“The theory that birds are the equivalent of living dinosaurs and that dinosaurs were feathered is so full of holes that the creationists have jumped all over it, using the evolutionary nonsense of ‘dinosaurian science’ as evidence against the theory of evolution,” he said.
“To paraphrase one such individual, ‘This isn't science . . . This is comic relief.’” -->(!!!)<--

Genetic Evidence Confirms that T. Rex and Velociraptor were NOT ancestor to Modern Birds

Were T. Rex and Velociraptor toothless?
This genetic study confirms those creatures were NOT the ancestor of modern birds.

Was T. Rex toothless?

". . . A new study suggests that the common ancestor of all living birds lost the ability to produce teeth, and the answer to exactly how this happened can be found in modern-day birds' genes.
For the study, the researchers examined the genomes of 48 living bird species, taking a close look at six genes associated with tooth formation.
What did they find? It turns out that all of the bird species share genetic mutations that inactivate genes involved in the formation of both tooth enamel and the portion of the tooth called dentin.
Based on the mutations, the researchers think that a common ancestor of the birds lost the enamel caps on its teeth around 116 million years ago. And around that same time, birds' beaks came into play.
“We propose that this progression ultimately resulted in a complete horny beak that effectively replaced the teeth and may have contributed to the diversification of living birds," study co-author Dr. Mark Springer, a biology professor at the University of California, Riverside, said in a written statement.

(Source: Birds Lost Teeth 116 Million Years Ago)

This event took place, 116 Million Years Ago?

Interesting. Especially since Velociraptor and T. Rex lived long after 116 Million Years ago.

Perhaps Velociraptor was this toothless ancestor?!

Oh *Snap!* no, Velociraptor wasn't toothless either.

So obviously, based upon the conclusions of the study, these creatures are not the ancestor of birds. And since we know true birds existed 165 Million years ago in the Jurassic, namely Archaeopteryx who was a toothed bird followed by many other species of toothed birds, it can be concluded an actual bird gave rise to modern birds and not Cretaceous theropod dinosaurs.

See also, Brush Your Beak: 10 Amazing Birds With Teeth.

So like yeah . . . any way . . . that sort of closes the case of whether or not T. Rex "evolved into chickens".

Subject: Re: Genetic Evidence at last (Bird vs. Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur)
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 21:25:30 +0000
From: Feduccia, John A

But---almost all the enantiornithines, dominant landbirds of the Mesozoic, were fully toothed, as well as the late Cretaceous ornithurines, the hesperornithids and ichthyornitds.

Great information, thanks!
Do you have alternative views as to what may have caused modern beaks to evolve the loss of teeth as they have?

Certainly, there's no doubt that such early toothed bird species should co-exist along with birds who evolved modern (toothlessness /loss of enamel/dentin in their) beaks/bills, i.e., such as Ichthyornis (135-70 mya ... like all the many ancient relatives of birds who were not direct common ancestors they went too went extinct (from the time frame you mention, Mesozoic [252-66 million years ago]).
The researchers set the approximate date for the emergence of the common ancestor who evolved genes for "toothlessness" to around 116 million years ago. That's drawing close toward the end of the Mesozoic, approximately Middle Cretaceous.
Naturally, toothed birds should continue to co-exist in the same time frame but eventually became extinct. Some have suggested that this adaptation (loss of teeth, or at least the loss of dentin / enamel) better suited birds to their food supply, i.e., capturing small minnows or consumption of berries. Interestingly, many birds retain some traits which clearly indicate they still possess genes to produce "pseudo-teeth" of sorts...the loss wasn't complete. Last night I was looking at photos of birds and the Canadian Goose' "Pseudo-teeth" are intimidating and look like teeth... I've read that some of the adaptations are more effective than teeth for grasping and holding on to prey / gathering food.
Brush Your Beak: 10 Amazing Birds With Teeth

The research sets out to identify the common ancestor to all modern birds and links them via the genes that lead to loss of dentin / toothlessness.

Along with what you've stated -- those species are ruled out as the common ancestor but most importantly, if what the genetic research concluded is true, it simultaneously rules out T. Rex, Velociraptor and other toothed theropod dinosaurs as potential candidates for the common ancestor to all modern birds.

Subject: RE: Genetic Evidence at last (Bird vs. Cretaceous Theropod Dinosaur)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 00:42:53 +0000
From: Feduccia, John A

Hi, here is a paper of possible interest. Best wishes, alan


Vorastrix said...

Actually, the fossil evidence proves that the hip bone on T-Rex and Velociraptor is Just about the same, and birds are classed as Non-Avian theropods because of the uncanny similarities between the two, and saying that they were unrelated because of teeth isn't enough to prove that they were separate evolutionary lines is incorrect. They eventually split off, but not as early ass you say.

Bird To Dino said...


Vorastrix writes: “Actually, the fossil evidence proves that the hip bone on T-Rex and Velociraptor is Just about the same…”

How Science Actually Works writes: “Uncanny similarities”? “Just about the same”? in plain English amounts to “NOT the same”.

This so-called “Evidence”, was already covered:

Superficially bird-like dinosaurs occurred some 25 million to 80 million years AFTER the earliest known bird, which is 150 million years old.” See (here).

