Whew! That's big! 68 kB .img

Post #223,785 by Another Scott 9/8/05 11:14:12 PM Reply	Whew! That's big! 68 kB .img [image\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/pop_ups/05/sci_nat_enl_1126204004/img/1.jpg\|\|Giant pterosaurs\|440\|600] [link\|http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4223658.stm\|BBC News]: Pterosaur trackways recently found in Mexico suggest the animals could achieve a wingspan of 18m. There are also Romanian and Brazilian fossils from creatures that reached 13 or 14m across. Compare this to today's biggest bird, the wandering albatross, which has a wingspan of 3.5m. 18 meters is 59 feet! Big pterodactyl! Cheers, Scott.
Post #223,788 by Andrew Grygus 9/8/05 11:35:37 PM Reply	I see they've update sufficiently . . . . . to show them covered with fur, since recently discovered fossils have shown that to be the case. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #223,789 by Another Scott 9/8/05 11:40:22 PM Reply	I guess Todd was just a few 100,000,000 years off then. [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=101673\|#101673]. ;-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #223,818 by tuberculosis 9/9/05 3:54:41 AM 8/21/07 12:41:15 PM Reply	Aren't feathers same as fur with really bad split ends? "Whenever you find you are on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" --Mark Twain "The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them." --Albert Einstein "This is still a dangerous world. It's a world of madmen and uncertainty and potential mental losses." --George W. Bush Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 12:41:15 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #223,896 by Another Scott 9/9/05 12:32:41 PM Reply	Not really. It's topology at work. I recall a biologist explaining the difference between the evolution of feathers and hair this way: You have a planar surface interface between the animal and the environment. The plane can change in 2 ways. It can locally bend up or or it can locally bend down. From that basic starting point, skin coverings evolved 2 ways. If the skin bends up, you have feathers or scales. If it bends down, you have hair. [link\|http://www-hsc.usc.edu/~cmchuong/2003JEZAdapt.pdf\|This] 15 page .pdf discusses these issues in more detail with lots of pretty pictures. Cheers, Scott.
Post #224,098 by bionerd 9/10/05 11:43:10 AM Reply	That looks like something out of a Tim Burton movie What's with those teeth? They cant really spear anything with them because the angle is all wrong. I suppose they could snag prey on the bottom teeth, but that doesnt explain the need for those top teeth. I guess the teeth could be used as a type of scoop and cage to hold the prey, but if that's the purpose, why do they need to be so sharp? They cant chew with them. Very odd. Looks like an evolutionary design flaw.
Post #224,113 by Andrew Grygus 9/10/05 12:23:38 PM Reply	Oh, they look pretty efficient . . . . . for keeping fish from slithering out of their grasp - either speared or caged or both. I imagine critters built like this would be skimming the water scooping up near-surface fish. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #224,134 by hnick 9/10/05 2:02:05 PM Reply	Re: evolutionary design flaw Seen many around recently? 'bout the only critters with teeth that bad still in existence live on a tiny european island...
Post #224,135 by Andrew Grygus 9/10/05 2:25:12 PM 9/10/05 2:27:26 PM Reply	But . . . . . there's a lot of very deep ocean critters with tooth sets a lot like that. Apparently good for holding fish. Adaptions like that aren't evolutionary flaws but they are evolutionary dead ends. Something happens to the particular kind of fish you go after (or they learn to swim deeper) and you're out of business. The saber tooth tiger, for instance, was the most recent of several beasts (including a marsupial) to develop a pair of saber fangs. Highly successful for a time (note the number of saber tooth tiger fossils found), then things change and you're out of business. Also it is suspected that the atmosphere was much higher in oxygen when giant reptiles and dinosaurs roamed the earth and sky. Pushing the size envelope was also highly successful but a dead end. The atmosphere changes and you're out of business. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx] Edited by Andrew Grygus Sept. 10, 2005, 02:27:26 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #224,142 by ben_tilly 9/10/05 4:39:45 PM Reply	A meteor will help with that I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
Post #224,157 by Andrew Grygus 9/10/05 6:11:50 PM 9/10/05 6:55:54 PM Reply	As will volcanos. Many now think the meteor strike off the Yucatan was just a finishing touch, if that. The main work was already done by massive volcanic action on the Indian subcontinent. 65 million years ago, the events creating the Deccan Traps produced a basalt flow 6,500 feet thick covering over a million square miles, all in a remarkably short time. Near Mumbai (Bombay) this flow is still 1-1/2 miles thick. These events would have had a severe effect on both atmosphere and climate. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx] Edited by Andrew Grygus Sept. 10, 2005, 06:55:54 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #224,167 by bionerd 9/10/05 7:02:31 PM Reply	Good point. "dead end" is more appropriate than "design flaw. Those pointy teeth probably served to protect. I pity the animal that provoked those choppers.
Post #224,180 by Another Scott 9/10/05 8:40:40 PM Reply	I imagine they were used in some courtship ritual too. "Hi dear! Welcome home! Come give your honey a little sugar... Ouch!!!" Cheers, Scott.
Post #224,210 by Ashton 9/10/05 11:16:49 PM Reply	'Dear Diary: today my heart leapt when Agent Scully suggested spontaneous human combustion.' LRPD-wag. Ah, the things conjurable-up when one's god has face-hair, gender pique and ...
Post #224,269 by bionerd 9/11/05 11:09:59 AM Reply	Makes me glad the only thing I have to contend with in courtship is the occassional sandpaper-like 5 o'clock shadow.

Welcome to IWETHEY!