Are Chickens Dinosaurs?

[mark kennedy]

In another thread there was some talk of dinosaurs evolving into birds. Over the years I've found some rather interesting things, like this:

Thus, the presence in life of only a single aortic trunk cannot be substantiated. Significantly, the left side of the specimen (where the “missing” aortic trunk would most likely have been) is absent from the fossil. Finally, it remains unclear if the specimen is actually a fossilized heart or merely an artifact. Respiratory and Reproductive Paleophysiology of Dinosaurs and Early Birds​

Now I'm no expert on the subject but fossils are rare enough, but actually finding a fossilized heart? When I got into the whole evolution/creation thing I didn't have the time or the patience to pursue all aspects of evolution. What I finally decided on was genetics and got into the comparative genomics of chimpanzees and humans. While I was browsing the subject matter I found thise rather interesting discussion about dinosaur DNA.

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube

Did you know that birds are classified as dinosaurs? The reason for that according to Jack Horner is that 'we are the classifiers and we classify them in that way'.

I'm just throwing this out there to see what kind of discussion might follow.

Your thoughts...

 

[Sophophile]

Did you know that birds are classified as dinosaurs? The reason for that according to Jack Horner is that 'we are the classifiers and we classify them in that way'.

I'm just throwing this out there to see what kind of discussion might follow.

Your thoughts...

Hi

Their skeletons are pretty similar, and there are intermediate forms, so at a glance it appears to be a logical classification:

Cheers

 

[miamited]

Hi Mark,

Well, I was going to answer 'no' but I didn't find that dinosaurs were 'cool' and chickens not. I'm of a mind that all things that God created for my necessity are 'cool'.

However, as a firmly convicted biblical creationist, I don't put much stock in evolutionary theory. I don't find that in a span of 6,000 years there is much chance for biological evolution to have occurred. If it occured at such a rapid rate then we would hold in our hands today visible and recorded evidences of evolutionary change in the last 500 years that would attest to such an example.

I do however, solidly agree that in all of 'our' classifications of the animal world it is 'our' system of classification and not, therefore, necessarily Gods. The Holy Spirit, in these last couple of years, has been revealing to me much of the meaning of '666'. I am beginning to understand that this reference to the mark on the head and the hand is not a physically evident mark, as some would claim, but rather that our thinking and our work, as represented by head and hand respectfully, are set to the thinking and understanding of man rather than God. The Scriptures even declare this in saying that 666 is the number of man.

So, it is becoming more and more clear to me that when we set man's wisdom and knowledge and explanations of things above God's, then we have set the mark of 666 upon our head. When we then work to continue these understandings of man as being supreme over the explanations of God, especially among those who are seeking after God's righteousness, we are then stamping 666 upon our hand. For we have made the knowledge and supremecy of man what we would believe and what we would work for

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[Gxg (G²)]

In another thread there was some talk of dinosaurs evolving into birds. Over the years I've found some rather interesting things, like this:

Thus, the presence in life of only a single aortic trunk cannot be substantiated. Significantly, the left side of the specimen (where the “missing” aortic trunk would most likely have been) is absent from the fossil. Finally, it remains unclear if the specimen is actually a fossilized heart or merely an artifact. Respiratory and Reproductive Paleophysiology of Dinosaurs and Early Birds
​

Now I'm no expert on the subject but fossils are rare enough, but actually finding a fossilized heart? When I got into the whole evolution/creation thing I didn't have the time or the patience to pursue all aspects of evolution. What I finally decided on was genetics and got into the comparative genomics of chimpanzees and humans. While I was browsing the subject matter I found thise rather interesting discussion about dinosaur DNA.

Jack Horner: Building a dinosaur from a chicken - YouTube

Did you know that birds are classified as dinosaurs? The reason for that according to Jack Horner is that 'we are the classifiers and we classify them in that way'.

I'm just throwing this out there to see what kind of discussion might follow.

Your thoughts...

Saw this the other day and thought it was fascinating in light of something else I came across..specifically on the issue of how reverse engineering techniques have been done to engineer embryos and bodies of chickens where certain traits dormant were brought out - from longer arms to teeth and other characteristics from dinosaur era.

For more:

• How to Hatch a Dinosaur | Wired Magazine | Wired.com

https://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/h...lse&aff_id=0&locale=en_us&ui=1&os_ver=6.1.1.0</DIV>

 

[Knee V]

I voted "yes", because all birds are dinosaurs. Whatever dinosaurs are/were, and whether they were millions of years ago or thousands of years ago, birds are dinosaurs.

 

[pshun2404]

I picked "other" because Chicken is so yummy!

Paul

 

[Papias]

Sure they are, just like all beagles are dogs.

Not only that, they are a fun way to show kids the glory of God. I serve the kids dino nuggets, made of real dinosaurs! I explain that our God is so glorious, creative, and fun that He really did turn dinosaurs into chickens over millions of years, for them to eat. They love it. Then they get a plate of these for lunch:

Papias

 

[pshun2404]

However Archeopteryx is actually just a bird and Archeoraptor one more in a long line of intentionally deceptive hoaxes (Piltdown, Java, Heidelberg man, Selem, Lucy, and so many more)...but dino nuggets are also yummy! God IS so powerful that if He willed to He certainly could have turned giant reptiles (dinosaurs) or even small reptiles into birds but nothing indicates that that actually happened just the conjecture of men who wish to eliminate "God". Could've just does not equal did!

Paul

 

[troodon]

Did you know that birds are classified as dinosaurs? The reason for that according to Jack Horner is that 'we are the classifiers and we classify them in that way'.

It depends on what criteria you are using to determine what is and isn't a dinosaur. In paleontology we have two distinct concepts that we use in taxonomy, diagnosis and definition.

