have an innate fascination with flight? We're practically born wishing we could fly. An adaptation to our ancestors' lives in the trees, I suspect.)
Not only is the purity of flight amazing, but the development of feathers in particulars is truly awe-inspiring. That such complex structures could evolve as spandrels (exaptation rather than adaptation) highlights the complexities that are possible through simple processes. I sometimes wonder which is a greater accomplishment for evolution: the evolution of flight? Or the evolution of the human mind and language? Both required multiple exaptations that were of dubious benefit to the host organism before being co-opted for the eventual purposes of the modern day.
As to the methods of flight. I'd be surprised if they didn't use some type of different mechanism. Birds depend on feathers for flight. Their wing motion is in a figure eight pattern in order to utilize the propensities of their feathers (also important are the finger feathers (that's not the term. I don't know the proper term.) that extend from the wingtips and act as propellers when the bird needs that extra propulsion.)
A flying dinosaur would have none of those mechanism and therefore would fly differently. As to how the arms would hang... Well. I suspect that their wings hang much as modern birds do. Every picture I've seen looks like your typical animal with arms outstretched. I don't doubt that there were some minor differences though.
But, I would suspect that their wing motion would be more akin to bats (except that bats are far too small to model the motions in a proper way... But still would be more of a match than birds, I suspect.)
A question to ask is how soon did feathers develop. This is still up in the air. It's possible that pterasaurs were feathered and this would change their wing dynamics drastically.