Friday, April 25, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds

by Times Online

Thanks to Tony Newberry for the link.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3811158.ece

Tyrannosaurus rex protein proves dinosaurs evolved into birds
Lewis Smith, Environment Reporter

For all its appearance as a ferocious predator, Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken, researchers have found.

Analysis of protein preserved within a fossil bone has provided molecular evidence to support the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Similarities between bone structure and the discovery of feather-like remains on dinosaur fossils have previously been cited, but scientists have now found the first molecular link.

Collagen preserved within a T. rex bone was broken down and analysed with a mass spectrometer for its amino acid content, which could then be compared to other species. Researchers then compared the molecular profile of chickens and ostriches to that ofT. rexand found a close match. They now hope to carry out further tests to establish which type of bird is most closely linked to the predator.

Alligators were found to be closely related to the predatory dinosaurs but more distantly than birds and farther back in the family tree.

"We determined thatT. rexgrouped with birds – ostrich and chicken – better than any other organism that we studied," John Asara, from the American Beth Israel Deaconess Medical School in Boston, said.

"We also show that it groups better with birds than modern reptiles, such as alligators and green anole lizards. Is it an overgrown chicken? Maybe it is."

The study, reported in the journal Science, strengthens and expands initial findings last year that linked the dinosaur to birds. "We have now done robust calculations and have a very, very high confidence in this relationship," Dr Asara added.

The collagen extracted from the 68-million-year-old fossil was analysed alongside traces extracted from a 500,000-year-old bone from a mastodon – a prehistoric woolly mammoth-like creature that lived in North America.

The samples are the oldest and second-oldest examples of preserved animal protein, and the extract from the mastodon confirmed the assumption that the animals were most closely related to modern-day elephants.

Researchers are confident that they have opened up a new field of study that should enable the animal family tree to be drawn more accurately and to solve riddles that cannot be answered by just observing body shapes.

"These results match predictions made from skeletal anatomy, providing the first molecular evidence for the evolutionary relationships of a nonavian dinosaur," Chris Organ, of Harvard University in the US, said.

Members of the team added in a statement that the protein analysis was "putting more meat on the theory that dinosaurs' closest living relatives are modern-day birds".

They said: "Analysis of a shred of 68-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex protein – along with the proteins of 21 modern species – confirms that dinosaurs share common ancestry with chickens, ostriches and, to a lesser extent, alligators."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Friday, April 25, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 37 of 37 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #168416 by Partisan on April 25, 2008 at 6:14 am

I'd like to see what other animals they compared the proteins with, besides chickens/ostriches and alligators.

Other Comments by Partisan

2. Comment #168425 by DamnDirtyApe on April 25, 2008 at 6:21 am

Now we finally know the important truth - we know what T-Rex tastes like. Fire up the grill!

Seriously though, this sounds epic.

We're going to need a bigger grill.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

3. Comment #168431 by reason-first on April 25, 2008 at 6:25 am

I just wonder what unintellgent turns our creationist "friends" will take to "debunk" this new finding?

Other Comments by reason-first

4. Comment #168433 by mesomodel on April 25, 2008 at 6:27 am

I saw this in the "coming attractions" in Science yesterday. The first thing that came to mind was now I have an answer to those wondering what a T-Rex tastes like. Tastes like chicken!

Other Comments by mesomodel

5. Comment #168462 by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy on April 25, 2008 at 6:53 am

Figures I guess, after all crocodile tastes a bit like chicken.

Or does the chicken taste like crocodile?

Other Comments by He'sAVeryNaughtyBoy

6. Comment #168474 by Geoff on April 25, 2008 at 7:00 am

I just love consilience.

Other Comments by Geoff

7. Comment #168488 by Adam Morrison on April 25, 2008 at 7:08 am

I'll never look at a budgee the same way again.

Other Comments by Adam Morrison

8. Comment #168491 by movingshadow on April 25, 2008 at 7:08 am

it'd be more accurate to say a chicken is a runt trex rather than calling the trex an overgrown chicken

Other Comments by movingshadow

9. Comment #168556 by Angels On a Pin Head on April 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

Partisan:

I'd like to see what other animals they compared the proteins with, besides chickens/ostriches and alligators.

