Largest flying creature ever - Pterosaurs Documentary HQ

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

this theme it can looked much watched.
But anyone can try how good is this video. It has also good
definition, but it is also very interesting. It presents new points
of view and some new information.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Drt-c6rgA

Eri

[Dale]

would this be the largest ever found as opposed to the largest?

--
(my whereabouts below)
http://www.dalekelly.org

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-03-29 03:00:07 +0000, Dale said:

> On 2015-03-27, Leopoldo Perdomo <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> this theme it can looked much watched.
>> But anyone can try how good is this video. It has also good
>> definition, but it is also very interesting. It presents new points
>> of view and some new information.
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Drt-c6rgA
>>
>> Eri
>>
>
> would this be the largest ever found as opposed to the largest?

Would that be the silliest question ever asked in talk.origins that I
recall as opposed to the silliest question ever asked in talk.origins?


--
athel

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El domingo, 29 de marzo de 2015, 4:03:52 (UTC+1), Dale escribió:
> On 2015-03-27, Leopoldo Perdomo <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > this theme it can looked much watched.
> > But anyone can try how good is this video. It has also good
> > definition, but it is also very interesting. It presents new points
> > of view and some new information.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_Drt-c6rgA
> >
> > Eri
> >
>
> would this be the largest ever found as opposed to the largest?

They were making the speech for a video. Not a concourse on precision.
It is very unlikely to believe in such a flying creature. The very size
of it makes doubt that we are watching what is suppose we are watching
when we watch a few fossil bones of this creature. Then, as our
imagination is taxing our capacity for credulity, it does not make any
sense to think about flying creatures much bigger. By following this
path we would end believing in flaming flying dragons and flying horses.
Is this what you want? To tell that those flying birds... existed some
hundred million years before the creation?
Eri

[RonO]

We likely haven't found the largest of just about anything, yet. What I
didn't like about the video is that it took them the whole video to tell
us that the possible pterosaur wing bone was a tree trunk. The track
way could be one set of bipedal tracks that they hope have a counter
part, but no mention of any plans to excavate the second supposed
trackway. It was almost like watching a bigfoot video, but produced by
Nat Geo.

They have software to help fly a flying wing that they use to stabilize
flight in the B2 batwing bombers. My guess is that the software is
classified. Humans likely could not routinely fly a wing without the
software. Until they developed the fly by wire the flying wings were
found to be too unstable to be reliable. They would have saved fuel etc
but the death toll would have been too high. I applaud the effort to
make a flying model, but who funded the over half million dollar effort?
The wings are so complex and control of the wing shape at any time
essential that who would think that it was possible? You have muscle
and support fibers throughout the wing that are likely very important
for controlling flight. Just the combination of angles that the joints
could make are mind boggling.

Ron Okimoto

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

in a time around 7 minutes there is considered that it was a fossil
the trunk of a tree. It is rather more probably even if the German
paleontologist is contemplating the possibility of being a finger of
this giant bird. You must take the video as a piece of entertainment.
Nevertheless the more important part of the video are the intents of
make a model of those wings to fly. It is rather difficult to succeed
as it would happen with any modern simulation of any bird whatever.
Try to imagine the simulation of a condor, or a great eagle. It is
rather difficult for not saying impossible with our present intelligence.
Then, there is the temptation of thinking... what if this pieces of
"fossilized something" were meant a finger of a giant Pterosaur? It is
a sort of play or to tease your intelligence... or that of other people.
If you consider the video like a game of exercising your intelligence
it is alright. It cannot be considered a formal statement of what
it really was. All we know is that we had found this fossils and we
have to figure how these animals could fly and land and take off, etc.
You must have a little patience, for it is only an exercise for your
brain. We are guessing what it was possible or not.
About time 1:22:00 they had put a model of pterosaur in a model plane
to put at some hight. Then, the model is left in the air to see
how the controls of the wings are working. In some moment, the part
or one of the parts that controlled the wings were too weak according
to the people that was playing with this model, and it got stuck and
not worked anymore, then it crash. This is not any formal statement
about the failure of possible understanding of how those wings worked.
I consider this failure as a question on how difficult is to make
a model that simulate any living system, a condor, an elephant, a
tiger, or even a human simply walking. I am not saying anything about
a political speech full of lies to attract voters to a party.

