By notanidiot - 20/06/2012 12:46 - United States - Lansing
Add a comment - Reply to : #
It's might not be that dumb of a question actually. Maybe the boss heard that scientists have found evidence linking chickens to tyrannosaurs and thought maybe they would be considered reptiles (which they have) and wanted to know what his employee thought. But seeing as I wasn't there I can't vouch for the boss he may very well just be dumb, just taking a guess here.
Zoologically speaking, chickens are mammals. But, in terms of evolution, the most recent common ancestor of birds and mammals would be a reptilian species. This is evident with several body systems in birds, including gizzards. So yes, chickens are technically reptilian.
I actually just finished a biology paper on the subject, yes, aves are the closest relative to reptilian species, and if you look closely at the chicken, it can be noted that they actually are scaled creatures, just have an extra feathery layer on top. A common ancestor for such a clade would be the archaeopteryx… look it up if you don't know what it is…
A quick glance at Wikipedia shows us that birds are indeed sometimes classified as reptiles, though not officially. In fact, crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards, despite both crocodiles and lizards being reptiles. If one is aware that birds evolved directly from dinosaurs, it's not that much of a stretch to be curious as to whether they are actually classified as reptiles. So, the boss was wrong, but not laughably so.
^ No, you pretty much would have had to skip elementary and high school altogether, rarely leave the house, and never talk to anybody about things like that. It's COMMON SENSE. I don't see how ANYONE, besides uneducated children, would even CONSIDER a bird to be a reptile. (And no, we're not talking about flying dinosaurs here - I'm pretty sure there were actual birds in dinosaur times... But not sure. Seems like there could have been.... Anyone who knows for sure, feel free to enlighten me, lest I search google for my answer.) OP, somebody who's THAT stupid should NOT be your boss. FYL.
Relax a bit, I'm using Wikipedia as a source for an anonymous comment field on the Internet, not a doctoral dissertation. Most studies on the subject points to Wikipedia being as correct, or even more correct, than other encyclopedias when it comes to the natural sciences.
Theory of evolution people, theory of evolution! What 34 said is correct, there are species in one group (reptiles, mammals, etc.) that are more related to species from another group than of their own group. These so-called groups include the animals that have similar behavior and similar characteristics but that doesn't mean that their ancestor was the same. Different animals from the same ancestor develop different ways of living, as well as species from different ancestors develop similar characteristics, thus being classified from the same group. These animals change because they adapt to different conditions that nature provides them. Now, I'm not sure about the evolution of birds and yes, they might have evolved from reptiles but I'm almost positive that no bird belongs to reptiles. Being a descendant of something doesn't mean that you belong to it.
By the looks of it #37 you skip anything that might even be remotely educational. There were no birds (as you imagine them) in dinosaur times, there were dinosaurs that had feathers and could fly = reptiles. So in fact birds might be considered close to reptiles, as they've even retained their bone structure, the only difference is their warm blood.
Birds actually are decedents of dinosaurs. You don't need wiki to tell you that. It's all over the internet and you learn it in first year biology in university if not earlier. Here is your daily biology lesson (yes I know its summer but it won't hurt you). "Reptiles" are a paraphyletic group, which means it includes some but not all descendants and as such birds typically do not fit into it. However, it is because of this odd nomenclature that people get confused, like OP's boss.
to dispel the current myth, reptiles are no more, they have been reclassified to sauropsids. Birds have also been reclassified as sauropsids due to many similarities that are undisputable. that being said, they are still far enough from said group that they aren't typically discussed with "reptiles" and in fact when scientists refer to birds they use aves and when talking about former "reptiles" use the term non-avian sauropsids. It's a relatively new classification (within 6 years) due to the advances and discoveries of cellular biology.
So basically every one who believes that we all came for Adam and Eve are all sinners because incest is wrong but yet every one came from two original people that's F-ed up if you ask me. Just think about it next time you kiss you spouse/partner your really kissing a family member.
197- I don't think 192 was calling people sinners for believing in creationism, I think he/she was just rudely stating his beliefs. Plus the theory of evolution is that many individuals of a population develop the same traits at around the same time period that help them survive and reproduce in their environment. Not one person messing up and creating a whole species. But you support of creationism is completely valid 197 And to everyone else, please respect other people's beliefs :)
truth_spitta- I can't believe people like you still use that argument, I mean, really? The word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the scientific world. In the scientific world, it's basically synonymous with "proven fact". Maybe before trying to run with the big boys, you should learn a little something about the matter you're arguing? I'll help you out: "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed." You're fucking welcome.
Determining if one's beliefs are "stupid" is so very subjective. There will always be issues in which there is no definitive answer and you will choose a side. That is your belief and I'm willing to bet that you'd appreciate others not calling you an uneducated ignorant ass hat when they disagree with you. Please extend a similar courtesy.
Well they aren't as different as you think. Birds are descended from dinosaurs.
well if your boss is nice and not an asshole you probably wont get fired. just don't make another stupid mistake.
I seriously don't understand how these people are allowed to work in higher positions..honesty, is using common sense that hard?!