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.""
I, for one, welcome our new Giant Chick overlords.
So it looks like I wouldn't have been able to score with a dinosaur, either...
That's why snakes taste like chicken.
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)
Death by SNOO-SNOO!
Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
Birds are well known to be descendants of dinosaurs. Interestingly, crocodiles were around with the dinosaurs too.
Why UNIX?
...think twice when you plan on wearing that "no fat chicks" tee today.
And here's an artist rendering of how they might have looked.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
Colonel Sanders!
-Sj53
What, were they all really moody or something?
WRAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRR-tweet-warble-warble-warble
"Upon discovering the new fossilised remains of this giant 50 foot high chick, we've decided to name it the Darylhannansaur"
Task Mangler
we are getting closer to answering the "who came first, the chicken or the egg" question.
Mmmmmh - Giant chicks
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"?
Like the ones from last vacation? Ops, nevermind...
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.
Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
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.
50 foot chickens eh?
Anyone else thinking "barbeque"?
...stand underneath when they lay an egg!
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
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.
So they're like chocobos then? Chocobos with sharp, pointy teeth.
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.
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.
final fantasy fans rejoice as they find out that chocobos may in fact have existed.
We've always known the answer was an egg. Reptiles and whatnot.
You better watch out, there may be dogs about . .
I always knew there was something sinister about this creature
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
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.
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! ;)
Agile Artisans
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.
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.
So how many Tesla would you need?
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.
<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!
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
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
.. 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*
bend like the reed
...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
My first thought was, "Hey Dino, does this make my butt look big?"
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
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.
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
The had feathers, not wings.
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke.
I bags the drumstick.
Hal Spacejock: Science Fiction with Nuts
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).
/. 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?
True enough but the story cited in the
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
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.
The Perry Bible Fellowship explains
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
..cos a number of chicks I've met turned out to be like giant dinosaurs...
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
I think we need to rename the really dangerous one to Tyranosaurus Regina...
Task Mangler
... doesn't this cast doubt on the scientific validity of "Jurassic Park"? And what about "The Lost World"?
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
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.
I live in Georgia. There are still like millions of giant chicks here.
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.
It's now Jurassic PA-KAAAWWK!
You must think in Russian.
Yes, but they flapped those feathers like nobody's business. So who's to say it's not a wing?
Oh come on. This is funny.
these dinosaurs had giant closets full of giant shoes??
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
Do you think they'll update the exhibits at Dinosaur Adventure Land?
It's where Dinosaurs and the Bible meet!
Dinos were giant chicks... proposed by Dr. Dyke... coincidence? I think not.
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?
... bring out the tar and feathers.
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book
Or marsupials, or many other large groups of animals. So?
Speak for yourself. I had a date yesterday, and I have another date in 31 minutes.
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.
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)
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.
Now we know why little children are so frightened by Big Bird.
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."
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
http://www.scifimovies.com/movies/mov0009.shtml
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
here
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
For getting a Fark headline accepted on a Slashdot story!
Someone named Gareth Dyke being interested in Giant Chicks.
Latewire
Cool! Now all we have to do is contact our friend Billywitchdoctor.com to bring back the dinosaurs!
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
I bet these chicks could give KFC Execs an Erection!
"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.
Of course. They are called coprolites.
That's a good one!
SCIREV.NET - fanfics,reviews & more
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.
Oh, cool. An easter basket. Colored eggs, plastic grass, chocolate eggs, marshmallow HOLY %@$#ing Christ!
Nonsense. I had a date last night.
Via skype.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
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.
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
With the attacking monster that looks like a duck.
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
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.
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
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!"
It sounds like we need to submit a new bug: Icon needs to look more chicken-like. ;-)
Do they kill you by Snu-Snu?
Bitter and proud of it.
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.
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
Speak for yourself.
Nothing is any good if other people like it.
after RTFA, i can't see why TFA likend dinosaurs to chicks. what is it about baby chickens, and not birds?
Fug, what dat sound?
TWEEEEEEEEET! *PECK*
Oh, poor Fug!
Table-ized A.I.
I mean, I've always kind of hoped, but...
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
There's this new idea that timezones might actually be used on the internet...
Luke-Jr
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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
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
Anybody besides me remember Chicken Boo? We now know he wasn't a giant chicken, but a smalish dinosaur!
Good, inexpensive web hosting
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......
This cool fossil: http://www.dino-nakasato.org/en/special97/Fight-e. html is Protoceratops actually fighting with Velociraptor!
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.
wait for it ...
it's coming ...
Neanderthal Fried Dinosaur.
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.
.
- aqk
F U
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.
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...
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.