Dino Nuggets: The Evolution of Birds from Dinosaurs

Dino nuggets are pretty yummy right? These childhood snacks—or adult snacks if you’re like me— are dinosaur-shaped breaded chicken nuggets. At first glance, they might seem like a clever trick to get some protein into kids, but what if there was more to it? What if a trace of the true self exists in the false self?

 

Dino nuggets Illustrated by Bella Beeco

To begin, let us understand how scientists classify animals. The two main systems they use are the Linnaean and phylogenetic systems. The first groups organisms mainly on physical traits that connect them—like the existence of backbones for example—and the second groups organisms according to their evolutionary history, which often is revealed by DNA and RNA similarities. We do not have access to any dinosaur DNA these days, so the best way to connect any currently living animals to dinosaurs is by comparing their physical traits.

Dinosaurs, mighty as they were, are simply very large or even small terrestrial reptiles that inhabited earth around 250 million years ago. On the other hand, we have birds, usually small, bright and most of them love to fly! The physical similarities might not seem obvious at first but scientists have spent years making this connection. It was not one big jump from a T-rex to a pigeon; this evolution took millions of years with many intermediate species in between.

In 1860, the fossil of a small avian dinosaur called the archaeopteryx was found. This fossil was the first clue to birds’ ancestry. Simply speaking, the archaeopteryx was an intermediate animal between dinosaurs and birds. Its bone structure, tail, and teeth were most similar to that of a reptile yet it had wings and was covered in feathers. This is not to say that the archaeopteryx was the first bird to exist because it had feathers or a different bone structure, but we consider it to be the first avian dinosaur that we know of. We’re not even sure if it could fully fly or just glide from a height.

Archaeopteryx fossil. James L. Amos, CC0, via Wikimedia Commons

There is no definite line to be drawn between dinosaurs and birds as of course since the process of evolution is a continuous one. This new advantage of aviation could have possibly saved this dinosaur from predators and allowed it access to more resources which would increase its chances at survival and reproduction. With each passing generation, qualities that improved flight could have been chosen for and accumulated; these qualities include hollow bones, wing-like limbs, feathers, and shorter tails.

The archaeopteryx  was the size of a modern day raven,which was not the most common size at the time. But as the years passed more and more smaller dinosaurs evolved. Paraves, a type of avian dinosaur, was shown to grow at a rate 160 times faster than the rate at which other dinosaurs were growing during the Jurassic period. This shrinkage could have been very beneficial for flying. The lighter the animal was, the easier it was for them to soar instead of just glide. Recent studies have also shown that modern day birds highly resemble late embryos of dinosaurs.

One primary physical difference between birds and dinosaurs is the presence of beaks vs. teeth. The strong jaws of dinosaurs had developed pointy ends that would help them precisely pick up food when their hands started to turn into wings. Their mouths were still filled with teeth but they had slowly started to harden and sharpen into toothy beaks that were found on dinosaurs similar to Ichthyornis dispar which lived around 100 million years ago. Over time those dinosaurs started losing their teeth for reasons that are hypothesized to be evolutionarily advantageous. Some scientists hypothesize that tooth loss could have been under selective pressure for shorter incubation periods, lighter head weight and better center of mass, or even as an adaptive response to an extinction event.

A trademark of modern birds are their feathers. There has not been a definitive answer to why dinosaurs first developed them or exactly when. We do know that they started as a sort of hollow spine-like filament on the skin then this filament branched into a softer “fluffier” protofeather similar to the feathers of modern young birds called downy feathers. Those feathers were further toned and perfected to what we see today over the past million years. Feathers could be a heating mechanism that kept dinosaurs at a certain body temperature or to provide their eggs with warmth during incubation.

Feathers could have also been a sexual advantage that was used for attracting mates. Just like how ostriches or peacocks use their feathers to attract females more than fly, some non-avian dinosaurs had feathers that are speculated to be for the same reason. Newly found fossils also show that dinosaurs displayed similar courting rituals to modern day birds. Scraping, a process where a male tries to impress the female by mimicking nest-building behavior, seems to be an age-old tradition that theropods started and many birds today still use to woo their mates. Additionally, some dinosaur fossils like the Hadrosaur skull show a hollow nasal chamber that was used for deep loud noises to communicate with others and call for mates. A similar anatomy can be found in the southern cassowary nowadays; they also use it for mating calls.

Birds are now classified as coelurosaurians which is a clade containing  their closest ancestors; coelurosaurian translates to “hollow tailed lizards” from Greek. They share common features like hollow bones, an erect perpendicular placement of their legs, a fused clavicle and furcula, 3-toed legs, as well as shorter stiffer tails. From all the previous evidence we discussed in the fossil record we can safely say that birds are avian dinosaurs.