“Uncanny similarities”? “Just about the same”? are better known as:

1. Common Ancestry.
2. Convergent Evolution and/or “mimicry across different species…” which may --or may not result from shared common ancestry.

“Evidence?” such as the “uncanny similarities” shared between many species, however, neither convergent evolution nor shared common ancestry makes one or the other “THE Common Ancestor” of its counterpart by default.

Such logic is genuinely, un-Darwinian.

“Evidence?” Convergent evolution: Single gene controls mimicry across different species

Speculative conclusions that are NOT SUPPORTED IN THE FOSSIL RECORD and further, the Fossil Record affirms the OPPOSITE of one's pet hypothesis, in spite of “uncanny similarities” is merely a… Hypothesis, and should not be pawned off as if it is an “open and shut case” and “established fact”.

Like yourself, creationists also feel their creation theories are “established fact” and their “evidence” is the Bible.

Since the so-called “evidence” contradicts the fossil record, then Occam's Razor applies: You can bet your ass your hypothesis is wrong.

Bird To Dino said...


Vorastrix writes: “…and saying that they were unrelated…”

How Science Actually Works writes: Mrs. Vorastrix, you should read posts with better comprehension in the future.

Who “…denied a relationship…” between birds and dinosaurs?

A “…relationship…” between chimp and human does not make the chimpanzee “…the ancestor…” of humans. Nor is a “…relationship…” between birds and dinosaurs equivalent of theropod dinosaurs being The Ancestor of birds!

Creationists follow this same line of argument fallacy you're using. They teach falsely that Charles Darwin taught, “…Man evolved from chimp…” which is factually incorrect.

Bird To Dino said...


Vorastrix writes: “…because of teeth isn't enough to prove that they were separate evolutionary lines is incorrect. They eventually split off, but not as early ass you say.”

How Science Actually Works writes: Mrs. Vorastrix, you should read with better clarity.

The author of this blog did not “…as early ass you say…” anything.

“…The study comes from a Research team led by UC Riverside and Montclair State University biologists confirms that inactivation of tooth genes occurred convergently in birds, turtles, and multiple mammalian lineages…”
“…Tooth Loss in Birds Occurred About 116 Million Years Ago…”

Don't shoot the messenger, Mrs. Vorastrix.

I gather also that the accepted and established fossil date for Archaeopteryx also upsets you. The date for Archaeopteryx is within the Jurassic (all the way back to around 150 Million years ago), which predates your Cretaceous theropod dinosaurs by 25 to 80 million years… but the author of this blog didn't “…invent that early ass date in the fossil record…” either.

Bird To Dino said...


Vorastrix writes: “…birds are classed as Non-Avian theropods…”

How Science Actually Works writes: Mrs. Vorastrix, I do not know which brand of pseudo-zoology literature you have been reading, Birds are “…Avian…” indeed. (“Avian” in the Dictionary: “…of or relating to birds…”), and classed under “…Aves…”.)

Aves, Taxonomic Serial No.: 174371

Interesting Related Links

For the Anti-Creationism Darwinist Among Us

Thales of Miletus

My Other Blog:
Genesis in the Ancient World
"The Jews integrated into Greek culture around 300 BC. Notably, much of the modern Biblical literature is actually Greek. Enlightened Greek thought becomes apparent in the opening of Genesis. "One of the first evolutionary theories was proposed by Thales of Miletus (640–546 BC) in the province of Ionia on the coast near Greece followed by Anaximander (550 B.C.) who speculated that life evolved from the water; lower forms of life, in a very primitive precursor to evolutionary theory."

Namely this *ouch!*

Evolution and Paleontology in the Ancient World
"...For Anaximander, the world had arisen from an undifferentiated, indeterminate substance, the apeiron. The Earth, which had coalesced out of the apeiron, had been covered in water at one stage, with plants and animals arising from mud. Humans were not present at the earliest stages; they arose from fish. This poem was quite influential on later thinkers, including Aristotle.
Had Anaximander looked at fossils? Did he study comparative fish and human anatomy? Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing what evidence Anaximander used to support his ideas. His theory bears some resemblance to evolutionary theory, but also seems to have been derived from various Greek myths, such as the story of Deucalion and Pyrrha, in which peoples or tribes are born from the Earth or from stones. His concept of the apeiron seems similar to the Tao of Chinese philosophy and religion, and to the "formless and void" Earth of the Hebrew creation account and other creation myths. However, even though Anaximander's ideas drew on the religious and mythical ideas of his time, he was still one of the first to attempt an explanation of the origin and evolution of the cosmos based on natural laws."

(Source, ucmp.berkeley.edu History)

[Sadly, what the site fails to mention is that the oldest known biblical manuscripts date no earlier than around 300 B.C., therefore, Anaximander (610-545 B.C.) could not have based any of his concepts on Biblical Hebrew. However it can be deduced, the Hebrew Genesis account was borrowed from mainstream Greek philosophy.] [The analysis by Harvard and several other University sources are quite impressive: (Scala Naturae of the Bible, Charles Darwin and Ancient Greek Philosophy)]