We are not able yet to invent a simulation of a computer that would
speak with us like a real person. We had worked a lot about this
sort of intelligence, but it is not just the make a simulation of
model that would move its lips and make gestures, like any human
being. We are unable to simulate any human intelligence in speaking
with the model hiding behind a wall. Just imagine we have a system
of sound such, that a wall separate us from the imaginary robot.
We have not invented yet a computer that would show the degree of
intelligence talking of a common Joe that barely have the intelligence
provided in primary school. I am jot considering that the robot would
simulate the intelligence of a great professor full of wisdom. Well,
I must admit here that to simulate the intelligence of a great professor
it would be much easier, it those posting questions to the robot were
common uneducated folks. A computer speaking some gibberish like a
any respectable PhD. would be indistinguishable from a real doctor on
something. At least for the common uneducated folks. If you do not
understand what the computer replies it is almost like a real doc. A
perfect simulation. It happens that you would need another doc of the
same science, and a very good intelligent one, to detect a simulation
of this sort. For most ordinary professors would be impotent to discern
a computer from a real human spiting some proper scientific gibberish.

I do not expect from videos to show me the heavens of intelligence.
I watch them to learn spoken English and to have a little teasing on
the seven or eight neurons my brain have. I've got a few orgasms out
of these few neurons from time to time.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El domingo, 29 de marzo de 2015, 13:58:52 (UTC+1), Ron O escribió:

here is a beauty of a paper (free) about a very small pterosaur.

Discovery of a rare arboreal forest-dwelling flying reptile
(Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea) from China

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/6/1983.full

Abstract

A previously undescribed toothless flying reptile from northeastern
China, Nemicolopterus crypticus gen. et sp. nov., was discovered in the
lacustrine sediments of the Early Cretaceous Jiufotang Formation,
western Liaoning, China. The specimen consists of an almost complete
articulated skeleton (IVPP V14377) and, despite representing an immature
individual, based on the ossification of the skeleton, it is not a
hatchling or newborn, making it one of the smallest pterosaurs known
so far (wing span ≈250 mm). It can be distinguished from all other
pterosaurs by the presence of a short medial nasal process, an inverted
“knife-shaped” deltopectoral crest of the humerus, and the presence of
a well developed posterior process on the femur above the articulation
with the tibia. It further shows the penultimate phalanges of the foot
curved in a degree not reported in any pterosaur before, strongly
indicating that it had an arboreal lifestyle, more than any other
pterodactyloid pterosaur known so far. It is the sister-group of
the Ornithocheiroidea and indicates that derived pterosaurs, including
some gigantic forms of the Late Cretaceous with wingspans of >6 m, are
closely related to small arboreal toothless creatures that likely were
living in the canopies of the ancient forests feeding on insects.
--------
It continues

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El domingo, 29 de marzo de 2015, 13:58:52 (UTC+1), Ron O escribió:

a nice piece of news for me.

Giant Jurassic fleas drank the blood of dinosaurs and pterosaurs

<http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/feb/29/giant-jurassic-fleas-dinosaurs-pterosaurs>

Fossil hunters have uncovered the remains of giant Jurassic fleas that
sucked the blood of ancient beasts more than 100m years ago.

The oversized insects had long, serrated sucking tubes for piercing
dinosaur hides, and used spines on their bodies and sharp claws on their
legs to cling to the fur and feathers of their prey.

The insects resemble modern fleas in many respects, but grew to between
five and ten times their size, with some females reaching more than 2cm
long. Unlike modern fleas, they had yet to evolve specialised legs for
jumping.

"They were not jumping insects, their biology is very different. They
were probably creeping between the feathers or the fur of the animals
they came across," said André Nel, a palaeontologist at the National
Museum of Natural History in Paris.

Speaking to the Guardian from a field trip in Aix-en-Provence in southern
France, Nel said the ancient fleas may have fed on flying reptiles
called pterosaurs, and perhaps early mammals, such as the rodent-like
multituberculates.

