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.""

63 of 302 comments (clear)

  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 balloonhead · · Score: 2, Informative

      Attack of the 50ft woman!

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
    3. 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?
    4. 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
  2. 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 Okonomiyaki · · Score: 4, Funny

      So...American chicks, then?

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

    That's why snakes taste like chicken.

  4. 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 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
    3. 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.

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

    Death by SNOO-SNOO!

  6. but .. by eneville · · Score: 4, Informative

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

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

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

  8. 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.

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

    Colonel Sanders!

    -Sj53

  10. moody? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    What, were they all really moody or something?

  11. 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
  12. 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...
  13. 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."

  14. 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.

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

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

    1. 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.
  16. 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
  17. 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

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

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

  19. 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 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
    2. 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 ]
    3. 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.

  20. FF by akhomerun · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

    I always knew there was something sinister about this creature

  22. 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! ;)

  23. 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 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.
  24. 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!

  25. 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
  26. 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*

  27. 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

  28. 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 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?
    2. 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.
  29. 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.
  30. 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
  31. 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.

  32. 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"
  33. So? by JustNiz · · Score: 2, Funny

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

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

    It's now Jurassic PA-KAAAWWK!

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  35. 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.
  36. 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."
  37. 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. ;-)

  38. 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