Diagnosis is a list of characteristics that are found in a group of animals. So, for example, the diagnosis for mammals would include things like warm-bloodedness, hair, mammary glands, two sets of teeth, etc. If you have all of these characteristics then you are a mammal - if you have many of them but are missing some you might still be a mammal. Using classic diagnoses for Dinosauria then birds were typically not considered to be one.

Definitions use evolutionary relationships to determine groups of organisms. For example, mammals could be defined as 'the most recent common ancestor of humans and platypuses, and all of the descendants of that ancestor'. One of the proposed definitions for Dinosauria is 'the most recent common ancestor of Allosaurus and Triceratops, and all of the descendants of that ancestor'. Using this or any other definition for what is a dinosaur, birds certainly do fit.

In short, birds do not fit under the diagnosis for being a dinosaur but they do fit under the definition of being a dinosaur. Because paleontologists very heavily favor definitions over diagnoses we consider birds to be dinosaurs. This is why Jack Horner put it the way we did - birds can be dinosaurs or they can not be depending on how we care to define "dinosaur".

 

[SkyWriting]

However, as a firmly convicted biblical creationist, I don't put much stock in evolutionary theory. I don't find that in a span of 6,000 years there is much chance for biological evolution to have occurred. If it occured at such a rapid rate then we would hold in our hands today visible and recorded evidences of evolutionary change in the last 500 years that would attest to such an example.

6000 years is a mans (a Bishop of some sort) estimate.
Just forget he said anything. He doesn't know.

 

[SkyWriting]

Sure they are, just like all beagles are dogs.

Not only that, they are a fun way to show kids the glory of God. I serve the kids dino nuggets, made of real dinosaurs! I explain that our God is so glorious, creative, and fun that He really did turn dinosaurs into chickens over millions of years, for them to eat. They love it. Then they get a plate of these for lunch:



Papias

I'm thinking they'd be a better value than the ones I buy at the store.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Chickens are dinosaurs, yes.

-Cryptolutheran

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

I'm just throwing this out there to see what kind of discussion might follow.

Your thoughts...

i have thought that dinosaurs (a big group of various animal types) might not (all) have been reptiles, but were more like warm-blooded birds. And some might have been mammals, like the ankylosaur perhaps. they resemble some modern mammals. i havn't done a lot of research on this, but i am one of these totally mad creationists who think that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time. i don't see any particular reason to assume that dinosaurs needed to become extinct, as that is such an evolutionists paradigm.
about the original question... no chickens are not dinosaurs, but it really depends on what type of dinosaur you are talking about, as there were hundreds of types.

 

[troodon]

i havn't done a lot of research on this

[whisper]It shows.[/whisper]

I'll spare you the trouble of doing the research yourself and just let you know that 19th century creationist naturalists, like Sir Richard Owen for example, could tell right away that ankylosaurs were reptiles and not mammals. It's not difficult to tell those grades apart.

i don't see any particular reason to assume that dinosaurs needed to become extinct, as that is such an evolutionists paradigm.

Who ever told you this?

 

[hiscosmicgoldfish]

[whisper]It shows.[/whisper]

I'll spare you the trouble of doing the research yourself and just let you know that 19th century creationist naturalists, like Sir Richard Owen for example, could tell right away that ankylosaurs were reptiles and not mammals. It's not difficult to tell those grades apart.

Who ever told you this?

it depends if they laid eggs, or had warm or cold blood. i know that ceratopsians laid eggs, but who can say if they were warm or cold blooded? birds are such, and they are not reptiles, obviously.
i don't know if the saurapods laid eggs either.
the icthiosaurs were viviporous, but were probably reptiles.
the pterosaurs were probably warm blooded, as that's needed for energetic flight.
i saw a video on you tube recently, and someone filmed an animal in florida, and some said it was a manatee, but they showed a close up of the head, and suggested it was a mosasaur. i thought it looked like some sort of seal.
did plesiosaurs lay eggs?
i have a good book on dinosaurs, but it dosn't say much about whether they laid eggs or whatever, i suppose they assume that they are all reptiles. but reptiles like we've got today, need to spend a lot of time in the sun.
it's a subject that i'd like to do more study on.
i saw another video about the figurines that were uncovered in mexico. 30,000 figures of dinosaurs etc. they think they were buried under peoples houses to ward off demons. they were dated to 4500 years ago. they were double fired. and there was a lot of evidence that they are genuine. i don't know what to make of it. if it is genuine, then what were they doing in mexico 4500 years ago? how did they become extinct?

i have a theory that there was a global flood, like the creationists say, but that it wasn't total in extent. it's a bit of a weak argument, but it's the only way i can see, to try and work out how it happened. the distribution of coal is fairly global, but there are areas, like africa, brazil, central australia, papua, and scandinavia, which don't have coal deposits.

 

[The Dark Knight]

Your thoughts...

No. Dinosaurs are cool and chickens are not.

 

[ViaCrucis]

it depends if they laid eggs, or had warm or cold blood. i know that ceratopsians laid eggs, but who can say if they were warm or cold blooded? birds are such, and they are not reptiles, obviously.

That depends on how "reptile" is defined.

A much better term is amniote (animals whose eggs contain amnios, a protective pouch that allows the egg to survive on dry land). Which includes everything from lizards to crows to pigs.

A reptile is, perhaps, best defined as a non-avian, non-mammalian amniote. Or, perhaps, standard "reptiles" are really just non-avian, non-mammalian reptiles, in which case we could theoretically speak of avian reptiles (birds) and mammalian reptiles (mammals).

Reptile is a rather poorly defined concept in modern cladistics.

-CryptoLutheran