T. Rex - just a 'big angry chicken'?

If you have not already had a chance to see it, the T. Rex Autopsy airing on the National Geographic channel is a must-see! They literally created a model of T. Rex based on available evidence about T. Rex and other dinosaurs as well as evidence from modern birds and then performed an "autopsy". The conclusion: T. Rex was basically a 'big angry chicken' - Love it!!

It will be airing again tomorrow night at 10/9 central.

For more information and a sneak preview:

Images from National Geographic website.

More like this

I don’t know about T. Rex being just a “big angry chicken”,
but I wonder if T. Rex TASTED like chicken.

Maybe someday we’ll find out.
After all, they’ve already found many T. Rex bones with soft tissue inside.

Who knows?

I’d take mine barbecued.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

@See Noevo #1: It would be so astoundingly cool if you actually _read_ any of the research papers you so diligently misrepresent.

There are NO (zero, zip, nada) examples of "T.Rex bones with soft tissue inside." There are NO (zero, zip, nada) examples of any other dinosaur, mosasaur, or any other Cretaceous or earlier reptile or avian fossil. If you can point to a peer reviewed paper otherwise, please provided.

What was reported this week (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150609/ncomms8352/full/ncomms8352.html) was that in thin sections of eight "random" (i.e., not explicitly classified) bones, evidence for non-degraded collagen fibrils (sub-microscopic structures which are constituents of collagen) was seen, along with microscopic spheroids which were _interpreted_ as possible red blood-cell fossils. Note that these were NOT (NOT, NOT, NOT) actual dividable or resuscible cells. They were microfossils with morphological consistency with cells.

If you really want to provide evidence for your arguments, please try to get the evidence right. Doing otherwise just makes you appear to be either deceitful or engaged in special pleading.

By Michael Kelsey (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

To Michael Kelsey #2:

“@See Noevo #1: It would be so astoundingly cool if you actually _read_ any of the research papers you so diligently misrepresent.
There are NO (zero, zip, nada) examples of “T.Rex bones with soft tissue inside.””

Michael, what might be cool is if you read what I wrote: “they’ve already found many T. Rex bones with soft tissue inside.”

And it might be astoundingly cool if you noted what was written in the article you linked above:

“Exceptionally preserved organic remains are known THROUGHOUT the vertebrate fossil record, and recently, evidence has emerged that SUCH SOFT TISSUE might contain original components… and their PRESERVATION is MORE COMMON THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT.
… The preservation of vertebrate SOFT TISSUE has LONG BEEN RECOGNIZED and DOCUMENTED in exceptionally preserved fossils1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Recent research has suggested that original components of SOFT TISSUES such as SKIN1, 10, feathers and other integumentary structures2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and MUSCLE FIBRES11, 12 may be preserved in these exceptional fossils. For example, STILL-SOFT, FLEXIBLE MATERIAL was recovered after demineralization of well-preserved bones from the Late Cretaceous dinosaur Tyrannosaurus13…
… The potential for future research into the metabolic rate of extinct animals based on erythrocytes is promising because in this study, putative SOFT TISSUE (either erythrocyte-like structures, collagen-like, fibrous structures or amorphous carbon-rich structures (Supplementary Fig. 7)) was observed IN SIX OF our EIGHT dinosaur specimens (Supplementary Table 1). Incredibly, none of the samples showed external indicators of exceptional preservation and this strongly suggests that the preservation of soft tissues and even proteins is a MORE COMMON PHENOMENON THAN PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED.”
Oh, and this quote from one of your article’s authors:
“What they found shocked them. Imaging the fresh-cut surfaces with scanning and transmission electron microscopes, “we didn’t see bone crystallites” as expected, Maidment says. “What we saw instead was SOFT TISSUE. It was COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED. My initial response was these results are not REAL.”

For real.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 13 Jun 2015 #permalink

Michael, you may know this but sn is willing to tell any lie possible to support his self-imposed ignorance and denial of pretty much all science.

Of course this results do nothing for your myth that the world is only a few thousand years old sn. Shame such a simple realization is too much for you.

See Noevo appears to be contradicting itelf:
In its post #1, it said, "with soft tissue inside".
In its post #3, it quotes the paper which is talking about preserved soft tissue, fossil structures similar to soft tissue structures, and fossil material whose chemical composition matches the composition of soft tissue.

I suspect this is a demonstration of the dangers of the untrained imagining that they are capable of intelligent analysis in scientific matters.

By Craig Thomas (not verified) on 14 Jun 2015 #permalink

I see that S.N. has grown quite desperate for attention. He has been beating on the soft tissue, as it were, for hundreds of comments at Orac's and apparently has figured out that his foray into EvolutionBlog* isn't going so well.

* Which merited an Offishall Declaration of Flounce, with the usual consequences.

I agree with you....those chicken are very angry indeed.

Gwarsh! u ppls sure am smarts. Dang!