Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Could newly hatched pterosaurs fly?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
IMAGE
The image shows a flock Pterodaustro guinazui/Dr Mark Witton

This story, from last July, is said to be trending at Eurelert:

In the study, published in Scientific Reports, the researchers modelled the flying abilities of hatchlings using previously obtained wing measurements from four established hatchling and embryo fossils from two pterosaur species, Pterodaustro guinazui and Sinopterus dongi. They also compared these wing measurements with those of adults from the same species and compared the strength of the humerus bone, which forms part of the wing, of three hatchlings with those of 22 adult pterosaurs.

Study co-author Dr Mark Witton from the University of Portsmouth said: “Although we’ve known about pterosaurs for over two centuries, we’ve only had fossils of their embryos and hatchlings since 2004. We’re still trying to understand the early stages of life in these animals. One discussion has centred around whether pterosaurs could fly as hatchlings or, like the vast majority of birds and bats, they had to grow a little before they could take wing.

“We found that these tiny animals – with 25 cm wingspans and bodies that could neatly fit in your hand – were very strong, capable fliers. Their bones were strong enough to sustain flapping and take-off, and their wings were ideally shaped for powered (as opposed to gliding) flight. However, they would not have flown exactly like their parents simply because they were so much smaller: flight capabilities are strongly influenced by size and mass, and so pterosaur hatchlings, being hundreds of times smaller than their parents, were likely slower, more agile fliers than the wide-ranging, but less manoeuvrable adults.”

University of Portsmouth, “Newly-hatched pterosaurs may have been able to fly” at Eurekalert (July 22, 2021)

The big mystery isn’t why early, easy escape would be an advantage but why birds and bats never found a way to do it. But we shall see.

The paper is open access.

