13
   

Scientist claims Pterodactyls were too heavy to fly

 
 
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 08:38 am
@parados,
That's not the picture I posted, is it??

The picture I posted was of hundred-ton stones and there are 200-ton carved stones in the region and, in fact, some of them are at high altitudes. You'd had to have rolled them uphill...
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 08:42 am
Some of you guys might want to go back and actually read that original article. The Japanese researchers have done a rigorous study of size limits for flying creatures in our present world and they come up with an upper bound of about 80 lbs; real world limits are typically half to two third of that and the biggest flying creatures we actually find are more like 30 lbs.

As to Farmerman's notion of pterosaurs floating around on water and using their wings as sails, there were 100' predators in the waters in those days. Any sort of winged creature floundering around in the water would have been a free meal (or snack) for the day or so that it lasted.

farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 09:51 am
@gungasnake,
AS you so cleverly dismantled my logic and hypothesis, you can now say youve taken part in a "scientific" debate and dismantled another scientists hypothesis based upon logic and evidence.

Hmmm, ring a bell?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 10:05 am
PS a Miocene bird (like a great condor) was Argentavis magnificens it had a 7.5 m wingspan and a weight of about 63 Kg. There goes the "bumblebee" hypothesis of the author. One should post evidence, discuss tests and present conclusions that are derived. I dont think their studiies were quite definitive. Especially since they have form/ function evidence from the fossil record .
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 10:26 am
@farmerman,
The bumblebee hypothesis applies under present conditions. Clearly, conditions at the time of the teratorn were different.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 12:20 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

That's not the picture I posted, is it??

The picture I posted was of hundred-ton stones and there are 200-ton carved stones in the region and, in fact, some of them are at high altitudes. You'd had to have rolled them uphill...

It's from the source you posted. Now you want to claim they aren't the same as the other stones in the vicinity but are similar to ones half way around the world?
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 02:34 pm
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:

They didn't carve the thing for funsies; they clearly meant to move it to a temple and then their plans got changed somehow or other.


So? They still didn't move it an inch and no stone that size has been moved by man anywhere else. Who cares what their plans were, you were implying that the ancients moved it and they did nothing of the sort.

Quote:
Grasping at straws trying to hold onto failed paradigms is not good science.


Failed paradigms? You think your example of a stone that never moved is evidence of your idiotic theories on gravity and when your examples are pointed out to be false you want to call it grasping at straws?

When your evidence is debunked, and when you have no evidence to support your assertion of a "failed paradigm" the person grasping at straws is yourself.

Quote:
Aside from that there are other carved stones of similar sizes in Central America which HAVE been moved from quarries.


Bullshit. They are nowhere near the size of that stone, which would have been the largest stone moved in history if they had actually moved it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 02:43 pm
@gungasnake,
Gunga, in what way were conditions in the Miocene diiferent than todays? You seem to be trying to cadge an argument from ignorance here.
Atmospheric conditions were almost identical to today, as were all metrics of paleomag and gravity. AGU publishes a series of monographs regarding variability and anomalies through geologic time. I defy you to find something significant re: atmospherics or grav/mag that could affect lift/glide.
I think that an 05 article about a 60ft pterodactyl may have been big news at the time. However, by 2008, it appears that most of his colleagues (who actually gave a **** about this) found that the original footprint came from rocks that were almost 45 million years earlier than the manus and radius bones. It turns out that the radius bones were found to be WOOD. Howcome, because there were clearly seen vascular bundles and growth rings indicating annual girth. Bones, especially long bones grow with bone forming nodes in the center and, in the case of the flying reptiles (actually not either reptiles or dinosaurs), they would have been hollow.

Now think about it, no other "bones were found" and the footprints came froom another continent that had broken off from Pangea about 130 million years BP and the "Bone was found in late Maestrichtian time (near the end of K times. Hardly rigorous science.
Im not a rpaleontologist, Im an economic geologist. However, we use paleo as a "Tool". Econ geologists are more sensitive to stratigraphic relationships in "index" fossils because the times are important to us for resource development.
I reject the 60ft pterodactyl story without much better evidence. Id love that more work would be done to bring this area to a conclusion. However, you are easily impressed by "hypotheses".

Im amazed at how you deny the strong evidence in evolutionary synthesis but you buy this kind of stuff with not a question. I think that you, as indicated by EDgar, rely on a much different playbook of "worldview facts" .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 02:44 pm
@gungasnake,
Quote:
Doesn't really sound like wood and nonsense to me; sounds like the bones of a finger indicating a 46' wingspan and a footprint indicating a creature with a 60' wingspan.


See above, about how you buy "facts" at too cheap a price.
0 Replies
 
Robert Gentel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2008 03:04 pm
@gungasnake,
Let's walk you through this then. You are trying to argue that gravity was different and you used the following claims as evidence:

1) That modern technology couldn't move stones of that weight.
2) That the ancients did move stones of that weight.

Let's start with number 1. First of all this is just patently false, that stone weighs about 1,000 tons. In 1999 a lighthouse weighing 4,380 tons was moved in one piece.

Here's a picture of it happening:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Moving_Cape_Hatteras_Light_-_NPS_photo.jpg

The technique used to move it is similar to the techniques believed to be used by Egyptians to move much lighter stones.

Now as to the notion that ancient people moved stones of that weight that is also simply not true. As I pointed out to you they did not move that stone at all, it was abandoned while still attached to the base of the quarry.

So what do you do? You call this "grasping at straws" and start bringing up 200-ton stones. There is a world of a difference between those stones and the over 1,000-ton Hajar el Hibla. These aren't "similar".

