Slashdot Mirror


Evidence Dinosaurs Are Like Giant Chicks

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.""

302 comments

  1. I, for one... by mattcurrie · · Score: 5, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new Giant Chick overlords.

    1. Re:I, for one... by $cullyshouse · · Score: 2, Funny

      ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh look at that cute tyranasurus rex

      --
      Rob http://scullyshouse.tblog.com
    2. Re:I, for one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know. thinking about it... a giant 4-storey tall bird running around eating things (don't forget the teeth - birds today all have beaks, not teeth for rending meat) seems scarier than giant reptiles to me.

    3. Re:I, for one... by balloonhead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Attack of the 50ft woman!

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    4. Re:I, for one... by ZakuSage · · Score: 1

      Took the words right out of my mouth, and I'm sure many others...

    5. Re:I, for one... by Brad1138 · · Score: 1, Redundant

      I, for one, welcome our new Giant Chick overlords.

      You got that right! Send em my way, I can't wait.... What, you mean chickens!!!???? ....

      Never mind.

      --
      If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people
    6. Re:I, for one... by frp001 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Teeth or not, to take this comparison further, had humans been contemporary to those chickens, chances are high we would would have looked like giant worms.

      --
      May I use your sig please?
    7. Re:I, for one... by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Giant Chick overlords"

      Think Drumsticks!

      Mmmmm... Drumsticks!

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
    8. Re:I, for one... by JPortal · · Score: 1

      I wonder what parts of them, exactly, are giant?

    9. Re:I, for one... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Tyrannosaurus Dicks for Giant Chicks.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    10. Re:I, for one... by Mahou · · Score: 1

      giant dinosaur chicks? so are they baby chicken dragons?

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    11. Re:I, for one... by Blue+Hornet · · Score: 1

      I've dated some giant chicks. Giant chicks need love, too, you know.

    12. Re:I, for one... by lupinstel · · Score: 0

      That wasn't a chick...

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Cthulhu.
  2. the word chickenshit gets a whole new meaning... by leckmi · · Score: 0

    the word chickenshit gets a whole new meaning... are there any lithified pieces of it?

    --
    free 880 megs file hosting - www.FTPZ.US - best
  3. Damn... by Brandon+K · · Score: 5, Funny

    So it looks like I wouldn't have been able to score with a dinosaur, either...

    1. Re:Damn... by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

      Don't put youself down so much. I'm sure you would have been a tasty, I mean interesting dinner date.

      --
      Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
      What truth?
      There is no dupe
    2. Re:Damn... by Shoten · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, that all depends. If by "giant chicks," they really meant to say "fat chicks" but were just being nice about it, I'd say your odds go up significantly. :)

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    3. Re:Damn... by Jozer99 · · Score: 1

      Yes... chicks... giant... scaley... meat eating... clawed... chicks...

    4. Re:Damn... by Okonomiyaki · · Score: 4, Funny

      So...American chicks, then?

    5. Re:Damn... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're as Japanese as your handle suggests that's an interesting remark coming from someone whose countrymen consider American blondes as "exotic."

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    6. Re:Damn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does that have ANYTHING to do with the origin of the poster? You just tried to change the topic or something? Thought someone mods it "insightful", after getting confused by it? And you consider scaly, clawed "chicks" not as exoctic? :P

    7. Re:Damn... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      American? I thought Swedish blondes were the stereotypical "exotic" type...

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    8. Re:Damn... by Forge · · Score: 1

      exotic == uncomon.

      There are around 145 Million Japaneas women. Almost none of them are blond.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
    9. Re:Damn... by Okonomiyaki · · Score: 1

      The entire population of Japan is less than 145 million and only around half are female. Anyway, many of them are blonde. It's fake, yes, but it's there.

      Many Japanese men (I'm not one, by the way) do consider western (that is, of European ancestry) women to be exotic (I don't, by the way) but America doesn't have a monopoly on western women. Furthermore, "western women" doesn't apply to all American women. "Giant", "Scaley", "Meat-eating", and "Clawed" on the other hand...

    10. Re:Damn... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      They're not very exotic at all. If you're Swedish.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    11. Re:Damn... by Forge · · Score: 1

      Yeah the 145 Million figure was way off. (126 Million total).

      However, Bleached blond is not the same as real blond. The eyes have to match etc...

      I am a man who has been considerd "exotic". Women in some cultures think that a a tall Jamaican Black man is exotic.

      While in Jamaica there is a new fad of rail thin women with big brests. Most of the girls hear would put JL's ass to shame.

      --
      --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
  4. I dated a giant chick once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    Yeah, only one date, but you know...the usual dinner & a movie ("Arthur", as I recall) and it went OK, but didn't lead to anything.
    I wonder what she's doing now....

    (oh, byt the way, I didn't RTFA)

    1. Re:I dated a giant chick once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      I wonder what she's doing now....
      So sorry you have to learn it this way, but she's extinct. BTW don't you worry, just about everyone here on /. hasn't had a date in eons...
    2. Re:I dated a giant chick once... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself. I had a date yesterday, and I have another date in 31 minutes.

    3. Re:I dated a giant chick once... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

      So sorry you have to learn it this way, but she's extinct. BTW don't you worry, just about everyone here on /. hasn't had a date in eons...

      Yeah, some of us are and have been married for what feels like eons.

      --
      If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
    4. Re:I dated a giant chick once... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A date at 11 o'clock on a Sunday? What was it? Going to church with your mother?

    5. Re:I dated a giant chick once... by vagrancy · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself.

      --
      Nothing is any good if other people like it.
    6. Re:I dated a giant chick once... by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      There's this new idea that timezones might actually be used on the internet...

      --
      Luke-Jr
    7. Re:I dated a giant chick once... by blair1q · · Score: 1

      10 a.m., Poindexter,

      It started out as a "once-over" meeting for coffee. Turned into coffee, lunch, and 4 hours of conversation.

      She's nice. I might just keep her.

      Sucks to be you, loser. Even if you bogarted your karma by posting anonymously.

  5. Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's why snakes taste like chicken.

    1. Re:Ahh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's because of the matrix.

    2. Re:Ahh by chrispatch · · Score: 1

      So were you reading the article or watching the woman in the red dress?.....Look again.

  6. The way they *are* depicted? by dancingmad · · Score: 4, Informative

    What's up with Slashdot's science news these days? You guys are reporting the obvious as if it was late breaking news (ozone, parasites that control hosts, now this).

    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).

    --
    "There is no time, sir, at which ties do not matter," Jeeves, (Jeeves and the Impending Doom)
    1. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No feathers in Jurassic Park.

    2. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I am glad to see that some things will never change. Like commenting and modding before reading the article, for example.

    3. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by imsabbel · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but jurassic parks dinos look NOTHING like birds. They look exactly like the illustrations in books of the 60s... (only the raptors move fast... big deal)

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by budgenator · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A would consider a t-rex chasing a jeep at 35 miles an hour going pretty fast especialy since it was an actualy chase rather than like a croc's or an alligator putting on a quick short burst to take down prey.

      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.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    5. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Sorry, but jurassic parks dinos look NOTHING like birds. They look exactly like the illustrations in books of the 60s

      You are a fucking moron. Jurassic Park is a book. It does not have any pictures in it.

      What Hollywood made from it ... well.

    6. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's also important for camouflage purposes not to be single-toned. you need patterns and shapes that break up the outline of your form to make you less visible. hence the splotchiness of many snakes.

      crocodiles etc. aren't too much like that because they mostly hide under muddy water anyway, so can't be seen

    7. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by 1u3hr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Dinosaurs have been depicted as bird-like for at least the last 20 years.

      But not with feathers, which is what this scientist says was the case.

    8. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: IANAP
      There are alot of inaccuracies in Jurrasic Park.
      Just take the Velociraptor for example, it did not have that many similarities with the real Velociraptor mongoliensis ("Speedy thief").

      It did however have many similarities with the Deinonychus antirrhopus ("Terrible claw"), wich was larger than the Velociraptor, had a more similar skull shape to the Jurassic Park version, had a very large brain in relation to it's body size (compared to other dinosaurs), and findings suggests it hunted in packs.

      The Velociraptor on the other hand, was small, had a funny looking skull, was not very intelligent, and didn't seem to get along well with others of it's kind (killing eachother).

      I guess they thought the name "Velociraptor" sounded cooler than "Deinonychus".

      Btw, look at these excellent sketches of a Deinonychus and a Velociraptor (feathered):
      http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=813
      http://dino.lm.com/images/display.php?id=1738

    9. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disclaimer: IANAP

      It's already included in the acchronym... For less space and more understandability you (and all of slashdot, IANH) could use

      I =! Physicist

      Or just

      !Physicist

      Or... (pointing to your user name)

      ^!Physicist

      1) No, I can't figure out any other P-word

      2) H = hopeful

    10. Re:The way they *are* depicted? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unsurprisingly, the P stands for Paleontologist.