See this report on Ars Technica for a cladogram.

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

10. Comment #168589 by j.mills on April 25, 2008 at 8:16 am

Limerick Summary News Service!

Big reptiles like T-Rex and Steg
Carried plenty of meat on the leg.
Hence the modern-day chicken
Is quite finger-lickin'
As breast, goujon, nugget or egg.

(Please note that this limerick excludes the role of selective breeding, growth hormones, force-feeding, tailored environment, intensive farming methodology and secret spice recipes.)

Other Comments by j.mills

11. Comment #168614 by arogop on April 25, 2008 at 8:30 am

Is anyone aware of any other "preserved proteins" from any other species that is at least 1 million years old? Or is this a fairly unique find?

Other Comments by arogop

12. Comment #168645 by HourglassMemory on April 25, 2008 at 8:52 am

I love this sort of news.
I love it when the knowledge of science is furthured [(spell.?) is this an actual word?]and is made stronger.

Other Comments by HourglassMemory

13. Comment #168648 by Raiko on April 25, 2008 at 8:57 am

Tyrannosaurus rex was just an overgrown chicken

When I first read that, I couldn't help thinking that no creationist should ever see such a statement. I can vividly imagine what they'd do with it out of context.

Other Comments by Raiko

14. Comment #168658 by Vaal on April 25, 2008 at 9:11 am

Another nail in the coffin of the ReligIdiots.

Other Comments by Vaal

15. Comment #168848 by decius on April 25, 2008 at 11:58 am

@arogop

I suspect that the examined organic material comes from a unique and extremely remarkable find occurred in 2005.

Here is a link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm

Other Comments by decius

16. Comment #168923 by Zaphod on April 25, 2008 at 1:05 pm

http://www.livescience.com/animals/080424-dino-birds.html

Other Comments by Zaphod

17. Comment #168929 by movingshadow on April 25, 2008 at 1:09 pm

When I first read that, I couldn't help thinking that no creationist should ever see such a statement. I can vividly imagine what they'd do with it out of context.

they already insist on calling them overgrown lizards, at least birds are more accurate (a bird IS a dinosaur but a lizard is very different)

Other Comments by movingshadow

18. Comment #168946 by rod-the-farmer on April 25, 2008 at 1:24 pm

I agree, truly neat stuff. However, I went to the cladogram mentioned in Comment #9, by Angels on a Pinhead, to see if I could understand the science a bit more. Nope. I must be dumb, but so are several of the people posting there as well. Is there anyone watching this site who could explain that cladogram to us non-techie types ?

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

19. Comment #169159 by ivellios on April 25, 2008 at 3:21 pm

You guys have it all wrong.

This was just a little bit of bird that was left between his teeth after a meal. Of course, then he was totaled by the flood because he forgot to book his berth on the ark.

And of course he is deeper than any modern birds. He couldn't fly and he was very heavy so he sank and was buried way before any of the smaller creatures.

Ok, I've got it now. Religion is tantamount to an over-active imagination combined with a separation from reality.

Other Comments by ivellios

20. Comment #169193 by moderndaythomas on April 25, 2008 at 3:42 pm

It was realy just a Jesusaurus Rex that fell down sometime last December.

There now, everyone's seen my sarcastic side.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

21. Comment #169201 by moderndaythomas on April 25, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Comment#168946 rod-the-farmer

Is there anyone watching this site who could explain that cladogram to us non-techie types ?

It's either the schematics for the electical on an 86 monte, or a two dimensional map of divergence.
I say it's a coin toss.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

22. Comment #169215 by babrock on April 25, 2008 at 4:06 pm

I have read a number of statements from f***heads to t effect that evolution is wrong because it doesnot work chemicaly or something to that effect.

I read "The Selfish Gene " a decade or so ago and thought it made so much sence as to be irrefutable for t most part. I am also aware that there are plenty other mountains of evidence in support of evolution.

As such I figured that this chemical statement was either wrong or taken out of context or some thing such that whatever truth there may be to t statement it did not refute evolution.

