Raising Money For The Real Jack Horner's Dino-chicken Project

To those at Frontier Developments, I have a suggestion for the Jurassic World Evolution Game. I'm writing on my own accord, and it has come to my attention that Jack Horner (who was the inspiration for the Dr. Grant character in the Jurassic Park movies as well as the consultant for all of the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World movies) is currently working on a real genetic engineering project, the dino-chicken project, and is having a hard time raising the required amount of funds to complete the project. A dino-chicken would be a bird with some characteristics resembling a non-avian dinosaur. I was wondering if Frontier Developments would consider adding a dino-chicken to the Jurassic World Evolution Game for in-game purchase and a portion of the money could go towards Dr. Horner's dino-chicken project. You could have different color morphs and other characteristics of the dino-chicken so people would want to buy more of them. If you're interested, I could give you an idea of how they might look. I think people would think it's really cool to know that their purchases would be supporting a project to create something like a domesticated living dinosaur.
 
Call me a heretic if you must, but I personally think the dino bird theory is without question the worst thing to ever happen to evolution. Before you complain about evidence, it’s the attitude that upsets me. Maybe I’m old school, but dinosaurs are still reptiles, and this narrative serves the age old tradition of portraying them as inferior creatures. I would even call this the scientific equivalent of the Catholic Inquisitors, and you know how bad they can be. Even if the evidence does stand, all he’s gonna get is a really ugly chicken, not an actual dinosaur.
X
 
Call me a heretic if you must, but I personally think the dino bird theory is without question the worst thing to ever happen to evolution. Before you complain about evidence, it’s the attitude that upsets me. Maybe I’m old school, but dinosaurs are still reptiles, and this narrative serves the age old tradition of portraying them as inferior creatures. I would even call this the scientific equivalent of the Catholic Inquisitors, and you know how bad they can be. Even if the evidence does stand, all he’s gonna get is a really ugly chicken, not an actual dinosaur.
X
It's not an attempt to recreate a dinosaur. Its purpose is to bioengineer some of the dinosaur features into a bird, which is the closest thing we have to dinosaurs...
 
I think it would be interesting not just for the cool factor but also to help us learn something about the biological differences between avian dinosaurs and non-avian dinosaurs and why only the avian dinosaurs survived the KT mass extinction event 66 million years ago.
 
While an interesting concept, a DLC would only generate pocket change compared to what they need, they need a country or at least a couple of large companies behind them and being an expensive luxury pursuit, with a long wait time for potential profit (with genetic research generally to my knowledge, it's about ten years of testing before it's allowed to go to market these days), that's not likely to happen.

I feel that donations to something like cancer research or other charities would probably be a more effective use of funds, in the sense that something might actually get done.
 
Call me a heretic if you must, but I personally think the dino bird theory is without question the worst thing to ever happen to evolution. Before you complain about evidence, it’s the attitude that upsets me. Maybe I’m old school, but dinosaurs are still reptiles, and this narrative serves the age old tradition of portraying them as inferior creatures. I would even call this the scientific equivalent of the Catholic Inquisitors, and you know how bad they can be. Even if the evidence does stand, all he’s gonna get is a really ugly chicken, not an actual dinosaur.
X
Science doesn't care about your opinion. Dinosaurs were the link between birds and reptiles, and that's a fact.
 
That's 2 out of 700 species? Every animal today is not a bird either...
That then implies the rest of the related species had feathers too. Feathers have also been preserved in Velociraptor fossils, implying that a very big creature, Utahraptor, had feathers.
 
That then implies the rest of the related species had feathers too. Feathers have also been preserved in Velociraptor fossils, implying that a very big creature, Utahraptor, had feathers.
And? There's been numerous finds with scales as well. Without feathers. We can't be positive that all species are related to birds. It's not a fact. It's an assumption.
 
"And? There's been numerous finds with scales as well. Without feathers. We can't be positive that all species are related to birds. It's not a fact. It's an assumption."

Birds evolved from DINOSAURS like Archaeopteryx. All dinosaurs can be drawn back to the Euparkeria, so that means all dinosaurs are related to birds.
 
"And? There's been numerous finds with scales as well. Without feathers. We can't be positive that all species are related to birds. It's not a fact. It's an assumption."

Birds evolved from DINOSAURS like Archaeopteryx. All dinosaurs can be drawn back to the Euparkeria, so that means all dinosaurs are related to birds.
That's impossible to say, since we probably haven't even found 10% of the fossils from that period in time. So no it's not a fact. It's an assumption from the finds we have. And those are not factual at all, when we can't look at all the animals and their ecosystems.
 
