davidylan:

What "article" are you talking about?  Let me repeat again this time in simple elementary english . . .

- scientists believe birds are descended from dinosaurs

davidylan:

- scientists think they found more evidence with T. rex collagen I being slightly about 50% similar to that of the chicken.

davidylan:

- Since T. rex is a dinosaur too, scientists believe that this "more evidence" bolsters their claims earlier stated.

davidylan:

- thus scientists believe the bird could be descended from the T. rex.

Let me know if you have a problem with simple logic.

More proof that birds are descendants of dinosaurs
by Liza on Apr. 13th, 2007
in Life Science and History and Nature of Science

Two years ago, everyone was talking about the work of paleontologist Mary Schweitzer: she noticed that thin slices of a 68-million-year-old fossil femur from a Tyrannosaurus rex looked like they still contained soft tissue. (See photos of the bone.) Using antibodies to the collagen protein, she showed that the bone still contained intact collagen molecules—the main component of cartilage, ligaments, and tendons.


Hello, dinos?: A new study shows that preserved collagen from a 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex is similar to that of chickens. (Photo courtesy Danelle Sheree)

[size=14pt]She used antibodies to a type of collagen extracted from chickens. The fact that the antibodies stuck suggested that T. rex collagen is similar to that of birds. And when she compared the preserved soft tissue to that of modern animals, the closest match was an emu—a flightless bird.[/size]

To learn more about the collagen in the T. rex bones, Schweitzer worked with John Asara, a chemist at Harvard University, to analyze it using mass spectrometry.

The Economist describes the technique this way:

This technique identifies molecules (or fragments of molecules) from a combination of their weight and their electric charges. Knowing the weights of different sorts of atoms (and of groups of atoms that show up regularly in larger molecules, such as the 20 different amino acids from which proteins are assembled) it is usually possible to piece together fragments to form the profile of an entire protein.

When Asara compared the profile he'd created to proteins from living animals, the closest matches were to chickens and ostriches. (Schweitzer and Asara's study was published in the April 13, 2007, issue of the journal Science.)

Many paleontologists already believed, based on fossil bones, that birds are dinosaurs or their descendants. But this new paper provides even more evidence of the fact[\quote]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

that is the article. where does it claim that the chickens descendants of T-rex?

Krayola2:

whateva. . .u'll never admit u re mistaken. . .which is why i posted the entire article so people can read and decide for themselves. au revouir

Krayola2:

lmao. I don't have to be a scientist to know the article does not connect chickens to T-rex. It just says they have some kinda similar protein profile or some shit, and that supports a belief that birds re related to dinosaurs. No more no less. Fake scientist. How did u pass jamb?

davidylan:

this is absurd! 
Collagen I antibodies raised in chickens bind to T. rex collagen I protein . . . oh sorry you probably have no idea about immunology.

Oh besides the link was simply paraphrasing a science paper that made the connection you just stupidly denied out of ignorance. Grab the science paper and stop looking like a brainless troll. 

This technique identifies molecules (or fragments of molecules) from a combination of their weight and their electric charges. Knowing the weights of different sorts of atoms (and of groups of atoms that show up regularly in larger molecules, such as the 20 different amino acids from which proteins are assembled) it is usually possible to piece together fragments to form the profile of an entire protein.

When Asara compared the profile he'd created to proteins from living animals, the closest matches were to chickens and ostriches. (Schweitzer and Asara's study was published in the April 13, 2007, issue of the journal Science.)

Krayola2:

The article does not even compare the antibodies from chickens to the T-rex sample.

Krayola2:

Like I said u just make stuff up by the second.

Krayola2:

They created a protein profile, and that was similar to to chickens.

Krayola2:

where is the word "antibody" in that? mr. immunology. One does not need to know science to understand a simple article

Krayola2:

again, u just like throwing insults around. U can't think properly. Ur father must have poked that prostitute mother of ur's with some syphilis type shit cause u didn't turn out too normal.

what you "found out" was someone's unproven opinion not that dinosaurs evolved into birds. Dinosaurs were gigantic organisms . . . for them to have become so small as to "evolve" into the sparrow means that someday birds will become so small as to virtually become extinct? Shocked

That is not evolution but DEVOLUTION! It makes no sense to insist that the horse "evolved" from a tiny ancestor while the birds took the opposite route.

bawomolo:

dawodu dawodu dawodu, how many times i call ya name 

na wa for you o, are you saying evolution is synonymous with an increase in size?  how is a decrease in size considered devolution? 

Krayola2:

HAHA,  i swear u're like a  4 yr old being taunted with candy.

Now its pretty clear that U are no scientist. Now u've opened ur yansh 4 the world to see. PHONEY!!!

