0
   

Evolution of the wing

 
 
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2010 08:24 pm
Hey all, new here, been looking around in the forums and seems to have a lot of good info, so what's the current thinking on the evolution on the wing? What are some of the ideas going around as to how or why it evolved, its an interesting one, I remember one theory that with the flying reptile it developed as the reptile leapt from tree to tree and to scourge for prey. What kind of evidence and facts do we have of the evolving wing, it's probably the most fascination aspect of evolution for me. I did a bit of a search for topics, I saw the wing assisted incline running thread which was interesting. Please discuss.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,829 • Replies: 14
No top replies

 
Fatal Freedoms
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 10:11 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
http://www.handresearch.com/hand/Evolutie/evoEngels_bestanden/tetrapoidenEngels.jpg
0 Replies
 
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2010 04:53 pm
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
Hey Fatal_Freedoms, thanks for the post ;-)

So this illustration is showing the anatomy of the wing I'm guessing, I was more interested in what people thought of the actual evolution of the wing, not the finished product.
0 Replies
 
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 03:13 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
No one uses this forum much?
0 Replies
 
synthy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 04:37 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
Evolution in the making-Sugarglider possum-not a wing,but skin-a little marsupial that grew skin to help it leap/glide from tree to tree-will it end up batlike,once it figures out how to flap.
Feathers are more a reptilian thing,I dont know when Archeopterix like animals started to develop them,any one know without googling wikis.
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 07:54 am
@synthy,
synthy;69801 wrote:
Evolution in the making-Sugarglider possum-not a wing,but skin-a little marsupial that grew skin to help it leap/glide from tree to tree-will it end up batlike,once it figures out how to flap.
Feathers are more a reptilian thing,I dont know when Archeopterix like animals started to develop them,any one know without googling wikis.


The sugar glider's 'gliding membrane' is fully developed and functions 100% e.g. it uses it's long bushy tail for stability and steering as well as tilting the left or right membrane, therefore it's not evidence of evolution of the wing. Of course one can argue that everything that has evolved had a previous function, but to say that the sugar glider is "evolution in the making" would be wrong.

I always thought Archaeopteryx is classed as a "primitive bird" not reptile/dino, I may be wrong?
Archaeopteryx is extremely controversal, and many scientists can not agree on the varying theories surrounding this bird. It's even been found that more modern birds pre date Archaeopteryx in the fossil record.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 01:16 pm
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
http://www.dinosaurjungle.com/i1_Tyrannosaur_arm_104_edit_s.png
http://www.boneclones.com/images/ko180_web-lg.jpg
See a correlation?
0 Replies
 
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 06:17 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
Thanks bisurge, I do see the correlation, I'm guessing the top picture is of a walking Dinosaur and the second picture is of a birds wing/bats wing? I believe the Archaeopteryx speices had hollow bones (which enables a bird to be light-weight and therefore take off) unlike walking Dinosaurs who did not have hollow bones? Birds have a very unique anatomical structure.
0 Replies
 
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 06:36 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
Also forgot to mention Aerosteon, which has more hollow bones than usual and could have breathed like a bird, but it lived around 80 million years ago whereas speciemens like Archaeopteryx lived 100-150 million years ago. It's an interesting one. Some large dinosaurs such as Supersaurus and the group called Sauropods have been found with hollow bones which has baffled scientists.
0 Replies
 
synthy
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 07:41 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
Just had a look at the wiki on Feathers its fascinating,it has a good evolution diagram for plumaceous (downy) and pennaceous (vaned) feathers among dinosaurs and prehistoric birds,plus photos of Archeopterix feather fossils-might as well post it.

I know its lame to do wikis,but this one is nice

Feather - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
0 Replies
 
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 08:11 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
Nothing wrong with wikis ;-) It's a good read. I actually never saw anything on wiki about feathers, I missed it. Feathers really are an amazing feature, the bit on "powder down feathers" is incredible, I had not heard of this before.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 05:52 pm
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
I heard an Archaeopteryx can fly like a chicken. Except less.
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jan, 2010 02:49 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69922 wrote:
I heard an Archaeopteryx can fly like a chicken. Except less.


Apparently it could have been a "glider" or a "flapping flyer" (like modern birds) For all we know it could have been a strong flyer spending a lot of the time in the air. It's all speculation.
0 Replies
 
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Wed 24 Feb, 2010 06:22 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
An very interesting read:
Other way round: Did dinosaurs evolve from birds?