An international team of researchers from China, France and the US
examined nine fossilised fleas recently unearthed at two sites in China.
Five of the specimens, from an ancient lakebed in Ningcheng County,
Inner Mongolia, are believed to be 165m years old.
"It is very special to have found these fleas in this environment
because it was an ancient lake. Either the animals got the fleas off
in the water, or they died in the water and the insects died not far
from them," Nel said.

Four other specimens from a rocky outcrop in Liaoning Province in
northeast China were said to be 125m years old, according to a report
in the journal Nature.

Some of the fossils were dug up by people living in the nearby
countryside, who sold the specimens on to scientists.

The insects' features are so well preserved the researchers could
identify claws on each flea's six legs. There were tiny teeth on the
claws that helped the insects cling to hair shafts and feathers. Fine
spines on their bodies and legs were also visible.

Comparing the sexes revealed that females had larger bodies and
mouthparts than males, with longer sucking tubes to feed through.
The male genitalia were "large and exposed", the authors write in
the journal.

The discovery gives researchers a rare glimpse of how fleas evolved.
The long, serrated piercing tubes and grasping claws of the ancient
insects imply they adapted to feed on hairy animals or feathered
dinosaurs, and moved to mammals and birds later on.
------------

Eri

[RSNorman]

"So nat'ralists observe, a flea
Has smaller fleas that on him prey;
And these have smaller fleas to bite 'em.
And so proceeds Ad infinitum."

Or, if you prefer DeMorgan to Swift:
"Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum."

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

I knew these lines from long ago. The idea came out from watching
small creatures with a microscope. Before the microscope not
poet had enough intelligence to write those lines.

Then, all the merit resides in the people the invented the microscope
and a while later on those that were passing many thousands of hours
observing very small bugs and other microscopic organisms.

But, to find fossils of fleas so old, was a lot more than I was expecting
after all. The quality of the slates, I mean they have to have a very
fine grain to be able to show so much detail. I equate this nearly to a
miracle. And it was a miracle of sorts.
It is like the "divine creator" that made the big-bang and the whole
universe some 7,000 years ago, would be mocking of our intelligence,
by presenting evidence of living beings that existed some hundred of
million years ago. In this case, presenting some fossil of fleas
150 million years old. He is a real prankster god. He must be rolling
in the stinky mud of a heaven's pigsty and laughing like mad at us
for our discoveries. Definitely he is a liar god, or either he is
only a god born from the words of liars. I am just trying to
follow the one that dared to tell the truth in the first lines of
his gospel, John 1:1 "In the beginning was the word... and the word
was god." We do not need more to understand the nature of god.

Eri



150 million years ago.

A different question is being
able to discern some fossils of fleas among the dry material of a
very ancient lake. Just it has its proper merits, and deserved my
admiration.

[Dale]

On 2015-03-29, Leopoldo Perdomo <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:
> El domingo, 29 de marzo de 2015, 4:03:52 (UTC+1), Dale escribió:
>> On 2015-03-27, Leopoldo Perdomo <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> would this be the largest ever found as opposed to the largest?
> They were making the speech for a video. Not a concourse on precision.
> It is very unlikely to believe in such a flying creature. The very size
> of it makes doubt that we are watching what is suppose we are watching
> when we watch a few fossil bones of this creature. Then, as our
> imagination is taxing our capacity for credulity, it does not make any
> sense to think about flying creatures much bigger. By following this
> path we would end believing in flaming flying dragons and flying horses.
> Is this what you want? To tell that those flying birds... existed some
> hundred million years before the creation?
> Eri
>

I would prefer the scientific process be communicated, at all levels,
precisely

if you say "largest flying creature ever", then you miss the point
of "largest flying creature ever found", there is a distinction that
could be made beneficial to the scientific process methinks

[Dale]

On 2015-03-29, Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> On 2015-03-29 03:00:07 +0000, Dale said:
>

>> On 2015-03-27, Leopoldo Perdomo <leopoldop...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> would this be the largest ever found as opposed to the largest?
>

> Would that be the silliest question ever asked in talk.origins that I
> recall as opposed to the silliest question ever asked in talk.origins?
>
>

I think the distinction is valid for the precise communication
of the scientific process, and the maintenance of the rigor
of the scientific process

doesn't it seem that not only communication of science to "mainstream"
is a little sloppy?

