NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/origins/16891

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-28 | 10.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!news.tek.com!tekig7!tekig6!alanf
From: [e-mail] (Alan M Feuerbacher)
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Muscle tissue from mouse to sauropod
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 28 Jan 93 21:04:35 GMT
References: <[e-mail]^<[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.
Lines: 217

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (news) writes:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
>(Alan M Feuerbacher) writes:
> .....
>You've missed the entire point.  The point is, that Kazmaier is so much stronger
>than any kind of animal his own weight, that in any given situation in which
>he would be unable to stand due to gravity, neither would any other animal,
>and certainly neither would any animal, the bulk of whose weight was devoted
>not to muscle or anything useful in lifting, but to the huge digestive system
>needed to handle leaves and other low-value foods.  That includes sauropod
>sauropods.

I think you're deliberately ignoring my point.  You've not proved or
even given evidence for anything remotely like what you claim.

I'll allow that you've shown a 20,000 pound Kaz would just barely be
able to stand.  I'll admit that sauropods probably could not squat
200,000 lbs or bench press their own weight.  But you've not given
any evidence that shows sauropods can be directly compared to Kaz,
or that a number of other factors may be ignored in such comparisons.

My point was that, since it is observed that different physiologies
do in fact exist, you are unjustified in merely *claiming* that Kaz's
physiology can be compared to a sauropod's.

I'm not arguing anything about _Archaeopteryx_.  I posted the article
only to point out some of the experimental evidence you insist on
ignoring.

_Parade_ magazine did an article a few years ago about a man in New
York who reached about 1600 lbs and was in serious trouble because
he couldn't walk after he reached about 1200 lbs, if I remember right.
The only exercise he ever got was stuffing food in his face.  This
proves that a man very near the 1350 lb limit you use for Kaz can
indeed walk, without having done any extra exercise or taken any
strength enhancing drugs, as you say Kaz did.  Had this 1200 lb man
done the kinds of exercise Kaz did, can you put a limit on how heavy
he could have gotten?  Even though most of his bulk was fat tissue, he
was able to walk until he reached 1200 lbs, even though his normal
weight might have been 150-200 lbs.

In a chapter on dinosaur locomotion, Robert Bakker, in _The Dinosaur
Heresies_, shows a side by side comparison of the skeletons of a
5 ton African elephant and a 5 ton ceratopsian.  The leg bones of
the ceratopsian are *much* thicker than the elephant's.  This
simply shows that animals of equivalent weight can be built
quite differently -- one relatively lightly and the other much more
robustly.  Therefore, using the elephant as confirmation of your
scaling factor without allowing for the possibility of different
physiologies is again shown by observation to be incorrect.

> .....
>The analogy with reptiles is meaningless in the case of the sauropods for
>reasons mentioned, and it is also meaningless in the particular case
>of the Argentinian teratorn, a 160 - 200 lb modern eagle.  As I've noted,
>central asians have been attempting to breed eagles for size and strength for
>all of recorded history, and they cannot get them past 25 lbs (the berkut).
>Beyond that, they cannot take off or land well enough to be functional, and
>this is fully documented in the book which I have mentioned (BIRD OF JOVE).

All this says is that eagles can't get very big.  You can't breed for
a 20 lb tomato but does this prove that squash can't reach 700 lbs?
What if squash were extinct?  Would that change anything?

> .....
>^Ruben stated that _Archaeopteryx'_ skeletal structure indicated that
>^it supported a relatively small mass of wing muscles, compared to
>^modern birds, and that because various other features indicate it
>^was certainly capable of flight, something was missing.
>
>In other words, the evidence is all there that the creature flew, but
>the musculature for something its size to fly appears to have been
>missing.  There is one possibility which somebody here is not even
>considering, isn't there?  That is the possibility that felt gravity was
>then heavily attenuated as I have mentioned, and what would be the
>required musculature in our world would not be needed.

The musculature for flying was *not* missing, it just appears to be
poor.  _Archaeopteryx'_ physiology and flying ability have been
compared to the South American hoatzin, which is a very poor flyer.
The hoatzin has a large crop that leaves little room for flying
muscles.  Yet it still flies.  By your reasoning the hoatzin's
existence ought to prove that gravity is not as strong as we
think it is.

>.....
>Again, this doesn't help at all for the 200 lb teratorn.  You require a
>general solution here;  I have provided one, Ruben has not.

Young earth creationists have also "provided" a general solution.
Many of them claim that some sort of vapor canopy surrounded the
earth before Noah's Flood, and atmospheric pressure was maybe twice
what it is now.  This increased air density explains why pterosaurs
and giant birds could fly, or so they claim.  Why is your general
explanation any better than theirs?  Why is either expanation better
than just accepting that _Archaeopteryx_ was a poor flier?