  7. Oblig. by kv9 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Death by SNOO-SNOO!

    1. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i'm sorry but i don't get it. can anyone fill me in?

    2. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Futurama

    3. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In an episode of Futurama the main characters are sentenced to death by having sex("snu snu") with giant women. In the end they survive very happily with only a couple of broken pelvises.

    4. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Death by SNOO-SNOO!

      It isn't SNOO-SNOO. It's "snusnus" - sort of like "69"

    5. Re:Oblig. by fbjon · · Score: 1
      AAAAAGH!

      ooooohh...

      AAAAAGH!

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
  8. but .. by eneville · · Score: 4, Informative

    Birds are well known to be descendants of dinosaurs. Interestingly, crocodiles were around with the dinosaurs too.

    1. Re:but .. by Decaff · · Score: 1

      Birds are well known to be descendants of dinosaurs.

      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.

  9. Scientists were mistaken ? by MarkPNeyer · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I thought science was all but infallible. Now i'm so terribly confused.

    --

    My blog
    1. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by yotto · · Score: 1

      I thought science was all but infallible.

      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.

    2. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought science was all but infallible.

      Then you're an idiot. And just so you know, the person you're making fun of doesn't exist.

    3. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by EnsilZah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Infallible?
      Ah, you must be thinking of religion.
      Scientific ideas change all the time.

      I'm sure people get the two confused all the time.

    4. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by CyricZ · · Score: 1

      You're right. Science is everything except infallible. That is why when new discoveries arise, there may be a change in general scientific opinion. That's is just the basic process of science heading towards the truth, and correcting itself if necessary.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    5. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by jarich · · Score: 2, Funny
      Ah, you must be thinking of religion. Scientific ideas change all the time.

      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! ;)

    6. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      There lies the problem. I can assure you that whether dinosaurs were bird-like or reptile-like is an absolute. Scientists aren't changing the truth, they are changing their belief (faith if you will, because the two are the same). They are weighing evidence and making an educated guess based on where the evidence is pointing them. In this case, they are taking new evidence and rethinking their previously held positions. This is a good thing but it behoves us as "the masses" to ponder whether truth is changing or whether our understanding of it. Truth, my friend, is solid. Whatever the dinosaur was, it was.

    7. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean it WASN'T RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING?!?!?!?!

      *gasp!*

      We must immediately stop teaching this subject in schools, as it offers nothing more than an alternative, and, apparently, potentially wrong explanation of the world we live in. Only the Bible should be taught, as it is infallible in every sense of the word!

    8. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scientists aren't arrogant, they just know they're right. ;)

    9. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "Infallible? Ah, you must be thinking of religion.
      Scientific ideas change all the time."

      I think he was talking about the implied 'infallibility', i.e. scientists 'preach' evolutionary evidence way out over what the actual evidence *is* and tell us that they are *certain* that diversification of life has occured with the *implied certainty* that life arose *naturally* with *no need* of interventionism.

      Everytime something about evolution gets posted someone mentions intelligent design, obviously people insist or imply that evolution with implied natural abiogensis is unfalsifiable or 'infallible' in that sense or they wouldn't make fun of intelligent design. Design is a legitimate mode of scientific explanation, hence crick and his ideas about panspermia. If scientists were really serious about science they wouldn't be so hostile against ID, especially with things like the flagella popping up, no natural / evolutionary explanation posited we'd find technology in life, but ID did, and the hypothesis that life is technological machines is clearly anti-thetical to the theory of naturally arising without pre-existing intelligence. If you are going to bring up the arugment of infinite regress, the same applies to pure naturally arisen, you can equally posit infinite natural causes to something as well. It's just as much a problem for naturalism as it is for a chain of designers, of which the first would have to have naturally arisn. Take for instance our own bioengineering new life forms in the future, all future AI and newly engineered life forms will have their history and scientific theory of *human creationism*, then all of a sudden its connected to nature and they might wonder why we didn't do a thorough the other side.

      "I'm sure people get the two confused all the time."

      They do and this not just the problem of creationists and ID'ists, dogmatism is equally as rampant in science as well.

    10. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      There is supposedly plenty of evidence found showing man feet and dinosaur feet next to each other. Suggesting that man and dinosaur may have lived at the same time. But the scientific community is always slow to adopt. If overwhelming evidence prove that dinosaurs are bird like, that will still take another 10 years to accept.

    11. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      At least science's founding principles--followed or not--are specifically anti-dogmatic, stressing tests and challenges to existing and proposed theory.

      In contrast, most religions codify "Pray as we say or shut up." Sometimes with s/shut up/be burned as a heretic/ig

    12. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by Eightyford · · Score: 1

      There is supposedly plenty of evidence found showing man feet and dinosaur feet next to each other.

      Where? I hope you didn't read this at one of those creationist museums where it shows them both on the ark! Seriously though, I'd like to see this evidence, because it would be pretty damned cool to imagine our ancestors living with the dinosaurs.

    13. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enough. It wasn't funny the first time I heard it and it isn't funny now.

    14. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Take for instance our own bioengineering new life forms in the future, all future AI and newly engineered life forms will have their history and scientific theory of *human creationism*, then all of a sudden its connected to nature and they might wonder why we didn't do a thorough the other side.

      Of course. It shouldn't be unreasonable to ask what created our creator.

    15. Re:Scientists were mistaken ? by fluffy666 · · Score: 1

      Everytime something about evolution gets posted someone mentions intelligent design, obviously people insist or imply that evolution with implied natural abiogensis is unfalsifiable or 'infallible' in that sense or they wouldn't make fun of intelligent design.

      No, the reason that people 'make fun' of intellegent design is the same reason people 'make fun' of flat-earthers, astrologers, homeopaths, crystal healers, etc, etc - they cling to their pet theory despite being proven wrong repeatedly.

      Design is a legitimate mode of scientific explanation, hence crick and his ideas about panspermia.

      Not really, that just shuffles the question backwards. Indeed, panspermia does not conflict with science in general, but it would require a first-abiogenesis hypothesis that would happen in non-earthlike conditions, and I am not aware of a realistic hypothesis of that sort.

      If scientists were really serious about science they wouldn't be so hostile against ID, especially with things like the flagella popping up, no natural / evolutionary explanation posited we'd find technology in life, but ID did, and the hypothesis that life is technological machines is clearly anti-thetical to the theory of naturally arising without pre-existing intelligence.

      You see, this kind of vague, confused gibberish is a major reason WHY ID gets made fun of. Actually, I see it as a deliberate tactic; you haven't actually made any solid points so as to make your position hard to attack. That's rhetoric, not science.

      They do and this not just the problem of creationists and ID'ists, dogmatism is equally as rampant in science as well.

      I keep getting told this by people who don't like scientific conclusions, it's just a pity I never see any evidence for it. Sour grapes, if you ask me.

  10. So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...think twice when you plan on wearing that "no fat chicks" tee today.

    1. Re:So.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd prefer the fat chicks, at least they're well fed and slower.

  11. Lovely Plumage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Owner: Beautiful plumage!
    Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead!

  12. Artist Rendering by Comatose51 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And here's an artist rendering of how they might have looked.

    --
    EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    1. Re:Artist Rendering by Julian+Morrison · · Score: 4, Funny

      I was thinking more like this.

    2. Re:Artist Rendering by StarvingSE · · Score: 1

      Ahh... so thats what the title meant by "giant chicks"...

      --
      I got nothin'
    3. Re:Artist Rendering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I wonder if they'll change King Kong to reflect this finding. I'd pay some serious cash to see Big Bird duke it out with a giant ape.

    4. Re:Artist Rendering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "http://www.truthmapping.com/ for great logic!"

      Looking at that website, you are being sarcastic, right? (Just checking)

    5. Re:Artist Rendering by squidsoup · · Score: 1

      On a more serious note, the Chinese Dinosaur exhibit (curently in Australia) website, has some artists renderings of feathered dinos.

    6. Re:Artist Rendering by DarthWiggle · · Score: 1

      You know, I really should know better than to click on a tinyurl.com link on /.

      I mean, in this case it's fine and funny and all that. But I just happily clicked without thinking of what goatse horrors might be waiting on the other side.

    7. Re:Artist Rendering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously though, this just shows how extremely common it is for scientists to make premature conclusions. Did it occur to anyone other than me that maybe you need a teensy little bit more evidence than bone structure to know what a creatures external skin looked like? But then, who ever made a buck saying "we need more evidence"?

      This, combined with the stories about only a fraction of article in scientific journals being accurate, seriously changes my image of scientists from that of "unbiased pursuants of the truth, wherever it may lead" to "creationists with more money".

      NOTE: I am NOT saying I don't trust the scientific method; I'm saying I am begginning to distrust the overpaid people we currently trust to carry it out. My standard of truth is now no longer "Did it appear in a scientific journal?" but "Has it been applied successfully in a profitable consumer or industrial product?"