Comments
JVL The purpose of this blog has never been reasoned discussion of evolution, cosmology, or any other area of science, rather, it is to trash mainstream science. As the sub-title of the blog says: "Serving the Intelligent Design Community." PS: The fight between Dawkins and Wilson related to Wilson's about face on the issue of kin selection as an explanation for altruistic behavior intra-species...chuckdarwin
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
09:34 AM
9
09
34
AM
PDT
Martin_r: JVL, Chuck… What else do you want me to say ? We want you to show you understand the nature of the disagreement between Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson by explaining what it was they disagreed about. It shouldn't be that hard to track down. I remember Dr Dawkins explaining the differences he had with Dr Stephen J Gould (of punctuated equilibrium fame). He said that from the outside it looked like some fatal rift in evolutionary theory but it was actually just different interpretations of timings as they appeared in the fossil record. So, in the end, Dr Dawkins had loads more in common with Dr Gould, someone he had a disagreement with, than he did with intelligent design. And that is the point. So, can you explain what it is that Dr Dawkins and Dr Wilson disagreed upon? Or not? Can you be bothered to find out or are you just going to try and milk their feud for your own goals? I'll give you a hint: they both fervently believed in unguided evolution so start with that.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
JVL, Chuck, Journalist Dawkins :))))) Made my day :))))martin_r
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
09:09 AM
9
09
09
AM
PDT
Dawkins about Wilson:
...but unfortunately one is obliged to wade through many pages of erroneous and downright perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory,” Dawkins writes.
... perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory ON MANY PAGES .... JVL, Chuck... What else do you want me to say ?martin_r
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
08:53 AM
8
08
53
AM
PDT
Chuckdarwin: I really can’t put it any better than JVL’s comments…. It's curious as Dr Dawkins has addressed disagreements he has/had with other biologists regarding evolutionary theory in his various books AND most of the ID supporters here say they have read Dr Dawkins' books but they seem unaware of the disagreements or Dr Dawkins explanation AND reasons for saying disagreements are good and show an active and ongoing field of inquiry. I particularly like his addressing the controversy regarding human ancestors. Anyway, all the scientists I know expect their opinions and hypotheses to be challenged and even attacked. It's the way science works.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
I really can’t put it any better than JVL’s comments….chuckdarwin
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
Martin_r: VL, obviously you try to trick other readers !!!! Not at all. not sure you read the article i linked to above, THE PROBLEM IS, that these TOP Darwinists argue about the BASICS of evolutionary theory … that is the problem … so don’t try to trick other readers … What is it you think they are disagreeing about? What specific thing?JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
06:32 AM
6
06
32
AM
PDT
JVL @8
But your quotes do point out that biology is not just populated by a bunch of ‘yes men’ who parrot the party line collect their pay checks and go home.
YES MEN ???? a good one :)))) JVL, you obviously try to trick other readers !!!! not sure you have read the article i linked to above, THE PROBLEM IS, that these TOP Darwinists argue about the BASICS of evolutionary theory ... that is the problem ... Dawkins: "... perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory... " "... perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory... " ????? "... perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory... " ????? ?????? this is what "modern-day Darwin" is accused of ?martin_r
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
06:26 AM
6
06
26
AM
PDT
Martin_r: it is funny to see, how TOP Darwinian biologists accusing each other, that one or the other does not understand the theory of evolution The argument has to do with some aspects of modern evolutionary theory. But your quotes do point out that biology is not just populated by a bunch of 'yes men' who parrot the party line collect their pay checks and go home. Biology is a dynamic and active science as is physics and chemistry and geology. Even mathematics has its disagreements. That's as it should be; ideas and hypotheses are examined and criticised by others.JVL
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
chuck, you wrote:
that some anti-evolutionist concocted the title because they think it shows some huge controversy and how biologists are all at each other’s throats about evolution
indeed, there is always huge controversy, and, indeed, biologists are all at each other's throats about evolution... the question is, why is that ? i will give you another example (Dawkins involved again): Biologist E.O. Wilson died ... he was called "modern-day Darwin" ... Wilson was an American (Harvard) Look at some of his fights with Dawkins:
The Guardian "Biological warfare flares up again between EO Wilson and Richard Dawkins" "US scientist (Wilson) dismisses Dawkins as a ‘journalist’ in a BBC television interview about pair’s differing views on natural selection" "The war of words between the biologists EO Wilson and Richard Dawkins has reignited after the Harvard professor described his Oxford counterpart as a “journalist”." Wilson answered: “There is no dispute between me and Richard Dawkins and there never has been, because he’s a journalist, and journalists are people that report what the scientists have found and the arguments I’ve had have actually been with scientists doing research.”"
:))))))))))) pretty funny, isn't it ?
"Wilson was asked about his current views on the concept of a selfish gene, to which he replied: “I have abandoned it and I think most serious scientists working on it have abandoned it. Some defenders may be out there, but they have been relatively or almost totally silenced since our major paper came out.” https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/nov/07/richard-dawkins-labelled-journalist-by-eo-wilson
or here, something from Dawkins:
"I am not being funny when I say of Edward Wilson's latest book that there are interesting and informative chapters on human evolution, and on the ways of social insects (which he knows better than any man alive), and it was a good idea to write a book comparing these two pinnacles of social evolution, but unfortunately one is obliged to wade through many pages of erroneous and downright perverse misunderstandings of evolutionary theory," Dawkins writes. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors
it is funny to see, how TOP Darwinian biologists accusing each other, that one or the other does not understand the theory of evolution :))))))))))))) so how should a lay Darwinian understand ? :))))))))martin_r
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
12:53 AM
12
12
53
AM
PDT
Chuck,
First, the title of the video means nothing, as I’m sure you well know, people slice and dice and mis- label YouTube videos to fit their agenda all the time.
would it be possible, that you just don't understand what they are talking about (in that video), and that is why you think that the video was mis-labeled ?martin_r
December 29, 2021
December
12
Dec
29
29
2021
12:42 AM
12
12
42
AM
PDT
Martin_r @4 I'd forgotten all about it--at my age, I'm doing pretty good if I can remember what I had for lunch. Busy Xmas, I guess. Also, once a conversation goes unproductive, there's no point wasting more time on it. I think I pretty much explained my take on the video and the common descent issue. Just quickly, a couple general points. First, the title of the video means nothing, as I'm sure you well know, people slice and dice and mis- label YouTube videos to fit their agenda all the time. I'm guessing--I repeat, guessing-- that some anti-evolutionist concocted the title because they think it shows some huge controversy and how biologists are all at each other's throats about evolution. Second, I assumed your questions re Dawkins were rhetorical--I can't read Dawkin's mind. I already gave you my best guess as to his agenda.chuckdarwin
December 28, 2021
December
12
Dec
28
28
2021
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
chuck, so, you seem to be alive ... you dropped the conversation (the other post, remember? Dawkins, Venter issue)martin_r
December 28, 2021
December
12
Dec
28
28
2021
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
The big mystery isn’t why early, easy escape would be an advantage but why birds and bats never found a way to do it.
The UD question doesn't seem all that mysterious--most reptiles, in particular, egg-laying reptiles, abandon their young almost immediately after eggs are laid, whereas birds and bats (mammals) have the benefit of intense parenting in their pre-fledge stage of development. The higher up you go on the evolutionary ladder, the more intense parenting you find, that's a pretty basic fact of evolution. Baby birds and bats are not born "flight ready," because they don't need to be. There is a bald eagle aerie easily visible from my house and the eaglets spend at least 10 to 12 weeks in the nest before they fledge.chuckdarwin
December 27, 2021
December
12
Dec
27
27
2021
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
when a Darwinian paleontologist says so, it must be true ...martin_r
December 26, 2021
December
12
Dec
26
26
2021
12:18 AM
12
12
18
AM
PDT
I'd rather hear an aircraft engineer explain how the adults can fly. All neck and head! Did the bill act as a movable extra wing?polistra
December 25, 2021
December
12
Dec
25
25
2021
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply