![Education Education](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/education_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
Evidence Dinosaurs Are Like Giant Chicks 302
ZeroExistenZ writes "timesonline reports the new "irrefutable" fossil evidence of dino's resembling "giant chicks" more then reptiles as formerly accepted. Gareth Dyke: "The way these creatures are depicted can no longer be considered scientifically accurate," he said. "All the evidence is that they looked more like birds than reptiles. Tyrannosaurs might have resembled giant chicks.""
I, for one... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I, for one... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I, for one... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I, for one... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I, for one... (Score:3, Interesting)
Think Drumsticks!
Mmmmm... Drumsticks!
Damn... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn... (Score:2)
Re:Damn... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Funny)
Congratulations to Submitter (Score:2)
Imagine that: ... (Score:2)
Ahh (Score:5, Funny)
The way they *are* depicted? (Score:4, Informative)
The way these creatures are depicted can no longer be considered scientifically accurate
Dinosaurs have been depicted as bird-like for at least the last 20 years. Even since the 90s, Jurassic Park (the original anyway) tapped noted palentologists to give the dinosaurs what was then a contemporary view of them - fast, warm blooded, very bird like. Many contemporary depictions of dinosaurs have them behaving in a birdlike manner or looking like birds (to the point of having rudimentary or even full fledged feathers).
Re:The way they *are* depicted? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hollywood movies are made to generate profit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hollywood movies are made to generate profit. (Score:5, Informative)
Regards,
Steve
Re:The way they *are* depicted? (Score:2)
Re:The way they *are* depicted? (Score:3, Interesting)
I've often suspected that the dinosaurs, especialy theropods were actualy a lot more colorful the we imagined, most birds are far form dull as are most snakes. Even in present day mammils preditor tend to be more colorfull than expected and their prey less so.
Obvious? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, well, now, I wouldn't say that. [discover.com]
This article is from February 2003. The guy is an evolutionary biologist, but search for the word 'factory' and notice where this factory is rumored to exist. You guessed it, Liaoning Province.
Very interesting read.
Re:This guy's been thoroughly refuted (Score:3, Insightful)
News?? (Score:4, Interesting)
True enough but the story cited in the
Re:News?? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:The way they *are* depicted? (Score:3, Insightful)
But not with feathers, which is what this scientist says was the case.
Oblig. (Score:5, Funny)
but .. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:but .. (Score:2)
Not necessarily. There is some evidence that birds co-existed with dinosaurs for a long time. It could be that birds and some dinosaurs have a common ancestor.
So.... (Score:3, Funny)
Artist Rendering (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Artist Rendering (Score:5, Funny)
Barnyard Shenanigans (Score:2)
here [newgrounds.com]
Real reason why Dinosaurs became excinct (Score:4, Funny)
-Sj53
Actually... (Score:2)
moody? (Score:3, Funny)
Scientific discussion (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Scientific discussion (Score:2)
That's because it was predated by the Allisonhayesaur.
I guess (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I guess (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I guess (Score:2)
(And this is of course going with the assumption that the implied question is really "which came first, the chicken or the chicken egg?" Otherwise the
actually (Score:2)
Re:I guess (Score:3, Funny)
Giant chicks (Score:2)
Re:Giant chicks (Score:2)
Even that movie has been updated to reflect contemporary observations [imdb.com] of the species.
Evidence Dinosaurs Are Like Giant Chicks (Score:2)
Just wondering...
Time travel (Score:3, Funny)
Anyone else thinking "barbeque"?
Re:Time travel (Score:2)
Re:Time travel (Score:3, Funny)
And have you ever thought about why the dinos died out?
Why the Dinosaurs died out (Score:2)
Just dont.. (Score:4, Funny)
square got it right. (Score:5, Funny)
Worst. Sentence. Ever. (Score:3, Funny)
"giant chicks" more then reptiles as formerly accepted.
1. Capitalize.
2. "dino's"?
3. Then != Than
4. I'd like to kill you for submitting this.
Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. (Score:3, Informative)
"giant chicks" more then reptiles as formerly accepted
2. "dino's"?.
4. I'd like to kill you for submitting this.
I like No. 4, but No. 2 is wrong -- dino's is most definitely correct. Gerunds require the possessive.
Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is why America is dropping like a rock in the sciences, maths, and literacy rates, as compared to other industrialized nations. How about, "If you don't like it, fight against the apathy and ignorance"?
Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. (Score:2)
Not in literacy, however, but the 'numbers and test-tubes' teachers seem to be doing well, at least in this state.
Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. (Score:2)
Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. (Score:2)
There IS a spellchecker in slashcode; I submit articles to another site using it. When publishing an article you are presented with a list of words that "ispell doesn't recognize". If Taco et al simply looked at that on their screens, they'd reduce by 80% the number of stupid typos they publish.
FF (Score:2, Insightful)
Evidence (Score:3, Funny)
Chicken Chalet (Score:2)
Now how would they serve 1/2 of a 50' tall chick at Swiss Chalet?
More seriously, maybe get that DNA and culture up some, let them range over Africa and harvest them for food. You might need a tank to hunt them, as I sure would not want to be out there with a spear or 12-gauge shotgun.
Ontology / Phylogeny (Score:5, Insightful)
There's an old saying: "Ontogeny recapitulated Phylogeny" (or, "baby/fetal X usually looks like X's evolutionary ancestor" - since it's easier for a mutation to successfully edit the adult form than the infant form without causing something else to break).
So if dinosaurs and birds are related, one would expect there to be a lot of similarities to baby birds to down is not surprising. However, I'm not convinced about the immediate leap to a theory of multi-coloured down when chicks are usually mono-unicolour.
Re:Ontology / Phylogeny (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/ontogeny.htm l [angelfire.com]
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie =UTF-8&rls=HPID,HPID:2005-21,HPID:en&q=Ontogeny+re capitulated+Phylogeny [google.com]
Re:Ontology / Phylogeny (Score:2)
That is much more dependant upon whether the chick needs to be camoflagued. Look at killdeer, bob white, pheasant and so forth.
Re:Ontology / Phylogeny (Score:3, Insightful)
I can imagine.. (Score:5, Funny)
<HugeChickRex> It was like, so hilarious! I hadn't realized I left that pizza there in there for a MONTH! *snort*
<CavemanBob> AAaaghghu I make you extinct now!
People should have figured that when scientists (Score:2)
It you want to know what a T Rex was like, watch a crow walk across your lawn. Or look at a picture of a Cassowary.
Oh - the poor T.Rex (Score:5, Funny)
AND NOW IT LOOKS LIKE A GIANT, FLUFFY YELLOW CHICK?!?
Nooooo!
T.Rex's had laser eyes, breathed fire and had enormous leathery batlike wings that don't show up in the fossil record because they were shed every year to grow new ones. They could run at 80mph and ate several Diploducus for breakfast every morning before having violent terratorial disputes that took up the rest of their days. At night they tracked down and ate cavemen. Their advanced (but brutal and inhumane) society dominated the earth for 20 million years and was only brought down by alien civilisations hurling giant flaming meteors at them from the safe distance of the Kyper belt.
OK - maybe I lost a bit of scientific detachment there - but..*REALLY*.
Surprising at first.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Scales! If dinosaurs evolved slowly from fish, why would the scales simply disappear without evolution even trying to figure out another use for them? It's not a gigantic logical leap to move from the idea of scales to the idea of feathers, they're both overlapping 'plates' attached at a single point, the only difference is the fine structure involved which may have started simply as land walking fish who's scales didn't hold together very well, leaving ribbons of scale that were at once more flexible and slightly more insulative.
Brilliant! *beer time*
Alton Brown beat them to it... (Score:5, Interesting)
He used one of these, [dinosaurcorporation.com] minus skull, tail and the bottom half of the legs, to demonstrate the proper way to dismantle a whole chicken for frying.
~Philly
Giant chicks? (Score:2)
Ever seen chickens attack a bug? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now imagine a 50 foot chicken...and you're the bug.
Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? (Score:2)
Not what I would call intelligent.
Of course, this could be some other kind of farm-raised bird, my Grandpa raised a few different kinds of birds in the past decade or more.
Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? (Score:4, Informative)
I used to have a flock of culls from someone who bred fighting cocks. These are about as mean as chickens get -- they are bred to be fearless and aggressive, especially with each other.
Anyway, they are not attracted to blood per se, and don't pay any particular attention to it. What chickens WILL do if they don't get enough protein in their diet (as is common if chickens are fed grain alone), is peck at the feathers on each others' butts until their tails are raw and bloody. Feathers are high in proteins that chickens can digest; that's why feather meal is an ingredient in some chicken feeds, and why they try to eat 'em off each other when on inadequate diets. (Remember bugs are much of a chicken's normal diet, and bugs are VERY high in protein.)