[RSNorman]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 18:43:18 +0000 (UTC), Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>
wrote:

If you really would prefer the scientific process to be communicated
precisely then perhaps you should not be watching youtube videos as
your source.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

it is not even sure he had found the said Pterosaur. Perhaps he found
a the fossil of an ancient tree.
It makes not any sense at all that much precision. The "largest flying
creature ever flying" is simply a hype to make a little noise and to catch
the attention of viewers. It happens all the time this hype. But even
if this man would had found the finger of the wing of a giant pterosaur,
it is such an exaggeration that it is needed a damn miracle to believe
such a huge creature ever existed. Then, there is not any damn need of
so much precision for something that looks an exaggeration already.
With the crossing of Red Sea of the Jews, and the Flood that killed all
animals and plants of the earth, I have enough miracles already to believe
in any other, even if it is the resurrection of Jesus.
Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

this video was a damn entertainment not a piece of science. It only has
of science a certain smell, or aroma, to attract some watchers because it
utters the word "pterosaur". This word alone had the smell of science.

It is not different of a lecture you do not understand. I happens sometimes.
It is science apparently, because it smells of science. That means you can
have some confidence that it is science for you do not understand the lecture.
It is all I can say. If you do not understand something it is science. If
you understand it, it is a piece of journalism, or it is a sermon of your
pastor.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

There was an error in this paragraph. I should not had written the negative.

corrected:

It is different with a lecture you do not understand. I happens sometimes.
It is science apparently, because it smells of science. It has some words
from science.
That means you can have some confidence that it is a piece of science
if you do not understand the lecture. Quite normal for science.

If you do not understand something it is science. This is not an error.
If you understand a lecture it is not science; it is a piece of journalism,
or the sermon of your pastor.

I am included in this argument as listener to a lecture of science. If I
do not understand the thing is real science. If I understand the thing is
a piece of literature, or a video of youtube.
Eri



>
> Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

You had not replied, Dale.
I wrote this precisely to you, but some of you, Bill and others, pretend
to understand the science, and are trying to challenge some elements
of science for they look absurd or something.

Science is written in an encrypted language. It is not only a single
language, but several of them. Most specialties of science have a proper
language of their own, and most of us are outsiders and do not understand
the language. It like hearing someone speaking in a foreign language,
like French or German, or Turkish or ancient Cornish. You can recognize
some words like telephone, or radio, or television and a little more.
To understand a branch of science you need to dedicate some 10 or 20
years to learn their language. Even if a scientist is apparently speaking
in English, it does really not doing it. I got this concept clearly in
different occasions, when I was chatting on this site with John Wilkins on
this question of Tarski about when a sentence P is true. I asked him to
translate this phrase of Tarski into plain English, but he could not.
Then, I had to guess the probably meaning of this argument, and arrived
to a new conclusion of my own. So I rephrase the sentence of Tarski saying
"A sentence P is true if it exist a social group that believe it is true."

So far, no one here on the side of science had denounced this phrase as
false. Not even the assorted creationists that are in this site. Unless
it happens that nobody is reading what I write.

This phrase about the truth is also valid for science. It is not only
valid for religious believers. Of course it takes all the gold to the
meaning of the word "truth" or the adjective "true".

Eri

[John Vreeland]

If the flight configuration had an advantage then it could very evolve
the neurological control system necessary to keep it up. And maybe
this creature needed to avoid radar.

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

not any flying creature could had evolve in a single step from being
small animal to being a very big one. One must think of a process of
the brain evolving also the controls as not to kill the animal in a
fall. If the brain fails to control a bigger bird's wings the bigger
bird would not exist.

Eri

[Leopoldo Perdomo]

El viernes, 17 de abril de 2015, 20:39:41 (UTC+1), John Vreeland escribió:

Are you thinking about stealthy pterosaurs? Invisible to enemy radar?
Like the aliens making the pyramids of the Egyptians? Quite amazing.
Eri

[J. J. Lodder]

How much software do you suppose that this one had?
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_YB-35>

Jan