>......
>^   This is related to a previously unrecognized attribute of
>^   reptilian muscle physiology:  During "burst-level" activity,
>^   major locomotory muscles of a number of active terrestrial
>^   squamate reptiles generate at least twice the power (watts
>^   kg^-1 muscle tissue) as that of birds and mammals.  Furthermore,
>^   patterns of metabolic power output during intense exercise in
>^   crocodiles... suggest high-power locomotory muscle tissue occurs
>^   in a broad range of diapsid reptiles.
>
>At least three problems here:
>
>1.  It contradicts the Nielson article, and I have no apriori reason to
>    prefer Ruben here.

I'm not qualified to compare Nielson's and Ruben's work.  Anybody
else want to try?

>2.  It doesn't help the Argentinian teratorn, as noted.  Some altogether
>    different (and no doubt, equally fanciful) explaination will be required
>    for the teratorn.

Think about tomatoes, squash and hang gliders.

>3.  There is no reason to believe that it would help the sauropod even if
>    applicable, which is doubtful.  Twice the force (which you're probably
>    still not even talking about) still will not help the ultrasaur, which
>    would require being MORE than twice as strong as a scaled version of
>    Kazmaier its own size just to stand for three seconds, much less move
>    around all day long, as it actually had to.

Again, the problem is not for me to prove that sauropods had mammalian
or reptilian style muscles, or even something else, but for you to
show why the possibility of very different physiologies can be ignored
in your scaling argument.

>.....
>^   Enhanced reptilian muscle power is probably due to a variety of
>^   factors, including elevated intramuscular contractile fiber
>^   concentration of mitochondria-poor reptile muscle, and
>^   particularly, high contractile velocity facilitated by
>^   accelerated ATP turnover and high specific activities of
>^   myosin-ATPase and rate-limiting ATP-forming glycolytic
>^   enzymes....  Accordingly, even though lizards and mammals attain
>^   similar sprint speeds..., skeletal muscle mass in reptiles is
>^   less than in equivalent-size mammals (reptilian skeletal muscle
>^   mass, in grams, scales according to the equation
>^   0.19 [grams total body mass^1.09]; for mammals, the equation is
>^   0.42 [grams total body mass^1.01].
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong:  I should think that the Nielson article would
>still hold true in terms of the max FORCE which a muscle could exert
>(which is the applicable nexus in the case of sauropods), particularly
>when you consider the time spans which were likely involved in any
>sauropod motion.  I don't see burst activity as particularly applicable.

I'm not qualified to comment.  Anyone else?

>^   Utilization of high-power, reptile-type flight-muscle to support
>^   powered flight seems consistent with _Archaeopteryx'_ relatively
>^   reduced pectoral surface area....
>
>Again, the notion of attenuated felt gravity is an equally good candidate
>for an explaination and also works for the teratorn.  Reptilian flight
>muscle does not work for the teratorn.

The vapor canopy theory is just as good. :-)

>^   [Various] observations are
>^   strongly indicative that _Archaeopteryx'_ capacity for
>^   generation of flight-muscle power was at least equal to that of
>^   many living birds.
>
>The same old dilemma...  the thing flew (obvious from physiology), and yet
>could not have flown given musculature and what we know about flying creatures.

Sure it could have flown with a standard bird physiology -- just
not terribly well.  Many of Ruben's conclusions have been disputed.

>There's one final little problem which I should mention which Ruben does not
>even address, and which your "reptilian muscle" thesis certainly falls flat
>on.
>
>Adrien Desmond (HOT BLOODED DINOSAURS) that thorough calculations indicate
>that fifty lbs or thereabouts is the absolute maximum size for any flying
>creature in our world, and that beyond that, even simply holding wings in
>a turn, much less flapping them, would break bones.

I'm reminded of the story (I don't know if it's true) that 19th
century scientists calculated that powered flight was impossible.
Wasn't there a thread on this awhile back?  Whether the story is
true or not, I don't think anyone knows enough about physiology
to calculate limits such as this.

>This corresponds quite well with what we actually observe.  The largest
>flying creature which does much in the way of flapping (relatively much
>for a creature the size) is the berkut, the largest specimens, such as
>Atlanta, go around 24 lbs.  The largest soaring creatures which we actually
>find, albatrosses, condors etc., go around 30 or 35 lbs.

Again, all this means is that they don't exist *today*.  You need a
lot more evidence to claim they were physically impossible under
today's conditions.

>All in all, this is the best attempt I have seen on t.o to refute my basic
>thesis, and certainly requires an answer.  And, given time, I've no
>particular problem replying to this sort of article.
>
>I shall be out of town for the next week, so try to time any follow-ups
>to arrive around 1/30.

While you're at it, could you please explain to me how the law of
conservation of angular momentum is not violated by the hypothesis
the earth once orbited an "electromagnetic star" with one pole
forever pointed toward the star?  If I understand anything about
physics, it's that conservation of angular momentum is fundamental.

Alan Feuerbacher
[e-mail]