This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Gunk in T. Rex Fossil Confirms Dino-Bird Lineage

Gunk in T. Rex Fossil Confirms Dino-Bird Lineage - Comments

shemp333's Avatar Comment 1 by shemp333

Kentucky Fried Tyrannosaurus. The legs and breast meat is great, but the wings are pretty small.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:29:00 UTC | #160652

Quine's Avatar Comment 2 by Quine

I hate the way the press messes up the science. Birds did not descend from the T. rex, they descended from an ancestor of the T. rex.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:33:00 UTC | #160657

Darwin's badger's Avatar Comment 3 by Darwin's badger

I had a bird who looked like Marc Bolan...does that count?

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 13:49:00 UTC | #160699

Jeremy Nel's Avatar Comment 4 by Jeremy Nel

Apologies in advance for the ignorance, but from the article I'm not sure whether they are referring to *actual* "soft tissue" and "proteins" still preserved after 68 million years ago, or merely their fossilised replicas.

I'd be really surprised (and enormously encouraged) if the former were true, but is it perhaps too much to ask? Can anyone here advise?

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:18:00 UTC | #160736

Jeremy Nel's Avatar Comment 5 by Jeremy Nel

Apologies - I've just read the other similar article posted here on this topic, and it does seem (if I've read it right) that the *actual* protein was preserved. That's astounding - I had no idea proteins (even tough ones like collagen) could last even a fraction of this length of time. Wow.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:23:00 UTC | #160741

moderndaythomas's Avatar Comment 6 by moderndaythomas

Comment#169065 by Quine

I hate the way the press messes up the science. Birds did not descend from the T. rex, they descended from an ancestor of the T. rex.


An all too common media blunder, but still, it's closer to the truth than saying that humans descended from apes. Or rather, Ben Stein.
And then again I'm sure the apes resent that.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:34:00 UTC | #160758

snoov's Avatar Comment 7 by snoov

Ahem, surely an ancestor of T rex is alsoone of its decendents.

Maybe modern birds and T rex share a common ancestor, if not then the only way they can be linked would be if birds were indeed decended from T rex.

It's the first one.

EDIT

I am a dope :(

Got a bit mixed up.

Now I get it, some creature, has loads of decendents, including modern birds and T rex.

Doh

It's a great example of how getting something wrong and realising it helps one (me) understand something better. Off topic rhetorical - still havin trouble with relativity re if i'm moving towards a light source how come the light is still reaching me at the speed of light and not at c my speed? the wavelength changes ...

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:47:00 UTC | #160773

Nova's Avatar Comment 8 by Nova

moderndaythomas typed:

An all too common media blunder, it's closer to the truth than saying that humans descended from apes. Or rather, Ben Stein.
And then again I'm sure the apes resent that.


Humans are apes.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:54:00 UTC | #160778

moderndaythomas's Avatar Comment 9 by moderndaythomas

Humans are apes


Gotcha, but we didn't descend from them, we share common ancestry.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:58:00 UTC | #160781

Nentuaby's Avatar Comment 10 by Nentuaby

Uhhhmmm... No, Moderndaythomas, we are descended from apes... We aren't descended from any *living* apes, but our common ancestor with the other extant apes was also an ancient, extinct ape.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:00:00 UTC | #160784

moderndaythomas's Avatar Comment 11 by moderndaythomas

Uhhhmmm... No, Moderndaythomas, we are descended from apes... We aren't descended from any *living* apes, but our common ancestor with the other extant apes was also an ancient, extinct ape.


In this respect then, did we descent from mould?
Both you and mould have common ancestry and that ancestor will most likely resemble mould more than you or I.
My point is that creationists see this statement differently than you or I, and in fact I believe that we are arguing the same things.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:28:00 UTC | #160808

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 12 by Dr. Strangegod

Mould, too. Yes. And lots of other creatures. Apes are just pretty close comparatively.

The creationists problem is not the inability to grasp all this if they were well educated on the subject. It is that their religion codifies an ancient human psychological need: to think of ourselves as above or better than all the other creatures. This may in fact have some evolutionary basis, in that it may have been a psychological necessity so that we could justify killing and eating other creatures (all of this, of course, once we'd developed enough to give a shit.)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:48:00 UTC | #160828

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 13 by Border Collie

Well, imagine that, we're all related. I'm gonna go walk the dogs.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:54:00 UTC | #160835

Mr. Grape's Avatar Comment 14 by Mr. Grape

jeremynel - I remember seeing a report about the discovery a little over a month ago and the Paleontologists who discovered the tissue still retaining its elasticity were just as surprised as anybody else. :)

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 19:01:00 UTC | #160906

Szkeptik's Avatar Comment 15 by Szkeptik

The protein was a collagen fragment that was aquired from the bone. Not a soft tissue.

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 22:56:00 UTC | #160935

alexmzk's Avatar Comment 16 by alexmzk

that's the worst headline ever.

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 01:16:00 UTC | #160956

IanLowe's Avatar Comment 17 by IanLowe

"I hate the way the press messes up the science. Birds did not descend from the T. rex, they descended from an ancestor of the T. rex."

Surely we would need some actual preserved DNA, or some common/lacking physical feature preserved in the fossilised remains that would allow us to confirm whether the path leading to birds split before T-Rex, or descended through it?

