Yes, certainly T. Rex is not the direct grandpa of a chicken. All this evidence shows is that there is a probable relationship between therapoda, part of the dinosaur clade that includes the mostly carnivorous, bipedal dinosaurs--like T. Rex, Compsognathus, etc--and Aves (all modern birds).

While T Rex was a giant, size has very little to do with evolutionary relationships. The little kittycat that may live in your house is related to the giant Siberian tiger, and even the monsterous Sabertooth cat.

Compsognathus, a therapod dinosaur related to T. Rex, was rather small, in fact about the size of a chicken.

The T. Rex protein was used in this comparison becasue its the only example of dinosaur proteins currently known to have survived to our time (the proteins were found in a mass of collagen found in a T. Rex fossil bone. As unlikely as it seems, there it was. You have to accept it or assume the scientists in this case are lying).

Obviously T. Rex is not the closest ancestor to chickens; in fact it's very distant. However the likelihood of identical proteins occuring in totally unrelated organisms is very low, as there an enormous number of possible proteins. Also, considering the many morphological similarities between therapods and modern birds, the chances of the relationship being coincidence go down dramatically--making the evidence very strong.

I did read about this in an science magazine. Though it just told about the collagen and that it is being under heavy examination/analysis.

This is something new. But it just shows the power of evolution. So much has happened since that meteor made it's first headshot.

Quote:

---

Indeed, which explains why these proteins are barely more than half alike.

---

Where did it say that?

in any case the study found that the protein sequences were most similar to modern chickens, not that they were exactly the same. However, this result strengthens the aleady strong case of dinosaur->bird evolution, previously infered by other means..

it seems that every new piece of evidence is treated with contempt by creationists; being incapable of looking at data objectively, they are merely hacks who distort or dismiss evidence they dont like.

matt, you dont understand your own theory. Evolution does not predict or require comparative anatomy or genetic similarity.

Quote:

---

By a creationist approach, one could say
"oh, how rediculus that the "yorkshire terrier" is a decentent of the wulf,
such a small dog, this is rediculus"

---

You dont seem to know how genetics work. Wolves and dogs are the same kind of animal.

When God created them, he told the to bring forth after their kind, not species. Animals were made with a big gene pool, so they will be able to adapt wherever they go. This is devolution, the loss of information. When an animal adapts to a certain environment, it might seem like its evolving, but its doing the opposite.

Birds and reptiles have very different designs. Im not even going to start with a list.

Comparative anatomy is not evidence for a common ancestor, but a common designer.

Quote:

---

matt, you dont understand your own theory. Evolution does not predict or require comparative anatomy or genetic similarity.

---

of course it does...

Quote:

---

Birds and reptiles have very different designs

---

Different in some ways, but similar in others.. in fact it's the similarities that are important, if they can be shown to be "derived characteristics".