digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

See the original image at telegraph.co.uk —

Pterodactyls were too heavy to fly, scientist claims

telegraph.co.uk — They carried away Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC and were ferocious in the Jurassic Park series of films. But now it seems pterodactyls, the terror of the prehistoric skies, may have struggled to get off the ground. The new research claims that the ancient reptiles, which could grow to the size of small aeroplanes, were too heavy to fly...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • JohnnyQwest, on 10/01/2008, -0/+28that must have made for some awkward hunting...
    • floorman56, on 10/02/2008, -1/+13I can understand why .. Every Pterodactyl I have seen had rocks for bones
    • Mustard911, on 10/02/2008, -24/+4Atheist-scientist are so backward with common sense. I wonder if they ensured their next budget with this claim. What's the next claim, dinosaurs may have had dark matter in body cavities to make all dino's able to fly.
      • Pandalemon, on 10/02/2008, -0/+15The troll is strong within you Mustard911 ...
      • jehan60188, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2mustard, science is constantly revising, and improving its theories based on the most up to date information available. where as religion uses dogmatic texts in an attempt to quell the masses into obedience.
        to question science is encouraged
        to question religion is blasphemy
      • ryrocker, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2well..

        according to science bee's shouldnt be able to fly...
        so....

        fk science when they say pterodactyls dont fly!
    • danmarek, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought this was really old news and some other scientists have theorized that the air was thicker in that time period due to things like volcanic activity and climate being more tropical. Also, if the pterodactyl had fur on it's wings, that would act much like feathers do in helping the dino stay in the air.
      • SadMartigan, on 11/25/2008, -3/+1...
      • Nitesmoke, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3According to the "experts" the Spruce Goose would never fly either. I find it hard to believe that these animals didn't fly. If they found an animal with wheels instead of feet and tried to convince me it didn't roll, I wouldn't believe that either. Yes, some birds don't fly, but they have other means of locomotion. Pterodactyls legs would have been pretty useless for anything more than short distance travel on land. And Danmarek is correct, the density of Earth's atmosphere was completely different then, allowing larger, heavier creatures to fly.
    • valleyman86, on 10/02/2008, -3/+5Airplanes are really freaking heavy and they still fly...
      • takamalak, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8They have engines or jets for forward movement in order to force air over the airfoils.
      • ldailey06, on 10/02/2008, -0/+11last time i checked pterodactyls didn't have jet engines
      • valleyman86, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3What about this guy. http://www.neatorama.com/2006/07/12/flapping-wing- ...
      • Nitesmoke, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3All you need is enough lift to overcome gravity, and enough thrust to overcome drag. We have no way of knowing how much lift a pterodactyl could generate simply by looking at it's skeleton, we can only theorize based on what we know about modern animals. If the air was thicker than it is now (most scientists think it was) and this animal which probably lived on high cliffs, pushed off, it wouldn't be difficult to maintain flight. If it didn't fly wtf were the wings for?
      • takamalak, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Giant radiators? Not saying it was but that's another adaptation for large areas of stretched out skin...
    • reyesz, on 10/02/2008, -3/+5bumblebees cant fly either according to scientists
      • damack, on 10/06/2008, -0/+1Bumblebees according to scientists are not aerodynamical thats why it should be impossible for them to fly but their wrong about that too so I wouldn't be surprised if they got it wrong here too.
  • halogoggles, on 10/01/2008, -1/+94My childhood has been shattered. Everything I know is wrong.
    • mrzack, on 10/02/2008, -30/+59/11 was an Inside Job. now your adulthood is shattered.
      • KevinRWright, on 10/02/2008, -5/+20The only thing shattered by that statement is my faith in your intelligence.
      • GreatSunJester, on 10/02/2008, -2/+11KevinRWright... you started out with faith in his intelligence?
    • Isaaxmz, on 10/02/2008, -1/+52First they said the T-Rex was a scavenger. Then Pluto isn't a planet. Now this! What's next the sabertooth tiger wasn't the first LOL cat?
      • Efilnikufesin, on 10/02/2008, -0/+16The Sabretoothed Tiger was actually a marsupial. I know, I cried after discovering that too.
      • doctechnical, on 10/02/2008, -0/+18I can haz peepleburgr?
      • Tbyrd073, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9"The Sabretoothed Tiger was actually a marsupial. I know, I cried after discovering that too."


        Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
    • Harabeck, on 10/02/2008, -2/+18First Pluto? Now this?! Damn you science!
    • fatlip, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6black is white, up is down, and short is long?
    • sadrobot, on 10/02/2008, -0/+28kinda like learning the bushes and clouds in super mario bros. are the same, just different colors... :(

      http://lisaelama.com/wp-content/28820.jpg
      • gamerscalling, on 10/02/2008, -0/+12I never realized that... never going to view that game the same.
    • ryrocker, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2but i saw them fly in cgi!
      so it has to be real!

      i refuse to believe jurassic park was a lie!
  • fletchsliver, on 10/01/2008, -15/+65good thing jesus was there to help them out!
    • tendonut, on 10/02/2008, -1/+15They were too heavy to fly because man was riding it! Since the world was created 6,000 years ago, men MUST have lived with Pterodactyls (despite any so-called "proof" like cave drawings that man even knew they existed). If you saw a giant bird flying around, wouldn't YOU try to domesticate it and fly it as well?



      I have no idea what the ***** I am talking about
      • TremorX, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10Sarah? What are you doing on Digg?! You have a debate in a few hours!
    • jkbaylor, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1Thanks for the info from the Creation Museum. I love science.
  • ericbenatar, on 10/01/2008, -10/+5Now that I think about it that would be crazy if they were able to fly, the only reason birds can is cus they wiegh so little
    • noahhoward, on 10/02/2008, -0/+16No, that's not the only reason birds can fly.
    • Myztry, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Watch out for flying chihuahua...
    • Efilnikufesin, on 10/02/2008, -0/+15right, I forgot how light airplanes are.
    • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -7/+1Yeah. it's a good thing pterodactyls had engines like planes do or it wouldn't have worked.
    • evilcaptain, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2The oxygen level was much higher then (and the air denser?)
      The extra oxygen per breath would be like a supercharge:)
  • hiPpymIck, on 10/01/2008, -2/+94what about bumblebees..
    • RayDude, on 10/01/2008, -0/+56Exactly my thought! "Bumble bees are too big to fly with such tiny wings," they said, then we find out that the reason bumble bees can fly is because they have lift when the wings beat in either direction.

      I can't see any other reason nature would make them that shape. Perhaps they glided, but that seems ridiculous. They would glide down, grab their pray, eat it and then walk back up the mountain to glide again?

      Seems darn unlikely.
      • AmyVernon, on 10/02/2008, -0/+32You guys stole my response. Exactly the point. Just because it doesn't meet our understanding of how things work doesn't mean it didn't happen.
      • frasermoo, on 10/02/2008, -0/+66They would glide down, eat their prey, then have enough energy to go back up the hill. By the time they reached the top, they were hungry again.

        After a few million years they realised this sucked and became chickens.
      • Nicoon, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5exactly what I thought also.
      • svendm, on 10/02/2008, -0/+16Well.. the bumblebee thing is somewhat of a myth. It's not as if anyone ever really believed bumblebees couldn't fly! A more sympathetic (and realistic) version is that bumblebees cannot by the means used in that aerodynamic model - and hence the model was wrong, not the bumblebees. (In every field of theory there's a given joke that 'reality is wrong' when a calculation doesn't pan out)

        In this case, I think it's probably likely the model is wrong again. IMHO all it takes is a short glance at existing flightless birds to confirm that evolution would significantly reduce the size of their wings (e.g. penguins) or cause them to disappear completely (e.g. the moa) if they didn't use them for flight.