    8. Re:Artist Rendering by BottleCup · · Score: 1

      No you are both wrong. Shown here is an artist's rendering of a Velociraptor in comparison to a human:

      (picture)

  13. Real reason why Dinosaurs became excinct by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Colonel Sanders!

    -Sj53

    1. Re:Real reason why Dinosaurs became excinct by saskboy · · Score: 1

      " Colonel Sanders!"

      Actually, he was just Private Sanders back then.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  14. moody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What, were they all really moody or something?

  15. sounds like... by Altec+at+LM · · Score: 1

    WRAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRR-tweet-warble-warble-warble

    1. Re:sounds like... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

      Awwww, does tweety want a Holstein?

    2. Re:sounds like... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That puts another meaning to the old 200 pounds bird in the tree joke.

  16. Scientific discussion by Centurix · · Score: 5, Funny

    "Upon discovering the new fossilised remains of this giant 50 foot high chick, we've decided to name it the Darylhannansaur"

    --
    Task Mangler
    1. Re:Scientific discussion by Not_Wiggins · · Score: 1

      Not to correct, but technically it would have to be Darylhannasaurus.

      That's because it was predated by the Allisonhayesaur. ;)

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying, "Nice doggie!" until you can find a rock.
    2. Re:Scientific discussion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  17. hehe by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 0

    very funny

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
  18. Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Omg you made me laugh soo hard..

  19. I guess by Ice+Station+Zebra · · Score: 2, Funny

    we are getting closer to answering the "who came first, the chicken or the egg" question.

    1. Re:I guess by Drasil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A: The egg... it was a mutant egg layed by a prehistoric proto-chicken, but it hatched into the 1st chicken. Of course what we decide is a chicken and what is a prehistoric proto-chicken is up for debate.

    2. Re:I guess by Sancho · · Score: 2, Funny

      So the egg glances over to the chicken and sighs, "I guess we finally answered that question."

    3. Re:I guess by Daetrin · · Score: 1
      Ahhh, but is a chicken egg an egg that is layed by a chicken, or an egg that a chicken hatches out of? Your answer is correct for the second case but not the first. One could argue for the first case given that unless you live on a farm the only chicken eggs you're ever going to see are unfertilized and aren't ever going to be hatching a chicken out of them.

      (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 there were plenty of other species laying eggs long before chickens and the question is stupid.)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    4. Re:I guess by CheechWizz · · Score: 1

      So if we add inteligent design we come to the ultimate solution.

      God is a chicken.

  20. Giant chicks by broothal · · Score: 1
    1. Re:Giant chicks by Rahga · · Score: 1

      "Mmmmmh - Giant chicks "

      Even that movie has been updated to reflect contemporary observations of the species.

  21. Evidence Dinosaurs Are Like Giant Chicks by thewiz · · Score: 1

    So, dinosaurs are just as unfathomable as 50-foot tall women?

    Just wondering...

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  22. Giant chicks? by Trollstoi · · Score: 1

    Like the ones from last vacation? Ops, nevermind...

  23. Heard it Beavis, like CHICKS hehe-he! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is the real reason it have been posted on the slashdot probably.

  24. Time travel by UnderDark · · Score: 3, Funny

    50 foot chickens eh?
    Anyone else thinking "barbeque"?

    1. Re:Time travel by PoprocksCk · · Score: 1

      No. The dinosaurs have died out, silly.

    2. Re:Time travel by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you read the subject line?
      And have you ever thought about why the dinos died out? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    3. Re:Time travel by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

      Here chicky chicky chicky!

      --
      Rick B.
  25. Just dont.. by Snaller · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...stand underneath when they lay an egg!

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Just dont.. by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      Look! It must be Eagle Man!

      Eagleman: I've got something for YOU!

      Just a quick inside Chicago joke for all you Chicagoans out there.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:Just dont.. by BorgHunter · · Score: 1

      And the explanation for those of us who don't live in Chicago: http://www.meaningofplus.com/media.php?section=vid eos&file=Eagleman.mpg

      --
      "Excuse me, did you say 'Trekker'? The word is 'Trekkie.' I should know; I created them." -- Gene Roddenberry
  26. Hollywood movies are made to generate profit. by CyricZ · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Hollywood movies are made to generate profit. They are usually not made to be very scientifically accurate. And in this case, it seems that even the scientists themselves aren't all that sure about what they're talking about.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    1. Re:Hollywood movies are made to generate profit. by LnxAddct · · Score: 5, Informative

      The way I've understood it, and the way I believe most have understood it for decades was that dinosaurs were originally reptilic but as time went on and the species diverged through evolution, a good chunk became somewhat primitively feathered. Here are 2 depicitions that I pulled off of wikipedia( 1 and 2), but I mean this isn't news, the article is just talking about more recent dinosaurs rather then the oldest (we have fossils of the crocodilia from the late triassic period that nearly match today's crocodiles, implying that at least some were reptilic) and we already know that in the Jurassic period birds and dinoaurs with feather-like features started appearing around the same time that small mammals became abundant. This aritcle isn't news, its stating what is already known, or at the very most, taking what is known and claiming that it possibly applies to a few more dinosaurs.
      Regards,
      Steve

    2. Re:Hollywood movies are made to generate profit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that crocodiles are swimming, while t-rex are not.

  27. square got it right. by aircheck · · Score: 5, Funny

    So they're like chocobos then? Chocobos with sharp, pointy teeth.

    1. Re:square got it right. by ralahinn1 · · Score: 1

      Lol, Just think, with the current trend of Cryptozoology, and genetics, Chocobo may yet return to the world, Sign me up to own them, when the Japanese start reviving them!

    2. Re:square got it right. by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Aircheck... what I really needed to start my day at work was to have that tune running through my head. You're fired.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  28. THAN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    more then reptiles as formerly accepted.

    It's THAN you nitwit. Even my 8 year old knows the difference between then and than.

  29. Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Petter3 · · Score: 3, Funny

    timesonline reports the new "irrefutable" fossil evidence of dino's resembling
    "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.

    1. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The apostrophe isn't necessarily an error. It's substituting for the omitted letters "saur" from the word "dinosaurs"; that's standard apostrophe usage. Unfortunately, given the literacy of the rest of the paragraph, the poster probably though they were forming a plural of "dino", which of course wouldn't require an apostrophe.

    2. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by simetra · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Agreed. It was the "then" that irked me. Such hideous grammar really cripples credibility. When I read something like this, my mind says "Dolt. Move along, nothing to see here."

      --

      "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    3. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by spikesahead · · Score: 1

      If Slashdot irks you so much, why do you;

      1. Continue to read and,
      2. Tirelessly work to improve your karma by bitching.

      +5 Informitive for -1 Flamebait?

      If I was CmndrTaco I would be long past giving two shits about editing or even dupes. If he did, how hard would it be to build a simple spell checker into the the tool he uses to post articles? Or even a trivial URL dupe checker that looked over the past several days for an identical URL gracing the front page? If I cared to do so I could probably hammer something like that out in an hour or two, but I don't, and neither does he.

      If you don't like it, leave. And don't let the doorknob plug your mouth on the way out.

    4. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Speare · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "If you don't like it, leave."

      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"?

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    5. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by alanlke · · Score: 1

      If I were CmndrTaco...

    6. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Petter3 · · Score: 1

      Submitter? Is that you?

      "If I was CmdnrTaco"...

      It is you! You can't even write four words without making two mistakes. Seriously, though.

      ...I would be long past giving two shits about editing or even dupes.

      You think "bitching" pushed him over the edge? You think he used to care but meanies like me scared him off? Taco has never given two shits about editing or dupes and you know it. "Editor", my ass.

      If you don't like it, leave.

      I like it just fine and people meta-bitching makes it all the more enjoyable.

    7. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I've read some evidence that students in my state (illinois) have performed *significantly* better in recent years in the sciences and mathematics.

      Not in literacy, however, but the 'numbers and test-tubes' teachers seem to be doing well, at least in this state.

      --
      WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
    8. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Doing well and doing better than before aren't necessarily equivalent.

    9. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      how hard would it be to build a simple spell checker into the the tool he uses to post articles?

      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.

    10. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could this have to do with schools lowering their expectations?

      http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2005/aug/10/lower_bar _schools_advised/?education

      I bet this is already being done silently (well, except in the above case).

    11. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      I just want you to know that English isn't my first language, but my fourth.
      Which speaks in my advantage instead of flagging me as an illiterate monkey.

      So please don't go into "America is going to waste"-mode based on my lack of proper grammar in the morning.

      I could suggest you a few causes of why America is dropping like a rock, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough to come up with something yourself.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    12. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Scorillo47 · · Score: 1

      You forgot: ...
      5. Profit!