They sampled chickens, but they concluded donosaurs were related to birds. So chickens were being used as a bird sample. That they tested chickens was irrelevant. If the experiment was trying to link chickens to t-rex, the conslusion will state it in plain clear words. . . I learned that in JSS1 lab. .  They did not make any specific claim about chickens. fake scientist. No be for conclusion u go find wetin experimenter see? olodo rabata!!

Krayola2:

haha. u are one deluded guy. na so u distort bible till e talk say Enoch dey heaven. Ordinary half page article na wahala. . . scientist!!! Na wa o

Krayola2:

They sampled chickens, but they concluded donosaurs were related to birds.

Krayola2:

So chickens were being used as a bird sample. That they tested chickens was irrelevant.

Krayola2:

If the experiment was trying to link chickens to t-rex, the conslusion will state it in plain clear words. . .

Krayola2:

I learned that in JSS1 lab. .  They did not make any specific claim about chickens. fake scientist. No be for conclusion u go find wetin experimenter see? olodo rabata!!

Krayola2:

haha. ode!! Like i hadnt said tht in my previous posts. monkey.

Not all birds are chickens. Why aren't u claiming anything about the emu? wasn't that the closest match with the collagen sample? clown. I made 3 different posts saying bullshit and when u eventually caught on u went on a rant and still missed the point. buffoon.

Again, that article says NOTHING about the T-rex being related specifically to chickens. It said dinosaurs are related to BIRDS!!! Regardless of how u spin this one, u can't get away with it. dodoyo!!

davidylan:

And I'm restricting myself to responding to what you wrote. I've read the feature again and no where in it is it implied that chickens descended from T-rexes. It mentions a bolstering development in the findings of their relatedness, though

This is because we have forced you all to go back and read the original paper where the initiall discovery was made. A link manmustwac pasted here made that claim (i didnt!) and manmustwac himself swallowed it hood-line and sinker. My posts here have been to show how preposterous such a claim is so as far as i'm concerned you're preaching to the choir here because i didnt make that claim.

Besides the claim DOES NOT BOLSTER any claim of their relatedness . . . that was why i used so many other examples from other animals. We may as well be related to every organism on earth if we use a >50% amino acid similarity as the basis.

Then you should realise that stating birds are dinosaurs or their descendants - and therefore related to the T-rex - isn't the same as saying birds evolved from T-rexes.

Red herring again.

I shld not be realising anything . . . i didnt make the silly claim that birds are descendants of dinosaurs . . . you shld be directing all this thesis to manmustwac who made the initial claim.

Besides you have the entire argument upside down . . . the claim was NOT that birds are descendants of dinosaurs and thus related to the T. rex by virtue of it being a dinosaur - the argument was about establishing a DIRECT link between the T. rex (nothing to do with other dinosaurs!) and the chicken based on amino acid similarities in collagen I.

More related than what?

Red Herring again . .

This is the argument - Chickens are 58% similar in collagen I amino acid content to the T. rex, well frogs are also 51% similar to the T. rex. When i raised that earlier, this is what you said in quotes - "Birds are more closely related."

I then asked . . . cows have a 97% Collagen I amino acid similarity to humans, does that make the cow more closely related to us than say the chimpanzee?

Yes. The issue then becomes how closely or distantly related are we to other species.

this again is a red herring . . . it makes absolutely no sense. We have homologs of most genes with other organisms . . . are we "related" to them all? Including the yeast, fruitfly and C. elegans? Just WHEN will scientists come up with something other than "we are related to xyz"?

Remind me again how bringing up other dinosaurs other than the T-rex, and how they relate to birds in a discussion on dinosaur-bird evolution is a red herring? Stop being silly and just say you can't state the differences between the two.

Because it IS a red herring brought up to muddy the waters when it becomes clear the T. rex - chicken claims dont hold water. As i mentioned earlier, which of course you all prefered to ignore, there is a paper out there already challenging the validity of the alleged T. rex collagen I protein.

Can you state the differences between the human and the cow? We have a 97% similarity with collagen I so i shld expect us to have a lot more in common than the bird and T. rex who only share a 58% similarity no?

These arguments just make you shake your head in wonder.

Again red herring. See above.

KAG:

Anyway, yes I can state many differences between humans and cows.

- Humans have fingers and opposable thumbs. Cows have hooves
- Humans are naturally bipedal while cows are never so
- Different ears and earing mechanisms
- Humans are omnivorous, cows are herbivores
- Humans and cows have differing stomachs
-Different number of teats in the females of the species


Those are just some quick ones off the top of my head. Your turn. What are the differences between dinosaurs and birds.

Yeah, we got it, you learnt of a new fallacy. Learn to use it properly, though, or it looks stupid.

A new study of ancient proteins retrieved from a Tyranosaurus rex fossil confirms the long-hypothesized evolutionary connection between dinosaurs and modern birds, experts say.

The finding is the first molecular evidence that birds, not lizards or other reptiles, are the closest living relatives of dinosaurs, the researchers note.

A close relationship between the two groups was already widely suspected, based on similarities in skeletal features.

The new research follows a breakthrough study last year in which scientists reported the recovery and partial molecular sequencing of T. rex and mastodon proteins.

Both dinosaur studies examined samples of collagen, the main protein component of bone.

In addition to cementing the dino-bird connection, the new study provides the first molecular evidence that mastodons and elephants are also closely related.

"This shows that if we can sequence even tiny pieces of fossil protein, we can establish evolutionary relationships," said co-author John Asara of Harvard Medical School, who also led the previous T. rex study.

Chris Organ of Harvard University is the lead author of the new report, which appears in tomorrow's issue of the journal Science.

From T. Rex to Chicken

The T. rex proteins were extracted from soft tissues preserved inside 68-million-year-old fossil remains first described in 2005.

The mastodon remains were much younger, dating to between 160,000 and 600,000 years ago.

Using a variety of techniques, the researchers compared the T. rex and mastodon protein sequences with those of 21 living animals, including ostriches, chickens, and alligators.

OLAADEGBU:

The fact is that dinosaurs are reptiles.  The major differences between birds and reptiles include the fact that living reptiles are mostly cold - blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded.  Birds have exceptionally high body temperatures resulting from a high metabolic rate.  Birds and mammals are endothermic while reptiles such as dinosaurs are ectothermic.

This is what Alan Feduccia, an expert on birds and their evolution concluded:

"there has never been, nor is there now, any evidence that dinosaurs were endothermic." 

He went on to say that despite the lack of evidence "many authors have tried to make specimens conform to the hot-blooded theropod dogma."

The evidence is consistent with what the Bible teaches about birds being unique and created after their kinds.  The Bible is clear that God didn't make birds from pre-existing dinosaurs.  In fact, dinosaurs (land animals made on Day 6) came after winged creatures made on Day 5, according to the Genesis.  Both biblically and scientifically, chicken eaters around the world can rest easy with the realisation that they are not eating mutant dinosaurs! 

KAG:

Well, first, birds are also reptiles, or to be more specific, belong in the same class as dinosaurs: reptilia. 

KAG:

Now to the claim that dinosaurs were exothermic, the evidence actually suggests otherwise. While some dinosaurs were no doubt exothermic, several were endothermic. For example, the Sinosauropteryx prima had feathers and the suggestions of hairs used for insulation. Moreover, its physical characteristics also imply its endothermic nature. It's interesting to note, also, that some early "birds" may have been exothermic.

KAG:

Finally, it isn't other scientists that try to make the evidence conform when it doesn't, it's Feduccia that does that. Since digging in his heels about what the lineage of bird evolution should be, Feduccia has consistently ignored all emerging findings and evidence.

KAG:

So, um, wanna try again on the differences between dinosaurs and birds?

KAG:

Lest I forget, does the Bible tell us the "kind" of dinosaur-bird transitionals?

OLAADEGBU:

The fact is that dinosaurs are reptiles.  The major differences between birds and reptiles include the fact that living reptiles are mostly cold - blooded creatures, while birds and mammals are warm-blooded. 

OLAADEGBU:

Anyone observing objectively would realise the fact that birds are warm blooded creatures and that reptiles, such as dinosaurs, are cold blooded animals. 

Thor:

Evolution can never end

seyenko:

Evolution has not beginning or end has long has there is a dynamic interaction between the biosphere and the atmosphere. Don't get it wrong i am not an atheist but a Christian. The bible and science are simply looking at same issue from different perspective, the distinguishing factor lies in the relativity of time. while the bible says the world was made in 7 days and science believes over a very long time, we must remember that God does not measure time by the standards of man. While man believes a day occurs after the earth has spun round the sun in 24 hours, we cannot say that God measures his time on that same scale. A day to God might be the spin of our solar system around the the milky way or the milky way around an entity larger that a galaxy. What do you think?

seyenko:

Evolution has not beginning or end has long has there is a dynamic interaction between the biosphere and the atmosphere. Don't get it wrong i am not an atheist but a Christian. The bible and science are simply looking at same issue from different perspective, the distinguishing factor lies in the relativity of time. while the bible says the world was made in 7 days and science believes over a very long time, we must remember that God does not measure time by the standards of man. While man believes a day occurs after the earth has spun round the sun in 24 hours, we cannot say that God measures his time on that same scale. A day to God might be the spin of our solar system around the the milky way or the milky way around an entity larger that a galaxy. What do you think?