        Unless someone comes up with a good theory why they'd use wings that big for, if not for flying.
      • neilschelly, on 10/02/2008, -8/+2> or cause them to disappear completely
        Not to be pedantic, but they did disappear completely. Don't see too many of them flying around my house.
        -N
    • wolvyne, on 10/02/2008, -1/+42Maybe the Pterodactyls just ignored the scientists and flew anyways...
      • carloto, on 10/02/2008, -22/+6***** You!, two of my pterodactyls friends died struggling to get off the ground.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/02/2008, -0/+21The story that bumblebees are not aerodynamic is an urban myth. The "science has proved that bees can't fly" myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. i.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teeny aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.
  • lukegravitt, on 10/01/2008, -2/+31The article has quite a few spelling and grammatical errors... sigh, maybe I just expect too much these days.
    • SMELLtheGluv, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8I thought the same thing. Not to mention the fact that the article was not even talking about pterodactyls, which were the tiniest pterosaurs (between the size of a robin and a raven), but the much larger species (quetzalcoatlus, pteranodon).
  • mvanhorn, on 10/01/2008, -1/+22I had no idea how to spell pterodactyls until seeing this story.
    • doctechnical, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9One of the reasons they were too heavy to fly was that leading useless "p". Bogged'em down.
    • liljay2k, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4teradactles, there i fixed it
      • Fracture98, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Ptero means "wing" or "feather". Dactyl means "finger" or "digit".

        I think your word would mean 1,000,000,000,000 fingers (or so). Now *THAT* I'd like to see.
      • ekipstonmai, on 10/02/2008, -0/+0Thats what your mom said!
      • doctechnical, on 10/03/2008, -0/+11,000,000,000,000 fingers? Dr. Terwilliker not available for comment.

        /obscure
    • DestroyFascism, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1It reminds of planet airuim...
  • starmanjones, on 10/02/2008, -0/+34but... they did fly. doesn't this make the claim wrong?
    • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -3/+8Which claim are you referring to? The one that says that they had wings so we assume they flew or the one that says their wings and body were too heavy and so we assume they didn't? No one has ever seen these things fly, so we don't actually "know" that they did.
    • LogicBomB, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5PennFarmer is right.

      I fully believe they flew but there is no proof of them flying.
      • ldailey06, on 10/02/2008, -2/+8I suppose if you want to get technical, we have no 'proof' that they lived in the first place. We also have no 'proof' that there was gravity 65 million years ago so maybe they just floated.
      • wunksta, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4youre right, they just ran around in the forest with giantic wings and tiny legs
      • LogicBomB, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Idailey06 - We have strong evidence to the tune of many fossils and bones. That's enough for me to say beyond a shadow of a doubt they lived.

        We also understand enough about gravity to assume that it isn't something that just "happened".

        How an animal moved, lived, flew, etc.. however is very speculative. We make gueses based on bone structure and environment. But there are birds that don't fly so it's hardly a stretch to question it.

        You are just trying to prove a point by being ridiculous.
      • wickedtilted, on 10/02/2008, -1/+0LogicBomb