 

 

 

العربية

إن ناجتس الديناصورات لذيذة جدا ، أليس كذلك؟ هذه الوجبة الخفيفة مصنوعة من قطع الدجاج بالبقسماط

المشكلة  على هيئة ديناصورات. للوهلة الأولى ، قد يبدو الأمر وكأنه حيلة ذكية لإدخال بعض البروتين إلى نظام الأطفال الغذائي بطريقة مرحة ولكن ماذا لو كان هناك المزيد؟ ماذا لو كانت الذات المزيفة مرآة  للذات الحقيقية؟

أولا,  دعونا نفهم كيف يصنف العلماء الحيوانات. النظامان الرئيسيان للتصنيف هما نظام لينيوس الثنائي ونظام النشوء والتطور. يقوم النظام الثنائي بتصنيف الكائنات الحية تبعا للسماتها الجسدية التي تربطها – مثل وجود أو عدم وجود العمود الفقري – وتصنف المجموعة الثانية الكائنات الحية وفقًا لتاريخها التطوري  والذي غالبًا ما يتم الكشف عنه من خلال أوجه التشابه بين ال DNA و ال RNA. لا يمكننا الوصول إلى DNA أي ديناصور في عصرنا الحالي، لذا فإن أفضل طريقة لربط أي حيوانات حية حاليًا بالديناصورات هي بمقارنة سماتها الجسدية.

الديناصورات على الرغم من عظمتها وكبر حجمها هي ببساطة زواحف كبيرة جدًا -أو حتى صغيرة – سكنت اليابسة منذ حوالي 250 مليون سنة. في الشق الآخر نرى الطيور ، كائنات عادة ما تكون صغيرة وملونة ويحب معظمها التحليق! قد لا تبدو أوجه التشابه الجسدية واضحة في البداية ، لكن العلماء مضوا سنوات عدة للوصول لهذا الرابط. لم يكن هناك قفزة كبيرة واحدة من ديناصور التي ريكس إلى الحمام مثلا فقد استغرق هذا التطور ملايين السنين و العديد من الأجناس الوسيطة بينهما.

في عام 1860 ، تم العثور على حفرية ديناصور محلق صغير وسمي بالأركيوبتركس. كانت هذه الحفرية أول ما دل العلماء على العلاقة بين الديناصورات والطيور. ببساطة ، كان الأركيوبتركس حيوانًا وسيطًا بين الديناصورات والطيور. كانت بنية عظامه وذيله وأسنانه تشبه إلى حد كبير هيكل حيوان زاحف ولكنه كان ذو أجنحة وكان جسده مغطى بالريش. هذا لا يعني أن الأركيوبتركس كان أول طائر موجود لأنه كان يحتوي على ريش أو بنية عظمية مختلفة ، لكننا نعتبره أول ديناصور طائر نعرفه. لسنا متأكدين حتى مما إذا كان بإمكانه الطيران بالكامل أو الانزلاق من ارتفاع فقط.

لا يوجد خط فاصل بين الديناصورات والطيور بالطبع لأن عملية التطور عملية مستمرة. يفترض العلماء أن خاصية الطيران الجديدة كانت ميزة تكيفية اضافية قد تساعد الديناصور في الهرب من الحيوانات المفترسة وتسمح له بالوصول إلى المزيد من الموارد التي من شأنها أن تزيد فرصته في البقاء والتكاثر. مع كل جيل يمر، كان الاصطفاء الطبيعي يفضل الصفات التي أدت إلى تحسين الطيران وزيادة فرص النجاة؛ تشمل هذه الصفات العظام المجوفة والأطراف الشبيهة بالأجنحة والريش والذيول القصيرة.

كانت حفرية الأركيوبتركس بحجم غراب في وقتنا الحالي، وهذا لم يكن الحجم المتعارف عليه للديناصورات ان ذاك. ولكن مع مرور السنين ، بدأت الديناصورت بالتقلص. تبين أن بارافيس ، وهو نوع من الديناصورات المحلقة ، ينمو بمعدل 160 مرة أسرع من معدل نمو الديناصورات الأخرى خلال العصر الجوراسي. كان من الممكن أن يكون هذا الانكماش مفيدًا جدًا للطيران. كلما كان الحيوان أخف وزنا ، كان من الأسهل عليه التحليق بدلا من مجرد الانزلاق من طرف هاوية. أظهرت الدراسات الحديثة أيضًا أن الطيور الحديثة تشبه إلى حد كبير أجنة الديناصورات في الشهور الأخيرة.