Quote:
Study challenges bird-from-dinosaur theory of evolution - was it the other way around?
February 9, 2010

http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2-studychallen.jpg

An image drawn in 1915 by naturalist William Beebe suggests a hypothetical view of what early birds may have looked like, gliding down from trees - and it bears a striking similarity to a fossil discovered in 2003 that is raising new doubts about whether birds descended from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs. Photo courtesy of Oregon State University


(PhysOrg.com) -- A new study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences provides yet more evidence that birds did not descend from ground-dwelling theropod dinosaurs, experts say, and continues to challenge decades of accepted theories about the evolution of flight.


A new analysis was done of an unusual fossil specimen discovered in 2003 called "microraptor," in which three-dimensional models were used to study its possible flight potential, and it concluded this small, feathered species must have been a "glider" that came down from trees. The research is well done and consistent with a string of studies in recent years that pose increasing challenge to the birds-from-dinosaurs theory, said John Ruben, a professor of zoology at Oregon State University who authored a commentary in PNAS on the new research.

The weight of the evidence is now suggesting that not only did birds not descend from dinosaurs, Ruben said, but that some species now believed to be dinosaurs may have descended from birds.

"We're finally breaking out of the conventional wisdom of the last 20 years, which insisted that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that the debate is all over and done with," Ruben said. "This issue isn't resolved at all. There are just too many inconsistencies with the idea that birds had dinosaur ancestors, and this newest study adds to that."

Almost 20 years of research at OSU on the morphology of birds and dinosaurs, along with other studies and the newest PNAS research, Ruben said, are actually much more consistent with a different premise - that birds may have had an ancient common ancestor with dinosaurs, but they evolved separately on their own path, and after millions of years of separate evolution birds also gave rise to the raptors. Small animals such as velociraptor that have generally been thought to be dinosaurs are more likely flightless birds, he said.

"Raptors look quite a bit like dinosaurs but they have much more in common with birds than they do with other theropod dinosaurs such as Tyrannosaurus," Ruben said. "We think the evidence is finally showing that these animals which are usually considered dinosaurs were actually descended from birds, not the other way around."

Another study last year from Florida State University raised similar doubts, Ruben said.

In the newest PNAS study, scientists examined a remarkable fossil specimen that had feathers on all four limbs, somewhat resembling a bi-plane. Glide tests based on its structure concluded it would not have been practical for it to have flown from the ground up, but it could have glided from the trees down, somewhat like a modern-day flying squirrel. Many researchers have long believed that gliders such as this were the ancestors of modern birds.

"This model was not consistent with successful flight from the ground up, and that makes it pretty difficult to make a case for a ground-dwelling theropod dinosaur to have developed wings and flown away," Ruben said. "On the other hand, it would have been quite possible for birds to have evolved and then, at some point, have various species lose their flight capabilities and become ground-dwelling, flightless animals - the raptors. This may be hugely upsetting to a lot of people, but it makes perfect sense."

In their own research, including one study just last year in the Journal of Morphology, OSU scientists found that the position of the thigh bone and muscles in birds is critical to their ability to have adequate lung capacity for sustained long-distance flight, a fundamental aspect of bird biology. Theropod dinosaurs did not share this feature. Other morphological features have also been identified that are inconsistent with a bird-from-dinosaur theory. And perhaps most significant, birds were already found in the fossil record before the elaboration of the dinosaurs they supposedly descended from. That would be consistent with raptors descending from birds, Ruben said, but not the reverse.

OSU research on avian biology and physiology has been raising questions on this issue since the 1990s, often in isolation. More scientists and other studies are now challenging the same premise, Ruben said. The old theories were popular, had public appeal and "many people saw what they wanted to see" instead of carefully interpreting the data, he said.

"Pesky new fossils...sharply at odds with conventional wisdom never seem to cease popping up," Ruben wrote in his PNAS commentary. "Given the vagaries of the fossil record, current notions of near resolution of many of the most basic questions about long-extinct forms should probably be regarded with caution."


Provided by Oregon State University


Source: http://www.physorg.com/news184959295.html
0 Replies
 
iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 28 Feb, 2010 05:07 am
@iLiKetoPlAyWitHMyseLf,
Does anyone wan't to add some input here, come on!, it's a very interesting topic! Surely some of you wan't to share your thoughts and opinions on the matter!?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evolution of the wing
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 11/14/2024 at 06:42:40