Early ancestors of birds had wing patterns similar to biplanes, scientists say.
Fossils found in China indicate a dinosaur called Microraptor gui evolved 125 million years ago with sets of upper and lower wings.
The discovery suggests the evolution of flight in birds followed a similar path to the development of human aviation. Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first piloted powered flight in December 1903 in a biplane called the Wright Flyer.
Modern birds are believed to be descended from feathered, tree-dwelling dinosaurs. Some palaeontologists argue that tree-dwelling bipeds began leaping between branches before learning to parachute and developing flight involving flapping. Others say flight evolved in ground-living animals using early wings to power a run up trees and hills....
There were two basic problems hindering human aviation: power, & the attempt to naively imitate "nature" (per classical/Thomistic philosophy?) for wing design. Inventors did not grasp that bird wings are very complex & useless w/o sophisticated feedback control. They might have done a *little* better copying the bat, but they were hard to observe in detail.
Lilienthal & the Wrights succeeded because they saw this was a dead end. The rigid airfoil wing has no natural counterpart, or at least none known of back then. Neither does the internal-combustion engine or propeller (if you discount the bacterial flagellum which they were unaware of).
"The discovery suggests the evolution of flight in birds followed a similar path to the development of human aviation. Wilbur and Orville Wright made the first piloted powered flight in December 1903 in a biplane called the Wright Flyer."
Their "similar path" comparison doesn't work. The development of human aviation is a result of design changes, which of course implies designers. Intelligence, not evolution.
Another Darwinist fable. An aero model of a fossil animal like this must require a lot of hacked unknowns (musculature, feathering, weights, drag, not to mention the animal's "control-loop"). Looks like the "Torygraph" journalists conveniently overlooked these caveats which effectively falsify the results.