That's impossible to say, since we probably haven't even found 10% of the fossils from that period in time. So no it's not a fact. It's an assumption from the finds we have. And those are not factual at all, when we can't look at all the animals and their ecosystems.
The first dinosaurs were descended from the Euparkeria. (Even if it wasn't the Euparkeria this point still stands) Those dinosaurs then diversified. Some more diversification lead to the Archaeopteryx, then birds. The first species of dinosaur is related to all others, therefore all dinosaurs are in some way related to the birds, even distantly. All you have to do is look at their feet. They have scales, and the same three-toed orientation as the theropod dinosaurs.
 
The first dinosaurs were descended from the Euparkeria. (Even if it wasn't the Euparkeria this point still stands) Those dinosaurs then diversified. Some more diversification lead to the Archaeopteryx, then birds. The first species of dinosaur is related to all others, therefore all dinosaurs are in some way related to the birds, even distantly. All you have to do is look at their feet. They have scales, and the same three-toed orientation as the theropod dinosaurs.
How do you know, that we have found the first dinosaurs at all? Most fossils will not even survive that long. We only find the ones that're being preserved. The sheer number of animals roaming for 150 million years would be around 5 BILLION. We have found 700. That's practically NOTHING at all. There could've been modern birds present at the time. We have no idea. We just know that the dinosaurs we have collected, resembles the mordern day birds by bonestructure. That's it. Not a fact that every dinosaur evolved into birds. It's just our own theory from the fossils we have available.

And what about the dinosaurs that didn't have three-toed orientation?
 
Last edited:
How do you know, that we have found the first dinosaurs at all? Most fossils will not even survive that long. We only find the ones that're being preserved. The sheer number of animals roaming for 150 million years would be around 5 BILLION. We have found 700. That's practically NOTHING at all. There could've been modern birds present at the time. We have no idea. We just know that the dinosaurs we have collected, resembles the mordern day birds by bonestructure. That's it. Not a fact that every dinosaur evolved into birds. It's just our own theory from the fossils we have available.

And what about the dinosaurs that didn't have three-toed orientation?
They're related to the theropods through the common ancestor
 
They're related to the theropods through the common ancestor
Yes that's the assumption. But if the dinosaurs missing the three toes just died out, they are not related to birds. They are related to Euparkeria. Which was not a bird. So again, nothing is facts.

Nature works in mysterious ways. 20 years ago no one would've thought that killer whales were actually wolves and not whales. Nothing in nature is certain, unless we have documented the events. And with dinosaurs we never will.
 
That's 2 out of 700 species? Every animal today is not a bird either...
Dinosaurs with direct observation of feathers.
Archaeopteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Yutyrannus, Ornithomimus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Caudipteryx, Yi, Epidexipteryx, Sciurumimus

Dinosaurs with quillknobs that very likely held feathers
Velociraptor, Concavenator

Dinosaurs with proto feather like structures or quills
Psittacosaurus, Kulindadromeus

These are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. But this already includes many major dinosaur families. Basal Tetanurans, Allosauria, Comsognathids, Ornithomimids, Dromaeosaurids, Oviraptorosaurs, Tyrannosaurids and even Ceratopsians and other basal ornithischians. We know that at least some included in these families had feathers, protofeathers or quills that were likely analogous to feathers.

Yes that's the assumption. But if the dinosaurs missing the three toes just died out, they are not related to birds. They are related to Euparkeria. Which was not a bird. So again, nothing is facts.

Nature works in mysterious ways. 20 years ago no one would've thought that killer whales were actually wolves and not whales. Nothing in nature is certain, unless we have documented the events. And with dinosaurs we never will.
Stop saying there are no facts in palaeontology, it's simply incorrect.

Do you even know how evolution, and phylogenetics works? Saying dinosaurs that didn't evolve into birds aren't related to birds is just nonsense. If your cousin doesn't have any kids, does that mean they aren't related to your kids? Just because a family of dinosaurs died out does not mean it's not related to some living animal. Yes, ALL dinosaurs are related to birds, some are just more closely related to birds than others. Theropods being the closest and Ornithischians being the least closely related to birds.

Yes, there are a number of things we will never know for sure and we have to make some inferences. But there are a great number of things we actually can know for certain. Saying we can't is a massive disservice to the hundreds of scientists that spend their whole lives studying these amazing extinct animals.

Saying all dinosaurs evolved into birds is also nonsense. A particular lineage of theropod dinosaurs evolved into birds. The rest died out.
All birds are dinosaurs. Not all dinosaurs are birds. This is really not hard.

Saying it's "just a theory" is also very misleading. A theory is an explanation of observed facts. A theory is something that has been tested thoroughly and no problems can be found in it. Theory is the highest possible status something can get in science. It's not just some random idea that someone has that's not based on anything. First you have a wild idea. Then you formulate it so that it becomes a hypothesis, and after you've tested it and it's validated, then it becomes a theory.


Whales are also not wolves. That's nonsense. The closest living relative of the whales that is terrestrial is probably the hippo.
 
Top Bottom