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    13. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Reziac · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying that literacy is going down the test-tubes? ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    14. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by value_added · · Score: 2, Informative

      imesonline reports the new "irrefutable" fossil evidence of dino's resembling
      "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.

    15. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by cometman · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's justifiable from the context. The parallelism between "dinos" and "reptiles" later in the sentence militates for a sense of simple plural in both nouns, (dinos and reptiles) rather than a possessive singular for dino's...doesn't it?

      But, like kudos, dinos looks weird, and Dave Barry has informed us that the true meaning of the apostrophe is that an "s" is coming up.

    16. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by stevejobsjr · · Score: 1

      Nope. Dinos' would be okay. Dinos with no apostrophe would be fine, too. But not dino's.

    17. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by elbobo · · Score: 1

      a) "dino's" isn't a gerund.
      b) Shortened words and acronyms can optionally have apostrophes before the 's', but many people frown on the use and thus it's not a universally accepted usage. So no, there's no "require", just an "optional, but not widely approved".

    18. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Anti_Climax · · Score: 1

      "If you don't like it, fight against the apathy and ignorance"

      But, of course, that would require something other than apathy/ignorance to do :-P

      --
      Even people that believe in pre-destiny look both ways before crossing the street.
    19. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      dont you noes that in this slashdot bad grammer 9and speling to) are way things is round here are done huh?

    20. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by value_added · · Score: 1

      a) "dino's" isn't a gerund.

      No, but the construction dino's having feathers is a gerund, just like my having replied to this thread already is a gerund, or elbobo's confusion as to the what consitutes a gerund are all gerunds.

      Again, gerunds demand the possessive.

      b) Shortened words and acronyms can optionally have apostrophes before the 's', but many people frown on the use and thus it's not a universally accepted usage. So no, there's no "require", just an "optional, but not widely approved".

      Agreed that the use of a trailing 's' in certain circumstances is open for discussion, but this isn't one of them, and misses the point entirely. The possessive form of dino is dino's; end of story. I'd be happy to quote Fowler, but this being /., and that being a gerund, I'd probably get a Wikipedia link.

      Cheers.

    21. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by elbobo · · Score: 1

      No, but the construction dino's having feathers is a gerund

      The phrase in question is "fossil evidence of dino's resembling "giant chicks" more then reptiles as formerly accepted". There is no gerund in that phrase. If there were, then sure, you should throw an apostrophe in, but there isn't.

      Agreed that the use of a trailing 's' in certain circumstances is open for discussion, but this isn't one of them, and misses the point entirely.

      I'm afraid it's you who is missing the point, as you appear to have rephrased the fragment in question in order to support your argument, rather than working off the actual fragment.

    22. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by elbobo · · Score: 1

      And even if it were to take the possessive, it would be dinos' not dino's, as it's dinosaurs plural not dinosaur singular that's being discussed.

    23. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by stonecypher · · Score: 0

      I like No. 4, but No. 2 is wrong -- dino's is most definitely correct. Gerunds require the possessive.

      Well, that'd be a neat trick and all, with exception taken to that all gerunds end in " -ing ". This, therefore, is no gerund.

      I do find it amusing, however, that you've not noted that opposition #1 is in error. To capitalize a sentence is correct when the word is a simple word. However, it has long since been held that specific proper nouns may reject an initial capital, or replace the capital stricture structure (huhu,) both of which you see in iPod. To wit, it is also common to reduce poster caps titles to pure lowercase rather than sentence case when rendering into prose, and one notes that timesonline renders its own logo in poster caps; therefore, though I'm sure it's happy coincidence (a polite way of saying dumb luck,) the original poster was in fact correct to leave pure lowercase in place.

      Nice try, though.

      Some lovely parting gifts.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    24. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      I should have put this in the first reply, but it didn't occur to me until afterwards that to explain the behavior of gerunds would help people not make this mistake in the future. It is, after all, a remarkably sensible rule.

      The fundamental problem is that in the gerund, one is presented with the description of an action - that is to say, it's reflection on a verb. This can be done in several subtly different ways, however. I feel this is best explained by example.

      Consider the case of the gerund "shooting." The general question is of immediacy. In this, you also see something rare - a holdover of Old English. It used to be the case that we used apostrophes to indicate half-length letter pauses in words. These days, we generally use an 'e;' what is now "stuffed" would then have been "stuff'd" (or earlier still, stuff't.)

      In the case of the gerund, this rule still applies in one of the three cases; you'll hear it done correctly by national news correspondants, who will also reinflect the 's' in another of the cases. I chose the gerund "shooting" because there's an obvious seperation for the three cases of immediacy, which is relatively rare; this is generally a very subtle issue.

      Gerunds can either apply to an immediate event - that is to say, a specific event already under discussion, to groups of an event, or generalizations of events.

      Consider first the case of the news discussing a shooting which had happened earlier that day. In specific, should the newscaster wish to refer to a characteristic of the shooting - say, its brutality - then one uses the behavior you suggest. The dino's resembling a chick in this case would refer to the specific dino in question; since this is a generalization, that is not in fact how this would be done.

      The generalization case is the case which would be correctly use here. In example, the phrase should be "the dinos' resembling," since it's a reference to dinosaurs in general. The same written method would apply to the group case.

      I mention the group and generalization cases seperately because they're pronounced differently (one in an inobvious fashion.) Whereas the group case behaves as most people expect - to convert the 's' to a 'z,' "di' - no z," the generalization case is actually correctly pronounced the way many people who are accused of slang say it - to replace the 's' with "z -iz," rendering "di -nO'z -(e)z," easier read "dinoeziz." That is, you'd pronounce what you'd expect as had you read "dinos's."

      In this way, we can make the following otherwise difficult case clear. Consider the case of one of the archaeologists digging up this mentioned new site wherein there were dozens of well preserved specimen, some apparently better so than others. Supposing that a scientist is referring to one particular dino (we'll say it's the best preserved one,) then how should the scientist phrase a comparison of the quality of that dinosaur to each the rest of the dinosaurs on site and to dinosaurs as typically found?

      Written is for once less clear than spoken, but if you ignore the sensible answer of phrasing around it and insist on using inflection, the proper phrasing is:

      "This dino's deterioration is less awful than the other dinos' deterioration, and not nearly as bad as general dinos' deterioration."

      Note that the first is pronounced "dinoze," the second "dino' -(e)z," and the third "dinos's." Hopefully that'll help clear up this issue.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    25. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      "fossil evidence of dino's resembling "giant chicks" more then reptiles as formerly accepted" There is no gerund in that phrase.
      You could say that 'resembling' is a gerund in that context. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerund#Verbs_followed _by_a_gerund_or_a_bare_infinitive. See the example "their performing" in the link.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    26. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that all gerunds end in " -ing ". This, therefore, is no gerund.
      Hmm. 'Resembling' ends with what, then?
    27. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      To wit, it is also common
      ... to confuse "wit" and "whit", apparently. You consider yourself to be the former, and you're half right.
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    28. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's cute and all, but no, the phrase is "to wit," meaning "indicative of knowledge well applied."

      The word "whit" means "a tiny amount of something." Pray tell, what would "to whit" mean?

      Unfortunately, there's a certain caliber of person which simply blindly believes whatever they were raised on, and chooses to look down on anyone which says otherwise. It's most common that they claim popularity (typically mispercieved) as their justification; let me head you off at the pass.

      Impressive, though. Few people's arrogant and erroneous attempts at snide rebuttal develop googlefight results as stilted as 90k versus 2mil.

      To wit, it is also common ... to confuse "wit" and "whit", apparently. You consider yourself to be the former, and you're half right.

      Buhuhu. Nice try, but you've yet to even make it to the halfwit mark, so pots and kettles and all that jazz.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    29. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      a) "dino's" isn't a gerund.

      Way to repeat what I said.

      b) Shortened words and acronyms can optionally have apostrophes before the 's', but many people frown on the use and thus it's not a universally accepted usage. So no, there's no "require", just an "optional, but not widely approved".

      That's funny: the Chicago Manual of Style, Strunk and White, the Cambridge Guide to English Usage and the Princeton English Survey all disagree with you. From where are you getting your information again?

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    30. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by stonecypher · · Score: 1

      Bah, ignore me. I thought you were replying to me, but I was mistaken; you beat me to the punch. I walked the wrong part of the reply tree; entirely my fault. Need to pay more attention when I'm writing.

      Sorry about the exceptionally nasty reply I gave you to point A.

      --
      StoneCypher is Full of BS
    31. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by idontgno · · Score: 1
      If you don't like it, fight against the apathy and ignorance

      Mah Pappy is a wise man. He said to me, once, "Don't mud-wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig secretly enjoys it."