        This is science, sure you want to say anything is beyond the shadow of doubt?
      • ldailey06, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2the word proof has no place in science, it's a purely mathematical term
    • ooby, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3They didn't fly. Cavepeople carried them around.
  • mm911, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Dick...didn't he ever see Pee Wee's Playhouse?
    • palehorse864, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2He did, but then Cowboy Curtis made him take the blue pill.
  • SteelChicken, on 10/02/2008, -5/+44are these the same idiots that proved mathematically bees cant fly either?
    • imasuperDOTcom, on 10/02/2008, -8/+1You're a smart, smart man.
    • KixEvilCereal, on 10/02/2008, -3/+13Yeah, and the same ones that say that the Large Hadron Collider WON'T tear a hole between this world and one populated entirely by gun wielding, ass raping, giant grizzly bears.
      • IphtashuFitz, on 10/02/2008, -0/+14Won't you be embarrassed when it turns out the LHC tears a hole between this world and the one populated entirely by gun wielding, ass raping, giant butterflies.
      • dafragsta, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9It is completely emasculating to get assraped by a butterfly.
      • Myztry, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7I can offer you insurance against the Large Hadron Collider. For only $200.
        If the world vanishes into a black hole I will pay you $1 million dollars hard cash.
        Rest assured...
      • summer0f89, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1hopefully though its just beautiful women
      • sildude, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1...ass raping beautiful women
  • KixEvilCereal, on 10/02/2008, -22/+5***** you, two of my friends died from being too heavy to fly!
    • pradvan, on 10/02/2008, -8/+3In Soviet Russia, go-carts paint flames on you!
  • Magnj, on 10/02/2008, -1/+14"The 'dinosaur' popularly known as a pterodactyl is actually called a reptile called a pterosaur"

    oO
    • carnivore0311, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8Wrong. Pterodactyls are in the family Pterosauria as are about 200 other flying dinos. lrn to paleo.
    • m0laria, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Technically you're both wrong.

      Kingdom: Animalia
      Phylum: Chordata
      Subphylum: Vertebrata
      Class: Reptilia (sauropsida)
      *Un-ranked classification*: Archosauria
      Order: Pterosauria
      Family: Pterodactylidae
      Genus: Pterodactylus
      Species: There are 5 species in this genus

      So, as you can see, Pterodactyls are both reptiles(class) and pterosaurs(order). Although, some would argue that Reptilia is not actually a valid class, as it classically excludes birds.

      L2taxonomy
      • m0laria, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I left out subclass is Diapsid (includes all reptiles except the early parareptiles, and may include turtles and crocodillians, but their phylogeny is not yet known to be monophyletic.)
      • asherchang, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1"dinosaur" has never been officially defined by scientists anyways. it's just a generic term for big land bound ancient reptile, and pterosaurs are closely related enough to dinos.
  • Genecalypse, on 10/02/2008, -5/+33Then how did Jesus ride on top of them? Hmmm?
  • abarysh2, on 10/02/2008, -1/+6It's like you just told me there is no Easter bunny.
  • 1jaxstate1, on 10/02/2008, -0/+19***** you scientists...they did fly I tell ya...they did fly! **cries**
  • TwoKill, on 10/02/2008, -0/+10If they couldn't fly, why the large flying type of wings. I know there are birds that can't fly but are there any animals with large wings that can't fly as well?
  • chrissku, on 10/02/2008, -10/+4So how is it that we managed to get jumbo jets to fly? Fortunately mother nature is much smarter than this scientist. He also didn't take into account the possibility that gravity's pull was not as heavy when dinosaurs were alive.
    • Harabeck, on 10/02/2008, -2/+8I seriously doubt the mass of the earth has changed that much since then...
    • keyforce, on 10/02/2008, -3/+7Wow.

      Just wow.
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5Strangely enough, the theory that the Earth's mass or gravity has changed since ancient times has been theorized by some scientists. Sounds cranky though.
      • Myztry, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Well a big ***** rock fell from outer space. Those things are heavy...
    • fatlip, on 10/02/2008, -3/+1at first i dugg your comment because you made the point of jumbo jets which i also thought of...