أحد الاختلافات الجسدية الأساسية بين الطيور والديناصورات هو وجود المنقار بدلا من الأسنان. تطورت نهايات مدببة بدلا من  الفكوك القوية للديناصورات كي تساعدهم على التقاط الطعام بدقة عندما بدأت أيديهم في التحول إلى أجنحة. كانت أفواههم لا تزال مليئة بالأسنان التي سرعان ما بدأت في التصلب والتحول الى مناقير مسننة كالتي تم العثور عليها على الديناصورات المشابهة لـ Ichthyornis dispar التي عاشت منذ حوالي 100 مليون سنة. بمرور الوقت ، بدأت تلك الديناصورات بفقد أسنانها لأسباب يُفترض أنها مفيدة من الناحية التطورية. يفترض بعض العلماء أن فقدان الأسنان قد يكون تحت ضغط انتقائي لفترات حضانة أقصر ، أو وزن رأس أخف ، ومركز كتلة أفضل ، أو حتى كاستجابة تكيفية لحدث الانقراض.

من أوسمة للطيور الحديثة, ريشها. لليس هنالك سبب محدد لماذا طورتها الديناصورات لأول مرة أو متى بالضبط. نحن نعلم أنها بدأت كنوع من الخيوط المجوفة الشبيهة بالعمود الفقري على الجلد ثم تشعبت هذه الفتيلة إلى ريش بدائي “رقيق” أكثر ليونة شبيهاً بريش الطيور الصغيرة الحديثة التي تسمى الريش الناعم. كان هذا الريش مشابها أكثر لما نراه اليوم على مدار المليون سنة الماضية. يمكن أن يكون الريش آلية تسخين تحافظ على الديناصورات عند درجة حرارة معينة للجسم أو لتزويد بيضها بالدفء أثناء الحضانة.

يمكن أن يكون للريش أيضًا فوائد جنسية تم استخدامها لجذب الأزواج. تمامًا مثل الطريقة التي يستخدم بها النعام أو الطاووس ريشه لجذب الإناث أكثر من الطيران ، كان لبعض الديناصورات غير الطيور ريش يُعتقد أنه لنفس السبب. تظهر الحفريات المكتشفة حديثًا أيضًا أن الديناصورات عرضت طقوس مغازلة مماثلة لطيور العصر الحديث. يبدو أن الكشط ، وهي عملية يحاول فيها الذكر إثارة إعجاب الأنثى عن طريق محاكاة سلوك بناء العش ، هو تقليد قديم بدأه الثيروبودات ولا يزال العديد من الطيور يستخدمه اليوم لجذب أزواجخم. بالإضافة إلى ذلك ، تُظهر بعض أحافير الديناصورات مثل جمجمة هادروسور غرفة أنف مجوفة كانت تُستخدم لإصدار أصوات عالية للتواصل مع الآخرين واستدعاء أزواج. يمكن العثور على تشريح مماثل في طائر الشبنم الجنوبي في الوقت الحاضر. يستخدمونها أيضًا في مكالمات التزاوج.

.تصنف الطيور الآن على أنها كويلوروصورات وهي كليد يحتوي على أقرب أسلافها ؛ coelurosaurian من اليونانية يترجم إلى “سحالي مجوفة الذيل”. يتشاركون في ميزات مشتركة مثل العظام المجوفة ، والوضع العمودي المنتصب لأرجلهم ، والترقوة الملتصقة واللفيفة ، والساقين الثلاثة الأصابع ، وكذلك ذيول أقصر صلابة. من كل الأدلة السابقة التي ناقشناها في السجل الأحفوري يمكننا أن نقول بأمان أن الطيور هي ديناصورات محلقة.

.

Resources :

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/what-are-dinosaurs.html

http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/what-are-birds/

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Introductory_and_General_Biology/Book%3A_Introductory_Biology_(CK-12)/05%3A_Evolution/5.01%3A_Linnaean_Classification

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24996750?casa_token=2leTuPnjTMYAAAAA%3AA6NB0eEyk4lN-gV_g4P-lo-DG8vRNPEuJnyiT0e77aaU_59ugCYzlL7ZANbbtRn8YmDPz0g4Sm-DHJHWn-iJfUjVfk_jqBy1S68VW9CFoFQTAs1em9XW&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://academic.oup.com/biolinnean/article-abstract/8/2/91/2682639

https://news.yale.edu/2018/05/02/scientists-find-first-bird-beak-right-under-their-noses

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2018.0090

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2842673/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.12363

https://www.geol.umd.edu/~tholtz/G104/lectures/104coelur.html

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.