Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Of Dragonflies, Spitfires and Elliptical Wings

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Dragonfly is a marvel of nature, rated to be one of the all time most effective predators. Similarly, the Spitfire was a breakthrough, fighter-interceptor in the skies over Britain, just under eighty-three years ago. And, oddly, both share a common design feature, elliptical wings:

This is of course an interesting convergence of natural and human technologies. Though, the advantages are with the Dragonfly, a natural helicopter.

The Spitfire’s wings:

(More details, here.)

U/D, Mar 23: Note the clipped wings and radial engine of the Hawker Sea Fury (many later Spitfires also had clipped wings):

Notice, the P-47:

also, the MiG 15, showing where onward technological evolution would go:

The Dragonfly:

It’s worth noting on the Pterostigma, a counterweight often seen as a dark block towards the tip of the leading edge:

The action has been summarised by Norberg:

The pterostigma of insect wings usually is a pigmented spot close to the leading edge far out on the wing, having a greater mass than an equally large wing piece in adjacent wing regions . . . A wing having its mass axis behind its torsion axis is very susceptible to self-excited coupled flapping and feathering vibrations, making gliding flight above a critical speed impossible. Due to unfavourable, inertial, wing pitching tendencies, a still lower speed limit is set to active flight. Due to its mass contribution and favourable location, the pterostigma tends to raise these speed limits by causing favourable, inertial, pitching moments during the acceleration phases of wing flapping . . . The function of the pterostigma of raising the critical gliding speed, at which self-excited vibrations set in, was demonstrated in dragonflies. Although contributing only 0.1 % (one pterostigma) of the total dragonfly weight, it raised the critical speed by 10–25% in one species.