While I donot claim to understand all t chemical claims regarding biology and evolution(nor do I think that creationists do either), I do think that this puts to rest whatever claim that creationists make regarding whatever chemical reason why evolution is invalid.

Other Comments by babrock

23. Comment #169362 by Lokayata on April 25, 2008 at 9:20 pm

Movingshadow's right. It's not a big thing, but it would be better to have said that chickens are little fluffy T-rexes, rather than that T-rexes are big chickens.

It's like a grandfather saying 'I have my grandson's nose.' Nope, the grandson has your nose.

Other Comments by Lokayata

24. Comment #169409 by Mitchell Gilks on April 26, 2008 at 2:43 am

I thought that heard somewhere that they thought that T rexs were most closely related to parrots or something. Hmmm. I don't remember where I heard that, so it probably isn't true.

I can't wait to find out which bird species it is closest related to.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

25. Comment #169410 by Steve Zara on April 26, 2008 at 3:00 am

babrock-

I am asking nicely. Please don't treat this forum as some kind of text messaging service. I can only speak for myself, but I find your abbreviations make your posts irritating to read.

You managed to type "either". So, instead of "t" all the time, couldn't you just type "either", but miss off some letters?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #169413 by Verylee on April 26, 2008 at 3:18 am

Yes babrock. I am with Steve on this one as well. I find your posts difficult and somewhat irritating to read. I usually do not bother to read them any more...if I do, it's out of a morbid curiosity to see if you have taken any notice of the requests made previously. I am adding this post in the hope that if others also find it irritating they will also ask you nicely! Who knows, maybe it only affects a few of us!!

Other Comments by Verylee

27. Comment #169422 by bluebird on April 26, 2008 at 4:09 am

We sometimes refer to our pet parakeets as our "cute little dinosaurs"...anyway,

I can't wait to find out which bird species it is closest related to

Me too!!!!!

I didn't know there are 9-10 thousand species of birds, wow; from the Bee Hummingbird, to the Ostrich. Found this great Sir David Attenborough avian site:

http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/

Other Comments by bluebird

28. Comment #169423 by Peacebeuponme on April 26, 2008 at 4:12 am

usually do not bother to read them any more...

That should be the key point. Does babrock want to make himself heard or not?

There a theists here who cut and paste incredibly long sections from other sites. I usually scroll past these. Its not a good way to get your point across.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

29. Comment #169424 by rod-the-farmer on April 26, 2008 at 4:15 am

For those who are bird enthusiasts, there is a nice web site

http://www.birds.cornell.edu/AllAboutBirds/BirdGuide/

which has lots of info about birds, especially their various calls. Very useful trying to identify that which you have seen or heard. I recommend you bookmark it. Last time I looked they did not have the T-rex, but then that was a while ago. I suspect there are periodic updates, and we may see something new soon. I will write to my contact there and ask.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

30. Comment #169440 by Buddha on April 26, 2008 at 5:16 am

@rod-the-farmer

I agree, truly neat stuff. However, I went to the cladogram mentioned in Comment #9, by Angels on a Pinhead, to see if I could understand the science a bit more. Nope. I must be dumb, but so are several of the people posting there as well. Is there anyone watching this site who could explain that cladogram to us non-techie types ?

The cladogram is a tree diagram that arranges taxa in a nested series of sister groups to show the relative relationship between them. The tree is rooted to an outgroup taxa, which is very distantly related to the other taxa in the tree (in this case "Raja" on the far left).

The values between 0 and 1 on the tree may be "bootstrap values", which indicate the degree of confidence that the relationship is correct i.e. 1 = complete confidence, 0.8 = 80% confidence

Other Comments by Buddha

31. Comment #169569 by JimDidriksen on April 26, 2008 at 10:15 am

so if we find the Genetic Key that lets chicken grow like its GREAT grandfather mr Tyrannosaurus king... we could stop stuffing them with steroids that get into humans thru food.

I can just see it now, "Chick-rex 2 pence per pound, yes really we have to much of this damn meat take it please... its gonna smell in a few days... help us.."

Other Comments by JimDidriksen

32. Comment #169710 by Tagred on April 26, 2008 at 4:11 pm

The cladogram is a tree diagram that arranges taxa in a nested series of sister groups to show the relative relationship between them. The tree is rooted to an outgroup taxa, which is very distantly related to the other taxa in the tree (in this case "Raja" on the far left).