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    32. Re:Worst. Sentence. Ever. by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      The word "whit" means "a tiny amount of something."
      I knew that.
      Pray tell, what would "to whit" mean?
      Work it out yourself, Einstein. Accurate to a very small measure? Right on the dot? To the penny?
      Unfortunately, there's a certain caliber of person which simply blindly believes whatever they were raised on, and chooses to look down on anyone which says otherwise.
      No, I've always used it wuth an "h" (not that I write it every day) but it sems you are in fact right. Arrogant and not particularly funny, but right - at least this time.
      Few people's arrogant and erroneous attempts at snide rebuttal develop googlefight results as stilted as 90k versus 2mil.
      As you're such an authority on words, no doubt you'll explain to us all how the ratio of two numbers can be "Stiffly or artificially formal; stiff" or even bombastic; stiffly pompous.

      How ironic[1] - you don't know what the word means, and it describes you.

      So, One all. Oh, except I'm still ahead, because I can read the letters "ing" at the end of "resembling" and you can't.

      Nice try, but you've yet to even make it to the halfwit mark
      Sir, I eagerly await your response. Probably something intellectual, like "My ID is lower than yours - ner ner!".

      [1] At least in the Alannis Morissette sense. So don't even start about that, gaylord.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  30. FF by akhomerun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    final fantasy fans rejoice as they find out that chocobos may in fact have existed.

    1. Re:FF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting, as the series has itself all but died.

    2. Re:FF by KillShill · · Score: 1

      it died around 6. you know, when they decided that FMVs were more important than the actual game, and turning it into a giant teeny-bopper soap opera. and 3d gfx that did nothing to enhance the game and only introduced bad camera angles and slower performance.

      keep it simple, stupid.

      --
      Science : Proprietary , Knowledge : Open Source
    3. Re:FF by akhomerun · · Score: 1

      it died around 6. you know, when they decided that FMVs were more important than the actual game, and turning it into a giant teeny-bopper soap opera. and 3d gfx that did nothing to enhance the game and only introduced bad camera angles and slower performance.

      keep it simple, stupid.


      you're 100% correct.

  31. actually by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    We've always known the answer was an egg. Reptiles and whatnot.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:actually by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fish lay eggs, and were around even earlier.

  32. "Dino's" resembling giant chicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So is this singular, as in Dino from the Flintstones? Or did you perhaps mean it in the present tense?

  33. Evidence by rijrunner · · Score: 2, Funny

    I always knew there was something sinister about this creature

    1. Re:Evidence by Darby · · Score: 1

      Seriously, Dude.
      Just look at his friends.

  34. perhaps by j3rryh · · Score: 1

    Due to the nature of most of these replies, perhaps "giant baby chickens" wouldv'e sounded a lil better than giant chicks. Xena's still hot though j3rry

    --
    "Coffee is the lifeblood of champions" -Mike Ditka
  35. Chicken Chalet by canuck57 · · Score: 1

    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.

  36. Ontology / Phylogeny by Fractal+Dice · · 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.

    1. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by mrmike37 · · Score: 3, Informative
      --
      Really, I'm not trying to be clever with my signature.
    2. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "... are usually mono-unicolour."

      That is much more dependant upon whether the chick needs to be camoflagued. Look at killdeer, bob white, pheasant and so forth.

    3. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by HitByASquirrel · · Score: 1

      Well, I haven't done any research on the subject, but that assumes that birds evolved from dinosaurs, if birds are so closely related, couldn't dinosaurs have evolved from birds?

      In that case, the infant 'saur would most likely resemble a small bird, which I could definitely imagine.

      This, of course raises a need to distinguish what nature of evolution the creatures went through. It could stand to reason that dinosaurs evolved from birds, but then when the environment changed, the birds were more suited to survive, and were best fitted to survive, thus evolving from the dinosaurs.

    4. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Or even chickens. With mixed-breed, dark coloured, and wild-type chickens (frex, banties), most female chicks hatch in mostly yellow with a few faint markings, but at hatching most male chicks have obvious stripes on the wings, head, and tail. True monocolour yellow chicks, male or female, mainly occurs with purebreds that will be white at maturity.

      (New subject line: how to sex chicks without turning them upsidedown :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    5. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 0
      Crikey.

      First, as another comment here points out, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a myth. In what ought to be one of the more embarrassing episodes in the history of evolutionary biology, it's been shown that Ernst Haeckel, who concocted the idea, falsified the illustrations by which he "proved" it. This was discredited a long time ago, but it continues to be cited by believers. You have to look at actual embryos to realize they don't much resemble Haeckel's drawings.

      I'm not a seven-day creationist myself, but with things like this going on is it any wonder that many creationists see evolutionary biology as nothing more than a philosophical/religious idea and not a science? It does not help matters when evolution advocates demonstrate no better understanding of the science than creationists! It's not just you; apparently there are at least a few /. moderators who are equally ignorant.

      Second, you've gotten the way evolution works exactly backwards. More advanced forms often to resemble the juvenile stages of the earlier, not the other way around. This is called "neoteny". The "chick" comparison here isn't because dinosaurs resembled juvenile birds but because their primitive feathers resembled the pinfeathers that now appears on chicks strictly for insulation.

      Which is, after all, only to be expected. The flight feathers on archaeopteryx are already fairly advanced, complex structures. They must have existed in a simpler form on other dinosaurs, and since it has been long believed that dinosaurs are warm-blooded it could have been predicted (and for all I know, it was) that we'd find them as simple insulation, probably as an adaptation of scales. This is not at all a surprising discovery.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    6. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by Jack9 · · Score: 1
      ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is a myth
      Your opposing position seems to ignore the fact that this pithy saying holds, because it seems casually true in observation, not just because it's pithy. It's not a law or a theory, but a general rule of thumb. I can go about and say "cars dont grow on trees", then you can go and find me a car-shaped orange and say "SEE SEE YOU'RE WRONG", but what have we gained?
      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    7. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point is it isn't true in observation not as a "law", "theory", or "rule of thumb". It simply isn't true. It holds only because it's pithy, and for no better reason. _Please stop comparing embryos and oranges.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    8. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by Fractal+Dice · · Score: 1

      Er ... I was not trying to refer to that particular old-fashioned theory but thanks for the link - my wording in the original post looks really bad when put beside that picture. But I am not willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater - the basic idea is not entirely out of whack - the fetal forms are more strongly conserved than the adult forms. I meant to say that I was uncomfortable with the article's jump that since the adult dinos seemed to have down like baby birds, it seemed a speculative jump that adult dinos would be coloured like adult birds (possible, but very speculative).

      ( I hope that those giving me a "5, Insightful" understood what I meant :)

    9. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      The point it is still taught in Universities (UC system) is because it is true in observation. You're still walking around without any clothes on.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    10. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1
      It's only true to the extent that structures that arose later in the evolutionary sequence tend to develop later in the embryo. This, I assume, is what they teach at UC.

      However, "ontology recapitulates phylogeny" in the sense meant by the original poster, where embryos at certain stages actually resemble earlier forms, certainly is false. See the wiki.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    11. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny by Jack9 · · Score: 1

      I agree.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
  37. Well, look what happens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    when science says "I may be wrong". Intelligent design - needed because of the conrtoversy in evolution. Crackpot theories on climate variability because it is so comlpex, you can't say anyone is right (though that doesn't mean that you can't say someone is wrong).

    If you want arrogance, talk to arts majors.

  38. The Bible is right again! by dpbsmith · · Score: 0

    Genesis 1:21: God created "winged fowls." Nothing about dinosaurs.

    1. Re:The Bible is right again! by StonedRat · · Score: 1

      The had feathers, not wings.

      --
      "Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
    2. Re:The Bible is right again! by KylePflug · · Score: 1

      Yes, but they flapped those feathers like nobody's business. So who's to say it's not a wing?

    3. Re:The Bible is right again! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Or marsupials, or many other large groups of animals. So?

  39. Chick Magnet by JonathanR · · Score: 1

    So how many Tesla would you need?

  40. I can imagine.. by Klowner · · Score: 4, Funny

    <CavemanBob> AAAAUgHHhhHHh! Why can't you just SHUT UP?
    <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!

  41. People should have figured that when scientists by alfredo · · Score: 1

    started finding gizzard stones and wishbones in dinosaur remains.

    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.

    --
    photosMy Photostream
  42. Oh - the poor T.Rex by sbaker · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh the poor T.Rex...gone from being the most powerful and vicious creature imaginable - chasing down jeeps and eating lawyers and shaking the ground as it runs...then we hear that if it ran at more than 8 mph, it would fall over...then that if it ever did fall over, it couldn't get back up again...then they told us that it was merely a scavenger and not a hunter at all.

    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*.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
    1. Re:Oh - the poor T.Rex by palad1 · · Score: 1

      I wish there wasn't a +5 mod limit :) Thanks for the laugh, I needed it :)

    2. Re:Oh - the poor T.Rex by theartofthinking · · Score: 1

      ate several Diploducus for breakfast every morning before having violent diarrhea to clear their bowels of thousands of pounds of flesh that took up the rest of their days.

      fixed it for you.

