Evolution of birds - Is there any biochemistry evidence?

Question

Is there any biochemistry and biogeographical evidence supporting the evolution of birds from reptiles or dinosaurs. Such as similarities in dna structure etc?

Sources would be a great help as I am doing an assignment on this.

Answer 1

This is what I found doing a basic google search:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1088628

If I were you - I'd limit your research for this assignment to maniraptoran dinosaurs, as these would be the most plausible dinos from which the earliest birds evolved.

Keep in mind, there were many different groups of dinos just as there are many different groups of mammals - not all of which have the exact same most RECENT common ancestor.

Saying birds evolved from dinosaurs isn't saying a Brontosaurus turned into an Ostrich.
Just putting that out there.
But like I said - Focus on the maniraptoran transitions and really think about the Ratite birds (flightless.. Rheas, Emus, Ostriches, etc.)

___
Edit:

Ugh to the person above me. If you don't undestand biology, or evolution, don't post your asinine responses to it.
Stupid.

____
Edit #2:

Here's some more for you.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1690884


Oh shut your creationist piehole. Considering I have a Bachelors Degree in Biology, and you merely claim to have studied genetics, I don't really care what you think you do or do not know. Evolution doesn't affect the INDIVIDUAL. It affects the population through the gene pool.
If you really disagree with me, I don't see why you immediately connected to me so please remove me as a contact as I don't care to have your ignorance bothering me. The government, incase you haven't really kept up with our war mongering young-world creationist idiot president, is NOT trying to convince anyone (or help any mississippi/alabama idiot fundies understand) of the biological implications of evolution and what it really means, and what it's really trying to say/explain. Get off your toadstool and don't lecture me about something I know way more about - CLEARLY.

Answer 2

Talk origins is a very good introduction and provides a good dissection of creationist claims and precisely why they are wrong as well as touching on the evidence for evolution. The problem that you do not realize (and a major factor for many people not accepting evolution) is that it does not fit neatly into the classroom science experiment where you can easily demonstrate the concept, i.e. drop two different sized balls and see that they hit the ground at the same time. Further, there is massive amounts of research that has been done, but most of it tends to be specialized beyond high school levels. Dawkin's recent book "The Great Show on Earth" may be a good reference. The links below should supplement others given to you. Remember, you should check the sources cited and double check claims that are made. Be skeptical and objective and don't accept anything at face value or just because it sounds reasonable.

Answer 3

I don't know if this has been included in the cites you've already got, but in the past year some protein was successfully extracted from tissue found in a Tyrannosaur bone, and proved to be strikingly bird-like. I don't have the reference off the top of my head, but a google search should put you on the trail. Personally, I would regard bichemistry evidence as frosting on the cake; the cake being the essential shared identity of numerous bird and dinosaurian skeletal structures along with the evidence of feathers on a variety of coelurosaurs and their offshoots. Arguing against the derivation of birds from dinosaurs requires quite an impressive ability to ignore the mountain of data that has accumulated.

Answer 4

Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

The Origin and Early Evolution of Birds
http://www.geologyrocks.co.uk/tutorials/origin_and_early_evolution_birds

Bird Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_01.html

Answer 5

I don't know about the biochemistry evidence, but if you look at modern birds today, they retain lizard characteristics such as their feet and are have bi-nocular vision.

Answer 6

Here are a few. Please note that these are from sources like UCSD, Stanford University, and PNAS (Publications of the National Academy of Sciences), which carry just a *wee* bit more credibility than Mr. "I studied genetics" johnny_rico here, or wherever he is getting his bizarre information. (Scientists killed off dodos because they were a problem for evolution? LMAO!)


Protein and DNA analyses cement the dinosaur-bird link:
(Report on research from NC State Univ.):
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/aug/did-t-rex-taste-like-chicken

From Dinosaurs to Birds: UCSD Researchers Derive Lessons about Human Evolution from Chicken Genome
http://www.jacobsschool.ucsd.edu/news/news_releases/release.sfe?id=320

Birds, DNA, and Evolutionary Convergence:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/Birds,_DNA.html

DNA and Passerine Classification:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/stanfordbirds/text/essays/DNA.html

Fascinating genetic study not only of bird evolution, but of co-evolution of a parasite, using mitochondrial DNA:
http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/posters/swifts.htm

Rates of nuclear DNA evolution in pheasant-like birds: evidence from restriction maps.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=322929

Male-driven evolution of DNA sequences in birds.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9326938&dopt=AbstractPlusl

For more, just google "evolution birds DNA"

Answer 7

Ha ha. I also came across this tutorial question.

One evidence is in nitrogen excretion, the form of nitrogenous waste is uric acid, which is the same as reptiles.

but higher animals such as mammals excrete urine in the form of urea.

Answer 8

none whatsoever

there was a bird called the dodo, which also proved that birds could not have come from dinosaurs so they killed it off
that's science for you

mutations take away information you already possess or they play around with information you already have

so it's possible for you to grow 6 fingers on one hand

but impossible for you to grow feathers as a mutation can't produce anything it can't code for

it can miscode, duplicate the code, or forget the code

but it can't steal a code

the code is added to by having sex, (your offspring will inherit code from both parents)

or by genetic engineering ,anything other than that is not observed tested or proven science

and if its not proven, i guess that's why it just remains a theory

so don't get angry about why people don't agree with unproven evolution, as lizards turning into birds is just a supposition, i would beleive it if i saw proof for it, evidence for it, transitional fossils for it, or creatures still evolving and that were currently in that state, seeing as some creatures are less evolved than others, there would be a chance to observe some species in transititional forms even now, and not one out of how many zillion species?

the eyes have it, and science can prove it, it hasn't done so, and the knowledge base of genetic bnehaivour shows that a mutation can't produce organs for which it does not have the information for

this is why you can't grow a beak

but you can have double sets of incisors, freaky but possible

it's also why lizards can't become birds