The values between 0 and 1 on the tree may be "bootstrap values", which indicate the degree of confidence that the relationship is correct i.e. 1 = complete confidence, 0.8 = 80% confidence

I have a pdf of a cladogram, but it is not complete, nevertheless you have to zoom into at least x3200 to really see whats going on. I don't know if you can add attachments to posts, but if anyone wants it then by all means contact me.

Oh and its not your cxlassic cladogram either its circular, some of you clever folks will be able to tell me if its rubbish or not, id be happy to share it with you.

Other Comments by Tagred

33. Comment #169728 by rod-the-farmer on April 26, 2008 at 4:32 pm

Ok, Buddha and Tagred, thanks. I think. What I am missing is some sort of idea as to how some un-named person or measurement determines that the confidence level of their inter-relation approaches 1.0 or 100 %. Is it DNA comparison ? And while I dimly recognise some of the Latin names, what the heck is Raja ? Is there a more expanded version of this chart, complete with a legend or some explanation of the terms and the various "taxa" ? A book is probably more than I am going to chase down. I see that chart as open season for fundies, since the confidence level is not explained in any way at all. It may well be understood by those whose field of expertise encompasses it, but for the rest of us, and in particular the fundies, we need a simple, clear explanation. Feel free to direct me and others to a different site, as perhaps not all those watching this article may be interested in the gory details.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

34. Comment #169953 by Buddha on April 27, 2008 at 5:46 am

@rod-the-farmer:

A definition of taxa (singular: taxon) is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxon. Essentially, it's a name that describes an organism, or group of organisms.

Raja is a genus of Skates: http://www.first-nature.com/fishes/raja_batis.htm

Cladograms such as this are constructed by defining various characteristics of each organism (number of teeth, length of tibia, volume of skull etc.) and then building the relationship between those organisms by minimising the number of character differences between each one i.e. closely related organisms have fewer character differences than distantly related ones. This is the Principle of Parsimony.

Often, with large cladograms there may be many arrangements of the tree structure that can give equally parsimonious results. When this happens an average "consensus tree" will be constructed that includes the features of those equally parsimonious trees that are in agreement. This is where the "bootstrap" confidence values are calculated.

You can try this for yourself at home by downloading the PHYLIP software package (http://evolution.genetics.washington.edu/phylip.html) and using the PARS module to process your own character matrices and generating your own cladograms. A good project would be to analyse the evolutionary relationship between your household pets and the wife - just make sure you use the goldfish as the outgroup ;-)

EDIT: For an excellent primer to evolutionary relationships that also covers taxonomy and cladistics for the layman, I can't recommend RD's "The Ancestors Tale" highly enough.

Other Comments by Buddha

35. Comment #170929 by Vaal on April 28, 2008 at 6:35 am

So, Chicken Licken was right. The sky did fall on him, 65 million years ago...

Other Comments by Vaal

36. Comment #170937 by phasmagigas on April 28, 2008 at 6:46 am

I just wonder what unintellgent turns our creationist "friends" will take to "debunk" this new finding?

this was done a few weeks ago on AIG (i dont agree that the word PROVE should be used in this article though incase soem creationist got pedantic) anyway it was something like.....wait for the utter STOOPID writ large:

'soft tissue found in T rex proves that dinos are not millions of years old (how could soft tissue remain for so long??) and that shows the T rex WAS on the ark.'

im sure this 'tissue' is nothing like a bit of dried chicken meat, im guessing its the remains of the actual material in a very modified form but the original composition is determinable.

anyway how the get from soft tissue to ark is beyond me.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

37. Comment #174770 by Corey Hill on May 3, 2008 at 12:47 pm

i rember at school this girl thourt she had me with that question wat came 1st a chiken or an egg and befor i could answer my friend who is total ignorant of scienc just came out with "simple a t rex laid an egg wich was deformd because of the astroided and out poped a chiken" i still cant belev he of all pepole got that right i mean i thout it would of evolved from somthing smaller

Other Comments by Corey Hill