  43. Surprising at first.. by spikesahead · · Score: 3, Interesting

    .. but once I started thinking about it it made a bit more sense in evolutionary terms.

    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*

    1. Re:Surprising at first.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually you're right. The genetic evidence is that both feathers and hair evoved from scales.

  44. Alton Brown beat them to it... by phillymjs · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...on the "Fry Hard 2" episode of Good Eats.

    He used one of these, minus skull, tail and the bottom half of the legs, to demonstrate the proper way to dismantle a whole chicken for frying.

    ~Philly

  45. Giant chicks? by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    My first thought was, "Hey Dino, does this make my butt look big?"

  46. Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If you've ever lived or worked on farm with chickens you've seen how relentless and brutal they are chasing insects. Even stinging insects like bees and wasps are no match for that lightning fast beak. Free range chickens are quick and intelligent hunters.

    Now imagine a 50 foot chicken...and you're the bug.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I thought chickens peck at anything bleeding too. Leading to a frenzy because the birds not bleeding sometimes get blood splashed on them, and other chickens attack those too, and it turns into a gross "last chicken standing" event which I don't think any of them survive.

      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.

    2. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Now imagine a 50 foot chicken...and you're the bug."

      Ultra Mega Chicken? No, shhh, he is legend.

    3. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by Reziac · · Score: 3, Informative

      I dunno who told you that, but it's a trifle exaggerated.

      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.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Now imagine a 50 foot chicken...and you're the bug."

      Something tells me Jurassic Park wouldn't have done as well as it did if they were being chased in the jeep by a giant chicken.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    5. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by meringuoid · · Score: 3, Funny
      If you've ever lived or worked on farm with chickens you've seen how relentless and brutal they are chasing insects. Even stinging insects like bees and wasps are no match for that lightning fast beak. Free range chickens are quick and intelligent hunters.

      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...

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think cockfighting.

    7. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Better yet, look at real predatory or scavenger birds to get a sense of a bird's instincts. Look at it this way: a housecat has remnant instincts from its large predator ancesters, why wouldn't birds...

    8. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by kahei · · Score: 1

      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.)

      Humans too.

      --
      Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
    9. Re:Ever seen chickens attack a bug? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yep, it also happens in situations like playground fights, leading to some kid being singled out to be "culled" (bullied).

      Typically, unwillingness to defend oneself is itself a trigger for gang-up-and-kill-the-weakling behaviour.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  47. Giant Chicks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like this one?

  48. More information by JayBlalock · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Running a Google search on Liaoning dinosaur brings up a number of useful articles.

    This one at the BBC 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 article discusses a diorama they're putting up based on the find, including pictures of their conceptions of the dinosaurs today.

    Really, submitter could have contributed a lot more information with a little basic research.

    --
    Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
  49. Obvious? by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 5, Interesting

    reporting the obvious

    Oh, well, now, I wouldn't say that.

    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.

    --

    The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
    1. Re:Obvious? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a guy with an axe to grind... but hey his opinion is just as valid as the others, no irrefutable evidence either way as yet... I'm just saying he sounds like the conspiracy nuts I run into every once in a while who claim that everyone else, except the small news-lists they belong to, are in on the conspiracy or blindly following it.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  50. Drive-through by Spacejock · · Score: 1

    I bags the drumstick.

  51. News?? by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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).

    True enough but the story cited in the /. report is not about the general anatomical similarities between preditory dinosaurs and birds which is well documented. It is about the debait about the extent to which predatory diosaurs were feathered which has been debated. AFAIK (In no paleontologist my knowledge of these matter comes largely from documentaries and science journals) it has until now been assumed that feathering was limited to a numer of smaller raptor species. If it is indeed true that irrefutable evidence has been found that even the largest flesh eating dinosaurs such as T.Rex, Allosaurus etc... were feathered that is indeed news. I was not aware that this has been common knowledge for the last 20 years. I for one look forward to seeing that proto-T.Rex fossil, has anybody seen images of this specimen?

    --
    Only to idiots, are orders laws.
    -- Henning von Tresckow
    1. Re:News?? by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Informative

      There are skin impressions associated with tyrannosaurs from Alberta and Mongolia, and they seem to show the same pebbly skin that's seen in the herbivorous dinosaurs. So there's no evidence of feathers in large tyrannosaurs. On the other hand, it's possible that either (a) they had feathers over part of the body only, or (b) the young tyrannosaurs had feathers, but the adults didn't (just as young ostriches have a much more extensive feather covering than the adults). The tiny, primitive tyrannosaurs known from China have feather-like coverings, but it would have looked superficially like mammalian hair rather than fluffy like a chick. I think there are also reports of scaly skin in Allosaurus as well.

    2. Re:News?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Savage Rabbit wrote:

      True enough but the story cited in the /. report is not about the general anatomical similarities between preditory dinosaurs and birds which is well documented. It is about the debait about the extent to which predatory diosaurs were feathered which has been debated. AFAIK (In no paleontologist my knowledge of these matter comes largely from documentaries and science journals) it has until now been assumed that feathering was limited to a numer of smaller raptor species. If it is indeed true that irrefutable evidence has been found that even the largest flesh eating dinosaurs such as T.Rex, Allosaurus etc... were feathered that is indeed news. I was not aware that this has been common knowledge for the last 20 years. I for one look forward to seeing that proto-T.Rex fossil, has anybody seen images of this specimen?
      -----

      I concur with these sentiments.

      I will be interested in seeing how badly the news report mangles whatever technical data it is based on in this case. My understanding is that a number of smaller theropods have been shown to bear feathers or "proto-feathers", including a recently unearthed T-Rex anscestor (a small one). It has also been argued that young T-Rex's might have worn some kind of feather-like integuement, losing it as they grew older and larger. However, there have been a number of dinosuar skin imprints found where it is clear that the animal in question was *not* covered in feathers. One of these (now in the Tyrell museum in Alberta) was thought to be from a T-Rex-like (ie large) theropod, and my understanding is that this was definetely not feathered. If I recall, it was covered in a series of bumps that made it resemble the tire of a mountain bike, or something like that.

      Cheerss,

      JHVH1

    3. Re:News?? by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      such as T.Rex, Allosaurus etc [...] I was not aware that this has been common knowledge for the last 20 years.

      Something else that's been common knowledge for a few decades, at least among paleontology circles and enthusiasts, is that antrodemus hasn't been called allosaurus for many years. Y'know, like brontosaurus was renamed apatosaurus? Yeah, it's annoying when a commonly accepted animal name is changed suddenly, but geez, these were both decades ago. Catch up already.

      [end terminology-nazi rant]

    4. Re:News?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, now, I knew about the brontosaurus/apatosaurus thing, but allosaurus/antrodemus is a new one to me. And I like to think I keep relatively up-to-date on science... (no, I don't rely on /. for that - in fact, I've been surprised lately by the number of /. stories I already knew about!)

      But then, I'm no dino enthusiast, and I'm definitely not a paleontologist - at least, last I checked, mechanical engineering didn't really qualify you in those circles... :-P

  52. Jurassic Park by ki4lhn · · Score: 1

    Just imagine the scientifically accurate Jurrassic Park release- when chickens rule the earth. Somehow the whole thing looses its intensity when they arent giant reptiles chasing you, however it would still gross a fortune. 50 foot tall chickens = good comedy.

  53. Mozzie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean Mozzie the Mozilla t-rex has to be redesigned to include feathers? If it does, then I'm afraid Mozilla doesn't have the same bite anymore!

  54. This guy's been thoroughly refuted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the references in the utter bashing of Feduccia:

    http://dml.cmnh.org/2003Jan/msg00070.html

    1. Re:This guy's been thoroughly refuted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This guy's what has been thoroughly refuted?

    2. Re:This guy's been thoroughly refuted by Sensible+Clod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't get it. That 'utter bashing' doesn't look like thorough refuting at all. Those are the words of someone who just didn't like what they heard. They didn't like the idea that someone might think about what he said.

      --

      The difference between spam and poop is that you don't have to dig through septic tanks looking for real food. -- Me
  55. italian film by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  56. In case you don't read the article. by beforewisdom · · Score: 3, Informative
    I know many slashdotters are busy people who often don't read every article. In case you haven't here is a quote from the article that you will not want to miss:
    The feather revelation follows a series of discoveries in fossil beds at Liaoning in northeast China where a volcanic eruption buried many dinosaurs alive. It also cut off the oxygen that would otherwise have rotted them away. Some theropod ("beast-footed") dinosaurs were preserved complete with feathery plumage. Theropod is the name given to predatory creatures that walked upright on two legs, balanced by a long tail. The feathered finds include an early tyrannosaur, a likely ancestor of Tyrannosaurus rex, two small flying dinosaurs and five other predators. Feathers are thought to have evolved first to keep dinosaurs warm and only later as an aid to flight.
    In any event, I will always think of dinosaurs in terms of the cheesy special effects from that old 70's children's show "Land Of The Lost"
  57. Why the Dinosaurs died out by Andy_R · · Score: 1
    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  58. That's funny by Orlando · · Score: 1

    ..cos a number of chicks I've met turned out to be like giant dinosaurs...