      then you said gravity was different. i had to undigg you =/

      hey at least i didn't bury you!
    • Platypus3333, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2Guys, I suspect he's being facetious.
    • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3I hope he is. Seriously? Guys, come on. Everyone knows that jumbo jets can't actually fly either. They can't flap their wings fast enough. It's some guy named Bernoulli with a jet pack that actually makes them go.
    • jdpafundi, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1He's right. Part of the reason dinosaurs could grow so massive was because of how different the conditions were on earth.
  • cheesehound, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8Hey, HEY. Don't ***** with my dinosaurs!
  • Hinducow28, on 10/02/2008, -0/+53First Pluto, now Pterodactyls? ***** you science.
    • covertbadger, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5This still isn't as bad as when they took away the brontosaurus. BASTARDS! An apatosaurus just isn't the same. Who wants a crappy 'deceptive lizard' when we used to have a THUNDER LIZARD?!
      • faceless323, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1The Terrible Thunder Lizards was an awesome show. Eek the cat was ok.
  • sipsyrup, on 10/02/2008, -1/+27In related news, a scientist has claimed that small airplanes are too heavy to fly.
    • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -5/+2You guys are embarrassing science here. Is a plane the best response you can come up with? Sad, just sad.
      • sipsyrup, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2I'm not a scientist. :p
      • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2I am not either. All it takes is logic. A plane has fixed wings and an engine to provide thrust. A pterodactyl has moving wings and has to provide its own thrust. You tell me if the comparison is apt or not.
  • jakash, on 10/02/2008, -3/+12Exactly - if these guys proved that bees cannot mathematically fly, how can we trust their judgements based on only fossils?
    Besides, why would these creatures have evolved like they have, with such huge wings, if they couldn't then fly? They don't seem like the kind of creature that could run away to defend themself, do they?
  • RonPaulTOLDu, on 10/02/2008, -12/+4yeah, the wingspan of bees doesnt support flight either, its just nobodys had the heart to tell em yet. and 9/11 was an inside job if u dont already know
  • AchaIemoipas, on 10/02/2008, -0/+52Doesn't make any damn sense.

    Why would they have 15 meter wing spans if they can't fly? They would've died off right away. It negates their very existence.

    What did they do, run? With tiny little feet and large wings? In forests?
    • wunksta, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3hahaha oh lulz
    • covertbadger, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2"Why would they have 15 meter wing spans if they can't fly?"

      They used to hunt by standing round the corner and spreading their wings with the sun behind them. The giant terrifying shadow would scare their prey to death.
  • amightywind, on 10/02/2008, -0/+16Many birds today have the same size challenges, but they do fly. Albratros, Condors have difficulty getting into the air, can't beat their large wings with authority, and rely on a high perch and thermals to get airborne. Clearly there are advantages in size.
    • swr1ght, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5That is the oddest..."Size Really Does Matter" argument that I have ever heard.
  • Lucas123, on 10/02/2008, -1/+13That's not true! I saw them fly in Jurassic Park III
    • elDud3rino, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Dude, if you slow the frames down you can totally see strings.
      • Lucas123, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Thanks a lot. Just blew my reality.
    • palehorse864, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1@elDud3

      You're correct. In retrospect, it was a poor decision to render the pterodactyls in CG and also render CG strings holding them up. This is why practical FX sometimes look more convincing.
    • SquattingBear, on 10/03/2008, -0/+0That was the lamest scene of the movie. And that's saying something.
  • beatoven, on 10/02/2008, -2/+17Airplanes are too heavy to fly. But they do.
  • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/02/2008, -1/+26If they didn't fly, they wouldn't have been able to survive, because their body types are spectacularly unsuited to land hunting. And their body forms existed in many, many different variants for millions of years without evolving into wingless, crawling type forms, so I have to assume that this research is wrong.

    Most species of Pterodactyls had jaws which were only adapted for snatching fish or other prey during flight, not jaws adapted for land hunting.

    Then there is the issue of atmospheric differences. Other studies have shown that the ratio of oxygen to carbon dioxide in our atmosphere was different in prehistoric times, could this not have made a difference in terms of air pressure?

    Still other researchers claim that other dinosaur types, like the large sauropods, couldn't possibly have consumed enough plant material thru their tiny mouths to fuel their massive, monstrously gigantic bodies. I say such research is clearly crap, because those animals existed for millions of years. Unless you are some kind of crazy Jesus-freak who thinks the fossils were laid down as a trick by Satan or something, in which case, Bellevue for you.
    • flapanthers87, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3Well said and I agree with you 100%.