There is no evidence that humans ever moved a stone of that size in history and you are just plain wrong again.

The stones they did move were feats impressive enough but the notion that it's impossible to do now with all our technology and must have battled less gravity is just plain false. We can and do move much heavier objects now.
gungasnake
 
  0  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2008 08:47 am
@Robert Gentel,
Quote:
Let's walk you through this then. ..


Arroagance is not a reasonable substitute for knowing what the **** you're talking about. In the case of the stone at Baalbek you're asking me to take your word over that of the US Army Corps of Engineers and Bechtel; that's an easy choice and it does not favor you.

In the case of flying creatures the Japanese researchers have made a coercive case for a theoretical limit of around 88 lbs and in the real world bad things start to happen whenever you get to around half of a theoretical limit; thus the heaviest flying creatures we actually observe are around 30 lbs, e.g. albatrosses or the largest berkuts, and those have major difficulties with takeoffs and landings, whence the term "gooney birds" in the case of the albatross.

In the case of land-based creatures, as I've heard it, compensating for the square/cube problem by dividing through by 2/3 power of weight leads to an upper bound for the strongest human athletes of around 20K - 30K lbs, and a total herbivore like a sauropod dinosaur whose body was dominated by the immense digestive system needed to process grass and leaves could not plausibly be stronger on a per-pound basis than a top human weightlifter whose body was almost entirely bone and muscle. Again bad things start to happen before you get to a theoretical max and the largest land animals we actually observe are around 14,000 - 15,000 lbs and that's likely around one percent of elephants.

All of these things say that there is at least reason to suspect a historical increase in gravity at the Earth's surface, for some reason not yet totally understood.

Robert Gentel
 
  4  
Reply Mon 6 Oct, 2008 10:51 am
@gungasnake,
gungasnake wrote:
Arroagance is not a reasonable substitute for knowing what the **** you're talking about.


Good thing I know what I'm talking about then.

Quote:
In the case of the stone at Baalbek you're asking me to take your word over that of the US Army Corps of Engineers and Bechtel; that's an easy choice and it does not favor you.


The bottom line is that humans can and do move much heavier objects than that stone. The claim that humans lack the ability to do so is false.

Quote:
All of these things say that there is at least reason to suspect a historical increase in gravity at the Earth's surface, for some reason not yet totally understood.


No, they do not. But if you want to subscribe to junk science theories be my guest.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 06:33 am
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2203/2465048793_37c77cd8f7.jpg
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 7 Oct, 2008 03:08 pm
@gungasnake,
Remember, for the "preodactyl" on the right, the paleos only had 1 footprint and 2 bones( the long bone of which was actually silicified wood) from a formation that was 2 continents and an ocean apart (post Gandwana) and was from a formation 45 million years younger.

I think that Im being way more skeptical about a reconstructed species than are you. You better rethink how your worldview has disallowed you from dispassionately evaluating evidence about these paleocritters.
Im not aying it aint so Joe, Imsaying that theres not nearly enough evidence to assert that this bigun even existed. Careers in doubt need something to shout about, sort of like "cold fusion" or transmutation of lead.
0 Replies
 
Ivan2230
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 02:31 pm
@Robert Gentel,
My name is Kent. Robert, I enjoy science but not as a career. You are absolutely right. The pterodactyl would starve if you have to use modern atmospheric density as reference. But fossils are one problem with the politics of theories. Pterodactyls would need to be nimble enough to eat an Meganeura. Recently, a radio program suggested that [insect size is determined by the amount of oxygen the insect can absorb through his legs]. I can remember a fossil of a prehistoric dragonfly (Meganeura, reference Carboniferous period approximately 300 million years ago) identical to dragonflies today except instead of 3 inches of wingspan, it was about 2 feet. This brings into question not only age, but when in Earth’s past was the atmospheric density concentrated enough to support a dragonfly of that size? (an extinction event is confirmed occurred in the Carboniferous period .) It also brings into question, what was its natural predator? Modern dragonfly’s natural predators are birds. In the fossil record, the natural predator of this dragonfly should have been the pterodactyl. (reference, Jurassic Period about 150 million years ago.) But modern theory in practice is reluctant to connect the two. The bible says:
(Gen 2) 4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
These verses simply indicate a period of time in history before man walked the earth, when the air was so dense it 'could not rain'. This also gives credit as to the anomaly that modern aerodynamics can’t explain, which is how the pterodactyl could fly. These verses are also listed before the flood of Noah in the bible which also has interesting wording. The pterodactyls is only one example. Kent Hollingsworth
0 Replies
 
timur
 
  4  
Reply Mon 11 Nov, 2013 02:42 pm
You revived a 5 years old thread just to spout your religious nonsense?
0 Replies
 
Ricewind
 
  1  
Reply Mon 2 Feb, 2015 12:09 pm
@rosborne979,
Quote:
"Gravity doesn't change".
I believe it does, very gradually over time. If gravity was weaker in the past it would explain many things about paleobiology, not just the seemingly impossible ability for such a large creature like the Quetzalcoatlus to fly but even how Giraffatitan or the more recently discovered Qijanglong saurapod could deal with such high blood pressure when reaching up to their full extent. It was only about a hundred years ago that that the main scientific argument against evolution was the ability of the sun to burn long enough for such complexity to evolve, something that troubled Darwin and Wallace.

Here is a link to a introductory presentation to a nascent theory where gravity would be increasing over time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ1uCxfskyg
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/18/2019 at 07:22:07