    --
    -= This is a self-referential sig =-
  59. We'll have to do some adjustments by Centurix · · Score: 1

    I think we need to rename the really dangerous one to Tyranosaurus Regina...

    --
    Task Mangler
  60. But but but ... by constantnormal · · Score: 1

    ... doesn't this cast doubt on the scientific validity of "Jurassic Park"? And what about "The Lost World"?

  61. Nah. Overwrought inside joke by rjamestaylor · · Score: 1

    When I saw the "then" I jumped back up to see that the article was selected for publishing by Taco -- then (than?) I knew that the terrible grammar/spelling was intentional sub-reference humor along the lines of "hot grits", "Natalie Portman" and Beowulf Cluster.

    Oh yeah, Cowboy Neal.

    --
    -- @rjamestaylor on Ello
  62. T-Rex my ass... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1

    Somehow a giant dinosaur, covered in Toucan styled plumage, just isn't as fearsome as you'd expect. In fact I'm imagining a hilarious Monty Python skit as I'm writing.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  63. So? by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Funny

    I live in Georgia. There are still like millions of giant chicks here.

  64. Perhaps Mistaken Concepts by Jekler · · Score: 1

    I think it's somewhat of a mistake to generalize our view of dinosaurs by making broad sweeping declarations that either they were all covered with feathers and descendants of birds, or they were all scaly reptiles.

    I'm sure the relation among dinosaur breeds varied widely. I think it will be a worthwhile exercise to try discovering exactly which dinosaurs were feathery, and the evolutionary reasoning behind the difference.

    Like one poster mentioned, crocodilians existed as dinosaurs, and as far as we know they've always biologically been very similar to the way they are today. So I don't think it's unreasonable to assume there are other dinosaurs who also had leathery, reptile skin.

  65. Spielberg renames movie by payndz · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's now Jurassic PA-KAAAWWK!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
    1. Re:Spielberg renames movie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So does this mean the absolutely godawful "comedy" 'Chicken Park' may have been more accurate than JP?

      So this is what going mad feels like!

  66. Mod parent up by KylePflug · · Score: 1

    Oh come on. This is funny.

  67. Sesame Street by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So dinosaurs looked like... Big Bird? BTW, is big bird male or female? I never could figure that one out.

  68. Quick? Maybe. Intelligent? No fucking way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Chickens are the dumbest animals on the planet. They can live for weeks without a head! And you just got modded +5 for a post in which you claim chickens are intelligent, of all things.

    Gawd, how lucky can anyone be.

    Next thing you know, you and a bunch of NFL cheerleaders will be the only survivors on the whole world of a comet strike on Earth.

  69. Intelligent Design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All this Darwinistic Claptrap.
    Clearly the 'Designer' is slowly revealing the truth that fossils were placed in the shales to test our faith.
    Creatures do not evolve, could a nike trainer have 'evolved'? Well its the same with a foot.
    I think we should be searching for logos not fossils, soon a signature will come to light then the joke will be on all you pathetic 'evidence based' monkey descendants.

  70. Does this mean.... by dentar · · Score: 1

    these dinosaurs had giant closets full of giant shoes??

    --
    -- I am. Therefore, I think!
  71. Sig Attack! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou

    "Would it kill you to put it down yourself? And then back up when you're done?"

  72. Giant chickens already exist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  73. Do you think... by cyranoVR · · Score: 1

    Do you think they'll update the exhibits at Dinosaur Adventure Land?

    It's where Dinosaurs and the Bible meet!

  74. Re:Quick? Maybe. Intelligent? No fucking way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although most of his head was in a jar, most of his brain stem and one ear was left on his body. Since most of a chicken's reflex actions are controlled by the brain stem Mike was able to remain quite healthy.

  75. Something fishy here (no pun intended) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


    Dinos were giant chicks... proposed by Dr. Dyke... coincidence? I think not.

  76. irrefutable resemblance = not factually sound by thehomeland-org · · Score: 1

    That's like something being positively similar or certainly possible -- neither of which are actual answers to a question. Is she pregnant? She is certifiably maybe! What is irrefutable about a similarity?

  77. Spielberg to Lucas: fix Jurassic Park by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the article is right, Lucas now has an actual reason to go back and alter the special effects of a movie.

    1. Re:Spielberg to Lucas: fix Jurassic Park by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

      That's a good one!

  78. Well well, it is time then, to... by mrjb · · Score: 1

    ... bring out the tar and feathers.

    --
    Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
  79. Countermanding theory by blair1q · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This doesn't quite make sense.

    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.

    1. Re:Countermanding theory by lawpoop · · Score: 3, Informative
      This makes plenty of sense. There's nothing inherent about feathers that make them flight promoters. Feathers have no 'lifiting quality'. These feathers were most likely insulation for a creature with thermoregulation, like fur on mammals. It was only later that feathers were co-opted into gliding aids and later lift creators.

      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.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:Countermanding theory by realityfighter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having feathers does not imply that one is able to fly. See, for example, the early offspring of every avian species; also penguins, emus, and the dearly departed dodo. Only a very small portion of the feathers on a bird's body are used for flight. The rest are used for insulation and waterproofing. It's probable that this was the advantage of feathers on these early reptiles.

      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.

      --
      A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
    3. Re:Countermanding theory by blair1q · · Score: 1

      If you have feathers, and you jump, the feathers create an airfoil as they tail from your surfaces. They can be used to modulate drag and lift. Any animal possessing them would learn these skills as easily as walking. In several generations of natural selection, those who do it better and have more assist from the feathers would survive more often and increase their end of the breed.

      Feathers promote flight much better than, say, scales or horns. And it's such a huge advantage that it would instantly increase survivability for any species that adopts it.

    4. Re:Countermanding theory by blair1q · · Score: 1

      Of course. But evolutionarily, any small increase in the ability to evade, whether it's a hop, a skip, or a jump, increases the selective pressure towards flight. Once you randomly acquire the exact things you need to evolve flight (feathers or large, thin, leathery webs), they promote evolution of flight by reducing the rate of death in your breeding pool.

    5. Re:Countermanding theory by lawpoop · · Score: 1
      So then why have ostriches remained flightless for countless generations? Flight isn't the great instant benefit you make it out to be.

      Animals don't learn skills like people do. The neurocircuitry for behavior evolves along with the large-scale morphological changes. It's like the zebras when they drop out of the womb -- the very first thing they do is stand up and start walking around. They never had to learn how to walk, they have it hardwired into them, and they're literally walking from birth. What confuses people is that we learn certain skills, and when we witness animals growing their hardwired skills as part of their development process, it looks to us like they are learning.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
  80. mod parent troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Holy christ, why did you have to point out that site? Now my brain hurts and I want to kill someone.

  81. Actually... by TCQuad · · Score: 1

    The real reason that the 50-foot tall chicks became extinct is early mammals learned how to use rudimentary tools to activate the Continuum Transfunctioner.

  82. Jim Henson had it right all along... by stellar678 · · Score: 1

    Now we know why little children are so frightened by Big Bird.

    1. Re:Jim Henson had it right all along... by biggreddy · · Score: 1

      but Dinosours have massive razor sharp teeth, they couldn't have physically resembled birds to any point where it's noticable for God Sakes....IMHO

  83. Boo by EEBaum · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm telling you, he's not a dinosaur. He's a giant chicken! Why won't anyone believe me?

    --
    -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
  84. While we're on the subject. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Had Taco bothered to post this story which I've had in my Journal since June, this story would have been a nice addition to the historical evolution of dinosaurs to birds. Instead, (some) people are surprised at this finding.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  85. depictions of the chickosaurus rex by the_REAL_sam · · Score: 1
    --
    "Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
  86. Barnyard Shenanigans by DarkHelmet · · Score: 1
    I'm reminded of part 3: The Visitor.

    here

    --
    /^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
  87. Congratulations to Submitter by serutan · · Score: 1

    For getting a Fark headline accepted on a Slashdot story!

  88. Imagine that: ... by slughead · · Score: 1

    Someone named Gareth Dyke being interested in Giant Chicks.

  89. Chicken, Arise! Arise, Chicken! by EEBaum · · Score: 1

    Cool! Now all we have to do is contact our friend Billywitchdoctor.com to bring back the dinosaurs!

    --
    -- I prefer the term "karma escort."
  90. KFC: The Resurrection! by coopaq · · Score: 1

    I bet these chicks could give KFC Execs an Erection!