      I didn't like this article from the moment they called pterodactyls "lizards".

      Everyone knows that dinosaurs have in fact evolved into birds. The similarities both physically and sociologically are just way to impressive to ignore.
      • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2And yet the actual mechanics of the transition continue to elude science. Similarities do not equal causation. The differences are also way too big to ignore. Things like the difference between three and four chambered hearts, the fact that birds use their skeletons to breathe, the fact that their oxygen/blood retrieval system is completely unlike any other. Mainly the fact that to get from dinosaur or lizard to bird, the creatures would have died in any number of spectacular fashion.

        I will be buried which is as it should be so that the universe doesn't implode. If you wish to respond, please don't send me any useless drawings of birds and lizards and say "see - they look alike". Or any useless websites that say that they must have due to similarity without any actual explanation of precisely how it happened without killing every single intermediary. The breathing thing is only one of many. The differences between scales and feathers is likewise enormous and there is no actual transition.
      • sealink, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3Point of order: Pterosaurs were NOT dinosaurs or lizards. They were flying reptiles. Just like marine reptiles are not fish. No one could confuse the saltwater crocodile with a fish, but they tend to make the same sweeping generalizations when talking about ancient marine reptiles.

        Just one more thing that pisses me off about the media doing "pop science" reporting.
      • flapanthers87, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2See I don't understand how science is unable to solve such a mystery. It's pretty evident to me.

        65 Million or so years ago, the earth was struck by an enormous comet somewhere on the coast of Mexico. This created even more turmoil on Earth.

        Earth at that time was not an ideal place to live. Lots of volcanoes were becoming active , and since most dinosaurs lived in these warm climates near the volcanoes, they were directly affected. The sulfur in the air grew to unhealthy levels, and most of the dinosaurs that were closer to the ground started to die out, unless they got away from the volcanoes.

        So the comet struck, blackened out the sun for a couple of months, and a lot of life was lost just from the impact. Now dinosaurs didn't all just die automatically, they became extinct over the years to follow. Now the world is hell. Temperatures rise after the dust clears the skies. Sulfur and other harmful gases are prominent through the air. A lot of the dinosaurs realize they will die on the ground, and are forced to find refuge higher up. Unfortunately, it's pretty obvious that a brachiosaur or a stegosaur will climb a tree and be alright. But, the smaller dinosaurs could. They could scamper there way up to trees to escape the dead world below them. This move propelled the evolution of small dinosaurs into birds to an alarming speed. It sure doesn't hurt when the already had feathers, such a the velociraptor (which is more like a turkey then a 6-foot kitchen dweller).
      • covertbadger, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4"The differences are also way too big to ignore. Things like the difference between three and four chambered hearts, the fact that birds use their skeletons to breathe, the fact that their oxygen/blood retrieval system is completely unlike any other."

        Er, just a couple of days ago a dinosaur was discovered with a bone structure indicating a bird-like respiratory system.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/08092 ...
      • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1Yes. A friend of mine was kind enough to also alert me to it. I missed it when it came through Digg. It's not a bad article and I will research it further, but it does not answer fundamental questions I have such as whether the dinosaur had a 3 or 4 chambered heart and whether it actually breathed like a bird does or if it only had the bellow chambers.

        You have my thanks for linking to an actually useful article though.
    • CCB0x45, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7****SPOILER ALERT*****

      The pterodactyls didn't make it.
      • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3NOOOO!! Say it ain't so! You take that back right now!

        *sobs uncontrollably*
      • cknyan, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1God got bored and killed them, but the gators and roaches somehow survived. Spent around 64-65 million years working a garden project, which soon failed because of some chick and a snake.
    • noahhoward, on 10/02/2008, -0/+1I wonder what the possibility of them being swimmers is?
    • cknyan, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1I agree. I don't understand why they aren't giving the atmosphere at that time more attention in their research. The environment is what supported these massive creatures.