The beauty and subtlety of design! END

Comments
KF, thanks. I see I am in a good company. PS: have you ever wondered, why the size of a cell is as it is ? In particular, I was always fascinated, why Darwinian blind natural process makes things as complex as possible. For example the DNA packaging - the way DNA is wrapped around histones to fit into nucleus. In a sperm cell, this packaging feature is even more 'upgraded'. Because for a sperm cell, the regular DNA packaging is not 'good' enough. In this case, a DNA molecule has to fit in sperm cell head. So it has to be re-packaged again to fit into even less space :))))) It is crazy ... So why would blind natural process invent all these complex packaging and re-packaging mechanisms ? Wouldn't it be easier, to make a cell way bigger, also the sperm cell way bigger so Darwinian blind natural process doesn't have to deal with these packaging problems ? :))))))) and to avoid many other problems associated with when the DNA molecule is tightly packaged (e.g. to avoid replication / transcription / proofreading / repairing problems )? That is why I am asking, what do you think, why is the size of a cell as it is ? (from engineering point of you, not from Darwinian point of view)martin_r
March 23, 2023
March
03
Mar
23
23
2023
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT
M_r, the pterostigma is an example of subtle, fine tuned design features that work with other aspects of a design to gain advantageous performance. Note, too, direct powering and independent control of the four wings. This enables gliding, forward flight, hovering and reverse flight. Doubtless, it contributes to the near 100 percent success rate in hunting. This is a body plan issue and it would be interesting to see an empirically backed account of how such structural, powering and control changes could plausibly come about incrementally. Indeed, origin of flight, as we know from our own technological case, is an example of the FSCO/I challenge. KF PS, notice the speculations and underlying ideological framework: https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/flight/evolve.html
The most difficult question about the origin of flight is "Why?". "Why" questions are the most difficult ones to ask when they concern evolution; evolution does not ask "why?" Evolution has no sense of future; the here and now is the only place where evolution occurs. It is imperative to keep this in mind when considering the origin of flight. Lineages of organisms are not designed for some future purpose; they are changed by opportunities to which they can respond and by the selective processes that their environment imposes on them. Evolution is limited by developmental and genetic constraints. If an adaptation is useful to a lineage, chances are that it will be preserved. If an adaptation is co-opted from a previous use to a new use, it is called an exaptation. The only scientific way to approach why flight evolved in a group is to first figure out how it evolved; what the temporal sequence of exaptations and adaptations was. How flight evolved in a group depends on what its ancestors were doing (their behavior) and what they could do (their adaptations). Since all we have is the fossil record, which seldom preserves records of complex behavior (except animal tracks!), it becomes necessary to formulate hypotheses of ancestral behavior based on ancestral adaptations. Translation: We must compare and contrast the structure of the ancestor of the flying lineage (or closest approximation thereof) with the earliest known member of that flying lineage (as determined by cladistics), using functional morphology to infer the possible function of the adaptations present in the earliest flyers, and then make predictions of possible behavior. The environment where the organism is found also helps to constrain possible behavior. If there were no trees around, a flyer could hardly have been arboreal (tree-dwelling). Science does not proceed simply by rationalizing explanations; scientists must produce evidence for hypotheses. A rhetorical argument for the origins of flight in a lineage does not offer evidence — a hypothesis must be empirical (measured and supported with evidence) to be viable. In summation, to understand the evolution of a flying lineage, we must follow these steps in this order: (1) Understand the phylogeny of that group; what its origins were. (2) Understand the functional morphology relevant to flight, and how that changed from the nonflying ancestor to the earliest flyer. (3) Accumulate empirical evidence explaining how flight evolved, using such tools as aerodynamic analyses, ichnology (the study of fossilized tracks), and paleoenvironmental assessments. And finally (4) formulate an evolutionary hypothesis proposing why flight evolved in that lineage, supported by and consistent with all of the evidence from the previous three steps.
How we got to wings on the ground is even more revealing:
Before we can answer how and why flight evolved, we must understand how and why wings evolved; without wings there can be no flight. How did wings evolve? Scientists generally agree that wings must have been exaptations; they were used by the ancestor for one function, and became useful for flight among the descendants (if they weren't exaptations, then they were adaptations, which would mean that they were wings already used for powered flight; a circular argument). A comparative study of the functional morphology of the wings of the earliest known flying members of the lineage with the "pre-wing" structures of likely ancestors and close relatives provides the best evidence for how wings evolved. Why wings (and hence flight) evolved from this point is a matter of contention among scientists;
See the FSCO/I issues at work?kairosfocus
March 23, 2023
March
03
Mar
23
23
2023
12:52 AM
12
12
52
AM
PDT
M-r, applied physicist. There is also an MBA. KFkairosfocus
March 23, 2023
March
03
Mar
23
23
2023
12:39 AM
12
12
39
AM
PDT
Powered flight - such an embarrassment for Darwinists. God is laughing in Darwinists' faces :)))))) 150+ years of Darwinism and these people are still utterly clueless about powered flight evolution. Of course, it can't be otherwise. It is a natural outcome of their crazy absurd theory, because powered flight DID NOT EVOLVE - was engineered ... So simple it is ...martin_r
March 23, 2023
March
03
Mar
23
23
2023
12:38 AM
12
12
38
AM
PDT
KF, perhaps I have asked already, what is your education ?martin_r
March 23, 2023
March
03
Mar
23
23
2023
12:30 AM
12
12
30
AM
PDT
Folks, I added the Hawker Sea Fury and in a moment the P-47 and MiG-15. Piston engine fighters lost out to Jets, and elliptical wings to swept ones. Technological evolution driven by competitive design issues and emergence of a means to higher power technologies (which demanded serious materials advances to support jet engine technology). KF PS, In its day, the Rolls Royce Merlin was quite the advance in engine technology, too.kairosfocus
March 22, 2023
March
03
Mar
22
22
2023
11:49 PM
11
11
49
PM
PDT
They settled out of court. Some Spitfires went to private ownership and are allowed to fly at air shows.relatd
March 22, 2023
March
03
Mar
22
22
2023
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT
I recall reading about a huge patent infringement case back in 1937 or 1938, where Supermarine, the Spitfire manufacturer, sued the company that built dragonflies. I don’t remember how the case came out. I’m guessing that Supermarine lost because you don’t see Spitfires around any longer but there are dragonflies everywhere. I think Supermarine went bankrupt paying legal fees…..chuckdarwin
March 22, 2023
March
03
Mar
22
22
2023
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
Andrew at 4, Yes, like inorganic chemicals suddenly becoming organic, dragonflies weren't on the to-do list but just appeared one day. Amazing. :)relatd
March 22, 2023
March
03
Mar
22
22
2023
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT
"You mean it didn’t appear by accident?" Relatd, Happenstance maybe? Which do you buy- Primordial Soup? or Campbell's Cream of Biology? Just leave it on the table. Add water as needed. Serve it up anytime. Plenty will swallow. Andrewasauber
March 22, 2023
March
03
Mar
22
22
2023
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT
Andrew at 2, You mean it didn't appear by accident? And the dragonfly knows exactly how to use the wings to fly and hover. The counterweight is also a definite sign of design.relatd
March 22, 2023
March
03
Mar
22
22
2023
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT
"The beauty and subtlety of design! END" ...or just wait long enough and *poof* the emergent illusion of a highly engineered wing! Imagine that. Andrewasauber
March 22, 2023
March
03
Mar
22
22
2023
12:38 PM
12
12
38
PM
PDT
Of Dragonflies, Spitfires and Elliptical Wingskairosfocus
March 22, 2023
March
03
Mar
22
22
2023
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply