English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-04-13 04:04:13 · 17 answers · asked by " 5 in Entertainment & Music Polls & Surveys

17 answers

Well if the story is true we'd better stock up on them or we'll have chickens like Wrens and eggs the size of M&Ms

2007-04-14 11:56:49 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Dr. David A. DeWitt commented on this:

"Of all the organisms in the sequence database, the one that matched T. rex the closest was the chicken. Now, before assuming that this would be strong evidence that birds are related to dinosaurs, it must be put into perspective. The sequence similarity between the T. rex and the chicken was 58%, while it was only 51% similar to both frogs and newts. This compares with a reported 81% similarity between humans and frogs, and 97% between humans and cows. Moreover, while some of the peptide fragments showed sequence matches to chickens, others matched frog, or newt, or even fish and mice. The authors did point out that not all organisms are in the database. Although the chicken was the closest match from the database, it is possible that animals not included could be a closer match. Regardless, such similarity does not prove that the organisms shared an evolutionary ancestor.

Certainly the recovery of protein sequences from fossil dinosaurs should be applauded—and that work is solid. However, the use of such sequence data to support the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs is a stretch.8

Interestingly, the amount of protein that they could recover decreased over time. In other words, the amount that they could recover in recent extractions was reduced compared to previous extractions. This suggested that there was degradation of the sample in its current 'modern' environment. The fact that such degradation is occurring over very short time scales poses a potential difficulty for evolutionists in explaining how the material could have persisted for an alleged 68 million years."

As Dr. David Menton said, “It certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.”

Wouldn’t that be a hit for the meat industry if we could figure out how to preserve meat for so long?

2007-04-14 08:48:27 · answer #2 · answered by Questioner 7 · 0 0

Evolution isn't about construction a extra acceptable animal, it really is about which animals, and flora, live on which situations extra acceptable. So, an asteroid slams into the Earth and wipes out maximum creatures yet some small reptiles comparable to T-Rex and the forces of nature on the time are such that smaller creatures with changed scales are chosen for. The scales insulate them in a less warm, placed up asteroid ecosystem, some feathers modify added and flight develops by twist of destiny at first, notwithstanding those that get off the floor live on, provide it some extra million years and consider were given birds. a number of those birds discover themselves in a rich Asian jungle ecosystem the position the suitable area of interest for a fowl exists and they become that area of interest as chickens. There aren't any steps decrease back, in elementary words steps alongside.

2016-12-03 23:14:54 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

Do you mean, was T. rex a chicken, biologically speaking? Or, was T. rex cowardly?

The answer is probably "neither". Paleontologists and other scientists keep changing their tunes about whether dinosaurs are direct precursors to modern birds (chickens included). They are definitely bird-LIKE in their bone structure, especially around the hips and legs (and in the case of pterodons, around the chest and arms/wings). Also, their brain-to-eye-size ratio was comparable to that of birds. But they had other features that were distinctly reptile, like pronounced jawbones, and teeth.

It's widely accepted that T.rex was a predator/scavenger. He could hunt, catch and kill his own food, but he would have preferred to find other, smaller creatures with a fresh kill, and scare them away. He could then eat THEIR kill without doing all that running. So, he was probably more of a bully than a coward.

2007-04-13 04:45:33 · answer #4 · answered by What the Deuce?! 6 · 1 0

How long would a family of 4 be able to eat off of a T-Rex?

2007-04-13 04:49:47 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I'll Have 2 Legs, a truck full of BBQ sauce, a side order of fries and a Large Pepsi to go!!

2007-04-13 04:34:57 · answer #6 · answered by Spawn Of F*&^#*g Hell!! 2 · 1 0

That's what they say now. Can you imagine cleaning that chicken?

2007-04-13 04:08:07 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

He probably tasted like chicken!

2007-04-13 04:09:23 · answer #8 · answered by K~E~G 5 · 2 1

I think it was a band. But they liked chicken.

2007-04-13 04:06:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

yeah he was deling with CHUCK NORRIS

seriously i would be afraid more of chuck norris then a t-rex

2007-04-13 04:33:25 · answer #10 · answered by Juleette 6 · 1 0

fedest.com, questions and answers