And sometimes the flock will gang up on a single half-grown chick and kill it, then string its entrails all over the place (trying to eat them, but guts don't break off like worms do so just wind up dragged around). This is normal culling behaviour in a lot of species -- if an individual shows weakness by going down during a minor spat, the whole flock or pack will gang up on it and kill it. (Dogs do the exact same thing, and even normally non-aggressive dogs will join in.)
Chickens are hell on not only bugs, but also mice and snakes. Snakes will try to steal eggs (no, it's not a myth, I've seen 'em do it), and will go right into the nest to do so. More than once I got woke up in the middle of the night by a hen fighting with a too-bold snake.
When I had chickens I never saw any rattlers. In the two years since the last of my chickens died off, I've killed 21 rattlers right in my yard.
Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? (Score:4, Funny)
They're quite tribal, too. I mean, you're a mighty warrior hero with more Pieces of Heart than you can count, you wander into town and start slashing at a chicken just for fun, next thing you know there's an entire flock of them, they're all over the place and all attacking you and all you can do is run...
More information (Score:5, Interesting)
This one at the BBC [bbc.co.uk] discusses the find in more depth and also mentions that the feathers were primarily on smaller dinosaurs, but even our beloved T-Rex may have hatched cute li'l chicks.
And this American Museum of Natural History [amnh.org] article discusses a diorama they're putting up based on the find, including pictures [amnh.org] of their conceptions of the dinosaurs today.
Really, submitter could have contributed a lot more information with a little basic research.
Drive-through (Score:2)
In case you don't read the article. (Score:4, Informative)
About your sig... (Score:3, Interesting)
It sounds like we need to submit a new bug: Icon needs to look more chicken-like. ;-)
That's funny (Score:2)
But but but ... (Score:2)
T-Rex my ass... (Score:2)
So? (Score:3, Funny)
Spielberg renames movie (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean.... (Score:2)
Do you think... (Score:2)
It's where Dinosaurs and the Bible meet! [dinosaurad...reland.com]
Well well, it is time then, to... (Score:2)
Countermanding theory (Score:4, Interesting)
Once feathers evolved, it would be only a short time before their lifting qualities would enable the evolution of high-jumping then gliding then flying dinosaurs.
There should be a huge number of fossils of a huge number of species of dinosaur-era birdlike creatures. But we only see a few.
So these "feathers" couldn't have been very much like what we think of as feathers.
Or else something about being avian kept those creatures from becoming fossils. Which implies that there may be other entire swaths of the genetic diversity that were prevented from becoming fossils. Which mean the dinosaurs we're finding are only the animals that couldn't avoid the tar-pits and eruptions and mudslides. That is, the period may have been many times more diverse and interesting than we're being allowed to see.
Re:Countermanding theory (Score:4, Informative)
Note that on a flying bird, there are only a few feathers used in flight, on the wing and tail, and the rest are insulation (albeit aerodymanic insulation). Flightless fowl such as penguin and ostriches have still kept their feathers, which shows that they are useful for tasks other than flight.
Re:Countermanding theory (Score:5, Insightful)
We know that feathers, scales, and fur are all made of the same materials and share other traits (for example, they all grow toward the back of the body). It is not surprising that baby birds appear fuzzy; down is essentially hair arranged in a branching formation. It's likely that the first "feathers" were very heavy and resembled scales more directly than what we call "feathers" today. These would not have any inherent lifting power, because a) they would be heavy enough to negate any possibility of manipulating airflow, mainly due to the fact that they would rely on a solid shaft, and b) they would be grown in place of regular scales, instead of protruding in a wing formation. Also, c) most dinosaurs would be too heavy to be lifted in the first place. Pterosaurs and birds share the flight adaptation of having hollow bones. How long do you think it took for that to develop?
It is hardly a hop, skip, and a jump from having feathers to being able to soar across the prehistoric sky.
Boo (Score:3, Funny)
While we're on the subject. . . (Score:2)
Chicken, Arise! Arise, Chicken! (Score:2)
Re:I dated a giant chick once... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Scientists were mistaken ? (Score:2)
I know. I guess I'll have to give up on science and believe the universe was created by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Easier, that way.
Re:Scientists were mistaken ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, you must be thinking of religion.
Scientific ideas change all the time.
I'm sure people get the two confused all the time.
Re:Scientists were mistaken ? (Score:3, Funny)
I know a few scientists who may say this in private, but in public they are ~very~ sure every they have idea is right. Scientists as a lot are the most arrogant people I've ever worked around.
And I work with software developers! ;)
Re:Scientists were mistaken ? (Score:2)
Re:Scientists were mistaken ? (Score:2)
Re:sounds like... (Score:2)
Re:The Bible is right again! (Score:2)