I thought the point of this work was that this is the first rock solid (hah!) evidence pinning the T-Rex to a specific part of the tree, in essence confirming the dinosaur -> bird hypothesis?

is there other evidence already out there that gives us an accurate picture of where t-rex and the bird line sit?

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 04:02:00 UTC | #160986

Rufus08's Avatar Comment 18 by Rufus08

I'm still not convinced it's not a hoax. Soft tissue preservation is all but unheard of.

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:17:00 UTC | #161064

Chris Jackson's Avatar Comment 19 by Chris Jackson

I love the way this is touted as a startling new discovery... From what I'd gathered, the evolutionary line of descent from Dinosaurs to Birds was pretty much a certainty. Whilst this specific find (If indeed not a hoax) is quite interesting, I don't see that it's all that newsworthy.

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 07:37:00 UTC | #161074

moderndaythomas's Avatar Comment 20 by moderndaythomas

I love the way this is touted as a startling new discovery... From what I'd gathered, the evolutionary line of descent from Dinosaurs to Birds was pretty much a certainty. Whilst this specific find (If indeed not a hoax) is quite interesting, I don't see that it's all that newsworthy.


This brings to mind somethong that I've read in one of Gould's books. "Dinosaur in a Haystack", I think.
It may be that this is of no surprise to the pelaeontology community, or rather that it was only a matter of time.

And as for my earlier comment, allow me to insert monkey for ape, just to satisfy all you taxanomical purists out there... I admit defeat.

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 08:53:00 UTC | #161106

Koreman's Avatar Comment 21 by Koreman

This explains why T Rex ate grain.

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 09:38:00 UTC | #161126

movingshadow's Avatar Comment 22 by movingshadow

I've always been int he birds-as-extant-therapods camp, it awesome to have genetic proof!

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 10:05:00 UTC | #161131

Oppomystic's Avatar Comment 23 by Oppomystic

Yet another article to add to the bulging file...

This article is merely for the paleontologists that are still in denial that birds descended from dinosaurs. Kind of a "wake up" smack to their heads to make them stop embarrassing themselves.

Sat, 26 Apr 2008 12:31:00 UTC | #161195

Christopher Davis's Avatar Comment 24 by Christopher Davis

"An all too common media blunder, but still, it's closer to the truth than saying that humans descended from apes. Or rather, Ben Stein.
And then again I'm sure the apes resent that."---moderndaythomas

Actually, I think people like Ben Stein are the reason that apes often throw shit at us.

On a(slightly)related note, I had a guy ask me the other day..."If we are descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

Now he didn't ask this in a sarcastic manner, he was generally curious. I was amazed at how unprepared I was to answer that question.

Fortunately the guy is actually rather bright, and with the help of a dry-erase board, I believe I was able to make him understand why this is a question based on the faulty assumption that evolution is a process of linear progression that culminates in the glorious creature that is man.

However, if he had been seriously religious I don't think I would have made a convincing argument.

Does anyone have a good, simple answer to this question?

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 02:29:00 UTC | #161419

BananaOfDoom's Avatar Comment 25 by BananaOfDoom

RE: Comment #169882 by Christopher Davis

Unfortunately, that IS the good, simple answer. It doesn't get much simpler than, "We evolved from a common ancestor." To any logical person, that is a convincing argument (especially when you point out the error of linear evolution).

The problem is that the creationists are willing to dismiss logic in favour of faith. They would much rather cling to a faulty definition of evolution in order to "falsify" it than admit their error and be forced to change their views.

So essentially, if they aren't convinced by your argument, there is no argument that is convincing enough, regardless of how bright they are.

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 06:45:00 UTC | #161503

cstute's Avatar Comment 26 by cstute

Chris,

I found myself in the same situation and was also unprepared to respond. I forget that people who aren't in "the field" also aren't as intimately familiar with the process of evolution (and extinction) as we might be.

However, I just watched a great documentary, available on Netflix, by the History Channel called "From Ape to Man." I recommend it, if you haven't seen it already.

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 16:28:00 UTC | #161877

moderndaythomas's Avatar Comment 27 by moderndaythomas

I found myself in the same situation and was also unprepared to respond. I forget that people who aren't in "the field" also aren't as intimately familiar with the process of evolution (and extinction) as we might be


Every now and again I run into people that tell me with amazement that the Sun is a star.
Then I have to decide on the spot if I want to embarrass them or play along and act surprised.

Sun, 27 Apr 2008 18:47:00 UTC | #161995

Shaden's Avatar Comment 28 by Shaden

I'm sure that the creationists are going to cry fowl on this finding.

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:26:00 UTC | #162398

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 29 by Steve Zara

Comment #169882 by Christopher Davis

Does anyone have a good, simple answer to this question?


Population growth. As organisms grow in number, they spread over an ever wider range in order to acquire resources (food, space etc.). This can leads to a lack of full mixing of genes, and if part of the range experiences environmental change, organisms in that part of the range may adapt. However, part of the range over which the organisms are spread may not change, and so there is no pressure to adapt.

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 06:38:00 UTC | #162406

Christopher Davis's Avatar Comment 30 by Christopher Davis

Thanks for the responses. I've got a feeling that the spear-fishing orangutan is going to give me a chance to answer questions similar to the one posed last week.

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:20:00 UTC | #163345