      I'd figure it was primarily the larger amounts of oxygen in the atmosphere along with the volcanic activity.
  • chewbacca77, on 10/02/2008, -1/+11Thanks science.. what next? Proving that water isn't wet?
    • HarryRag, on 10/02/2008, -0/+9One scientist != science.
    • DestroyFascism, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Actually water isn't as wet as it could be. You can make it wetter, this I can prove to you!
  • mistergoomba, on 10/02/2008, -1/+20Maybe the definition of 'too heavy to fly' was different back then. I mean we're talking, what, 6000 years ago?
    • 3xx6, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Just curious, where did you personally get the 6000 year thing? No malevolence intended, just wondering if there was some meme that I missed out on.
    • SquattingBear, on 10/03/2008, -0/+0Yeah the universe was less expanded, so air was more dense. duh
  • biliabong6, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4I could very likely seem them being able to 'glide' but not exactly 'fly.'

    Their nest would be way up top, they would glide down when necessary, and climb back up. Similar to those flying squirrel things or sugar gliders.

    But, due to the immense amount of spelling and grammatical errors, I find this report rather unofficial.
    • wynja, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2No need to climb back up. They would have used thermals like modern day hang gliders.
    • Myztry, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2I believe bats have mechanically similar 'wings' to pterodactyls (clawed arms with a membrane) and they are quite capable of climbing to launch heights when learning to fly.
  • molossus, on 10/02/2008, -13/+6Let's just ask Sarah Palin. She thinks man and dinosaur lived together 6,000 years ago, and her husband looks kind of cavemanish.
    • jrackow, on 10/02/2008, -1/+2There's a lot of people who think that, actually. And there's a lot of good reasons to think so.

      Here's 1 of hundreds of reasons to think it's possible:
      http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/dino-cam ...
      • molossus, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1I agree ... there are a lot of people out there that have absolutely no critical reasoning ability.

        Good job with the questioning our understanding, but spend some time now learning how to answer those questions responsibly.

        Don't just reply, think about it. We're on the same side.
      • 3xx6, on 10/03/2008, -0/+1Very Interesting. Cheers for the link.
  • KenSPT, on 10/02/2008, -0/+6Next are you going to tell me Jeff Goldblum isn't really human?
  • Locnar, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7I'm calling BS on this one..
  • Mustard911, on 10/02/2008, -4/+8Before the flood the atmosphere was different. Did they take that into account?
  • vilago, on 10/02/2008, -3/+5*waiting for someone to relate this to the stupid 2008 election*
    • Hetman, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7To late it has already happened in a couple above posts.
    • freezerburn666, on 10/02/2008, -3/+8just ask mccain if he ever saw one fly when he was a kid
    • vilago, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2ah! it's because we posted at nearly the same time. missed it by < a minute!
    • Jamiekin, on 10/02/2008, -1/+1McCain's grandparents were pterodactyls, he is that old..
  • LLLSecretChimp, on 10/02/2008, -0/+29It makes sense. In every single pterodactyl fossil discoverd, the bones were made of solid rock. That would make them very heavy.
  • wynja, on 10/02/2008, -3/+8FFS you don't develop wings unless your flying or gliding. This is the stupidest ***** I've heard in a long time.

    This moron who calls himself a professor apparently hasn't seen a hang glider, which weighs quite a bit, carry a tandem student and instructor into the sky.
    • nicc, on 10/02/2008, -1/+3last time I checked, chickens, ostriches and other birds have wings yet they cant fly.
      I'm not saying that pterodactyls couldnt fly, but there is a major flaw in your argument.
    • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -2/+3I would watch it with the moron comments if I were you. The hang glider is carried way up, doesn't go all that far relatively, and you can't dive all the way down, grab something off of the ground (like food in the dinosaur's case) and then fly all the way back up again. If it only rode a thermal a long ways by gliding, then it is not a flyer. It is a glider, on line with being a giant flying squirrel (which is misnamed, but who am I to argue with science).