  91. Re:the word chickenshit gets a whole new meaning.. by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

    Of course. They are called coprolites.

  92. Easter will never be the same... by JumperCable · · Score: 1

    Oh, cool. An easter basket. Colored eggs, plastic grass, chocolate eggs, marshmallow HOLY %@$#ing Christ!

  93. Skype by IdahoEv · · Score: 1

    Nonsense. I had a date last night.

    Via skype.

    --
    I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
  94. Re:Ontology / Phylogeny : Common Ancestors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Be careful not to fall into the "Man Evolved From Monkeys" trap. (Coincidentally, it's a trap that many religious nuts seem to willfully fall into--showing they don't understand evolution at all.)

    In other words, a given Dinosaur species and a given bird ancestor may not have been directly (ancestor/descendant) related, but instead could have been from a common ancestor which we may or may not have encountered. Saying it's either "Birds came from Dinos" and "Dinos came from Birds", while perhaps justified in this case, is also a false choice since there are multiple forms of relation.

    Or perhaps they're unrelated but both implemented the evo.Fluffy interface. :)

  95. Royal Ontario Museum Dinosaurs exhibit by ashitaka · · Score: 1

    The ROM has had an exhibition about this going for some time now. At the entrance they have a diorama of a group of dinosaurs as they were throught to have appeared up to now, leather-skinned lizards. Through the exhibit they provide the evidence of why this impression has changed. Finally at the exit the same diorama is displayed only with the dinosaurs now covered in feathers.

    The 15-foot-high chicken is something to see.

    --
    If you don't want to repeat the past, stop living in it.
  96. So the game Adventure! had it almost right... by Fly+Swatter · · Score: 1

    With the attacking monster that looks like a duck.

  97. The Worst Movie I ever saw now becomes reality by Anthony · · Score: 1

    Nooo. Chicken Park was a waste of my $1 rental and the 12 minutes and twenty seconds I endured before turning off the tape player and sitting with my head buried in my hands. I was even moved to post a review on IMDB.

    --
    Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
  98. This isn't really new by galfridus73 · · Score: 1
    Anyone who follow palenotology knows that there have been discussions about feathers and the like on dinosaurs for at least the last decade.

    We know one thing, though, from the physical samples we actually have (skeltons): T. Rex did not have a beak, so there's no way in hell Sue (the T. Rex in the Field Museum in Chicago) looked like a big chick. Maybe she was fuzzy and yellow... but that would just make her look like a fuzzy, yellow T. Rex as opposed to a scaley, mottled brown T. Rex.

  99. They only NOW think this? by MaTriXxx1 · · Score: 1

    Hey hate to let you all here this... but I knew of this since I was 16... All chicks are cold blooded reptiles.

    --
    Do NOT goto this URL http://www.forthesims.com
  100. That would be a great name! by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    Sadly most fossils have more than one discoverer, and they might not all share the same sense of humour. Also I believe international nomenclature standards demand a certain... descriptiveness in species naming ;)

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  101. About your sig... by MacDork · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Vote to get this 6 yr old issue resolved in Mozilla: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=11054

    It sounds like we need to submit a new bug: Icon needs to look more chicken-like. ;-)

    1. Re:About your sig... by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

      Dude, you totally gave me a good laugh when I needed one :).

      However, how tough can can the icon look if it looks like big bird instead of godzilla?

      BTW, I also laughed really hard at the link someone posted as "artists conception" of the "new" dinosaurs ( it turned out to be big bird from Sesame Street)

  102. Ob. Futurama Comment by Evil+Pete · · Score: 1

    Do they kill you by Snu-Snu?

    --
    Bitter and proud of it.
  103. Re:Can we please... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuh-uh, you're a bunch of Colin Hunts...

  104. Yes, but what came first.. by TommyPickles · · Score: 0

    The chicken or the egg?

  105. why chicks? why not birds? by farble1670 · · Score: 1

    after RTFA, i can't see why TFA likend dinosaurs to chicks. what is it about baby chickens, and not birds?

  106. Fug boo boo by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Fug, what dat sound?

    TWEEEEEEEEET! *PECK*

    Oh, poor Fug!

  107. I never thought I'd die like this... by Rhinobird · · Score: 1

    I mean, I've always kind of hoped, but...

    --
    If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
  108. I know you are kidding, but think about this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go to a pet store and spend a few moments with a macaw/parrot. They are SMART and can move around quite well despite having a brain smaller than a walnut, only having 2 legs and being designed to fly.
    Now imagine that thing is 30 feet tall with a mouth full of giant teeth. We would never have evolved if something hadn't killed those off.
    I think the theories that paint them as slow helpless scavengers are seriously lacking. Anything that big and helpless wouldn't have lasted long enough to get that big.

    1. Re:I know you are kidding, but think about this. by sbaker · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I know all of that. I used to own a small parrot - they are quite amazing creatures.

      But when we were all kids we were taught that T.Rex meant 'King of the Terrible Lizards' and that it was pretty much the most lethal killing machine ever to walk the planet. We all had plastic T.Rex models on our bookshelves and in our toy boxes - they were essentially *real* live dragons - the nearest thing to mythology brought to life. We knew that if something so utterly impossible as a T.Rex could really have existed - then our imaginations could allow the possibility of anything existing for real.

      Yet by steady stages, good, annoyingly rational, verifiable and solid science is turning our childhood icon into pathetic, helplessly overweight, flightless vultures covered with soft cuddly feathers.

      I don't think kids will be having realistically cuddly T.Rex models in their toybox. What do we have to excite their interest? I bet *all* of the paleantologists who made this amazing discovery got into the business because of a childhood love of poor old T.Rex.

      Reality sucks.

      --
      www.sjbaker.org
  109. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  110. oh science ! by chrisranjana.com · · Score: 0

    Oh science ! whether to believe or disbelieve !

    --
    Chris ,
    Php Programmers.
  111. Anamaniacs! by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

    Anybody besides me remember Chicken Boo? We now know he wasn't a giant chicken, but a smalish dinosaur!

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  112. You need a giant cock to handle giant chicks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >fossil evidence of dino's resembling giant chicks

    I, for one, welcome our new 100ft tall Reese Witherspoon overladies!

  113. No surprise there - I have an umbrella cockatoo... by northwind · · Score: 1

    Anyone who has a battlechicken knows that they are 1.5lb of muscle and beak.
    And if it scales - then T-rex's bites must have been awful......

  114. "supposedly plenty of evidence"? yeah, right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Proof of dinos and humans together??? NO, there isnt. And if you ever saw this "proof" i would suspect some religious agenda.


    So i googled for "geological timeline", and found: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.ht ml. I studied geology, so, in case you dont believe the page, i can say to you: the stuff there is correct.


    So, allmost _all_ dinosaurs *died* (except turtles and alligators and a few others), at the K-T (Cretaceous - Tertiary) Boundary. This boundary is also know for its very big meteorite. The boundary is dated at 65 Million years ago, and the same page dates Lucy at 3.5 Million years ago, and the first Homo Erectus at 1.6 Million.


    So, claiming youve seen dino and human footsteps in the same layer of rock is very, very silly.

    1. Re:"supposedly plenty of evidence"? yeah, right by jav1231 · · Score: 1

      I don't have the info, but I could inquire about it. One of the professors at my college was also a geologist. I believe I first heard of this evidence for him. It's out there. There may be slow adopters and folks who think the evidence is explainable, but that doesn't make the finding unanimous. It's not the first time either. Human and ancient horse-like remains have been found together. The particular horse-like creature was thought to be a contemporary of the dinosaur age as well.

  115. "Fighting dinosaurs" fossil by EdibleEchidna · · Score: 1

    This cool fossil: http://www.dino-nakasato.org/en/special97/Fight-e. html is Protoceratops actually fighting with Velociraptor!

  116. Petroleum and Early Man ? by Blue+Hornet · · Score: 1
    Maybe the dinosaurs did co-exist with early Man. Think of it: The petroleum we extract from the ground today could be from huge lakes of vegetable oil used for ...

    wait for it ...

    it's coming ...

    Neanderthal Fried Dinosaur.

    1. Re:Petroleum and Early Man ? by http101 · · Score: 1

      (Homer Simpson voice) Mmmmm, Beeeer-Baaattered Precompsognathids... aaaagh...

      --
      -- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
  117. Anna Nicole Smith? A dinosaur? by aqk · · Score: 1

    On the other hand, my last giant chick escaped while I was cutting my toenails. The scissors accidentally punctured her, she farted once, flew around in circles, and then shot out the open window. All in all, I'd still prefer Anna-Nicole. She is no dinosaur. Yet.

  118. So, Big Bird is a lost world dino? by Wilk4 · · Score: 1
    so, Big Bird (from Sesame Street) is a dinosaur? ;-)

    That tyrannosaurus is a whole lot less scary when he's got downy yellow feathers... at least up to the point where he eats you anyway...