      Talk to a pilot. There is a world of difference between flying (powered) and gliding (unpowered). What this guy says is that it could not fly (powered), so even your hang glider comment is an absurd comparison.
      • brsteve88, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2YOU'RE an absurd comparison!
      • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -2/+2Yes, thank you. That added tremendously to this comment thread.

        Or was that supposed to be funny? If it was I apologize for not understanding your sense of humor. Maybe I would have gotten it in person. Or you could have added a text drum roll.
  • moog, on 10/02/2008, -1/+10I guess someone should tell Boeing...
  • JoeVet, on 10/02/2008, -0/+24Dr. Stephen Falken made a flying model way back in 1983 that showed these thing actually flew.
  • hmmmok, on 10/02/2008, -1/+4Raquel Welch was hot less than 1 million years ago.
  • LuckyASN, on 10/02/2008, -2/+15Pterodactyls did not fly, nor glide. They hunted............. via go-kart.
    • elDud3rino, on 10/02/2008, -0/+5Their wingspan actually just contained a canvas like material of thickened skin....SO THEY COULD PAINT FLAMES ON 'EM!
    • PennFarmer, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1With flames on the side.
  • noahhoward, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8Excuse me, Doctor? We just recieved some new information http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glider
    • EwMo, on 10/02/2008, -2/+1Haha from wikipedia. It must be good info.
  • harvinator24, on 10/02/2008, -3/+3But the scientist at the local creationist museum told me the adam and eve rode on the backs of Pterodactyls
  • raypricestandup, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8too heavy to fly....Southwest probably made them buy 2 tickets!
  • PEMDAS, on 10/02/2008, -0/+18I'm not a scientist, but we all know exactly what their long, folding appendages covered in skin were for: walking long distances to reach the tops of mountains so they could glide for a few seconds. Pterodactyls also went invisible when they were on foot, which they adapted after constantly being eaten by anything that wanted to eat them, including the Stegosaurus, who felt it was its duty to eradicate anything dumber than itself.
  • gametavern, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2We learned that when we watched walking with Dinosaurs a long time ago. They figured they lived on cliffs and caught updrafts etc.
  • missinglink, on 10/02/2008, -0/+23Is that the African Pterodactyls or the European ones?
    • Wartyboskfapped, on 10/02/2008, -0/+8I.. I don't know that!

      WHOOOSH
  • poidh, on 10/02/2008, -1/+5I think this is a case of the theory behind the thinking being wrong.

    First there was the idea that motor vehicles would never work because the accelleration would kill the occupants - total *****.
    Then bumblebees cannot possibly fly - total *****.
    Now this.
  • AndersenWatcher, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Screenshot or it happened.
  • LeviTheSmith, on 10/02/2008, -2/+7Maybe gravity was weaker back then
    • o0joshua0o, on 10/02/2008, -0/+7I think they shot beams of antigraviton particles out of the bottoms of their wings.
      • sealink, on 10/02/2008, -0/+4Only after reversing the polarity of the dilithium filaments in their wings.
    • roho76, on 10/02/2008, -1/+8Everyone knows gravity is a myth. Stop spreading false info. If gravity was real then why does a feather float to the ground rather than just falling straight down, huh? Yeah, not so bright are ya.
      • sealink, on 10/02/2008, -0/+3LOL. Someone dugg you down because you forgot your /s tag.

        Sad that it has to be included on something like that.
      • ithonicfury, on 10/02/2008, -0/+2Yeah, its just another falsehood promoted by "scientists" to get around the FACT that God is just holding everything down.

        How stupid are the Newtonists anyway, its still JUST A THEORY after all this time. They cant even explain spitty slurpies, keg headstands OR edible panties!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 111 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.