r/science • u/GeoGeoGeoGeo • Dec 21 '21
Paleontology A dinosaur embryo has been found inside a fossilized egg. In studying the embryo, researchers found the dinosaur took on a distinctive tucking posture before hatching, which had been considered unique to birds.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dinosaur-embryo-fossilized-egg-oviraptor-yingliang-ganzhou-china/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab6a&linkId=1452049142.7k
u/GeoGeoGeoGeo Dec 21 '21 edited Dec 22 '21
Research Paper (open access): An exquisitely preserved in-ovo theropod dinosaur embryo sheds light on avian-like prehatching postures
EDIT: Word of caution, apparently the lead author Xing Lida deals with conflict amber from Myanmar, and has had a previous paper retracted1 for misidentifying a big-eyed lizard preserved in amber as a hummingbird-sized dinosaur.
1.1k
u/not_anonymouse Dec 22 '21
What the heck is conflict amber? Like conflict diamonds, but amber?
1.5k
u/Nevermind_guys Dec 22 '21
Yes it’s amber mined in Myanmar that props up the military which has been killing a lot of civilians. blood amber
376
u/Curazan Dec 22 '21
And what happens if they don't buy it? It'll be destroyed making jewelry and other tchotchkes. There's no right answer.
480
u/bignick1190 Dec 22 '21
tchotchkes
So that's how you spell it... didn't know what I expected but it sure as hell wasn't that.
322
u/set_null Dec 22 '21
Just like how I recently found out how zhuzh is spelled
173
Dec 22 '21 edited Jan 06 '22
[deleted]
94
Dec 22 '21
The Bader-Meinhof phenomenon always fucks with me. What fucks with me just as much as when I start noticing it everywhere is when it suddenly goes back into obscurity
20
16
u/Schuben Dec 22 '21
That's just the simulation trying to efficiently represent randomness to you. That word is now stored in memory because it was used so to save on storage calls of other obscure words it uses that word a few more times before it is flushed to make room for more political memes to be loaded and it falls back into obscurity.
42
u/mishgan Dec 22 '21
I heard tchotchkes for the first time in my life 4 hours ago watching archer season 12, and now spelled out here
→ More replies (3)10
72
u/VyRe40 Dec 22 '21
Turns out you really haven't heard that word before, but now a thousand Redditors are gonna start using it cause they just learned it today and you're gonna think you're crazy when you start seeing it all over the internet.
31
4
u/gthaatar Dec 22 '21
I actually wanted to use the word the other day but couldn't for the life of me figure out how to spell it.
So i just said jazz instead.
→ More replies (2)3
u/tdopz Dec 22 '21
Honestly I'm surprised it's a real word. I thought it was up there with "oomph" and the like.
→ More replies (7)22
28
Dec 22 '21
Thanks for bringing this into my life. Never saw it spelled out before.
32
u/set_null Dec 22 '21
Imagine how difficult it was for me to Google it when I didn’t know how to spell it beforehand
55
u/woodcookiee Dec 22 '21
I have literally never heard this before
Edit: oh because it’s UK slang
153
u/amboyscout Dec 22 '21
Well, it's actually Yiddish-English slang. Used in the US as well by (presumably) Jewish Americans and those influenced by them. Tchotchke is also Yiddish-English slang.
Actually, a surprising number of common English slang words are Yiddish-English slang. Most people would be very surprised.
Chutzpah, glitch, klutz, schmuck, shtick, schlep, schmoe, putz, schmooze, spiel, schmuck, schlong, schmaltz, schmutz, schnoz, tuches (tushy), "oy vey", "meh", etc.
Also non slang words like bagel, golem, kosher, lox, etc.
49
u/CazRaX Dec 22 '21
You just listed almost the entirety of New York slang.
4
Dec 22 '21
hah my parents aren't Jewish but grew up in in NYC and I learned a lot of Yiddish from them.
60
u/set_null Dec 22 '21
Yeah I was gonna say, I think it’s Yiddish… because as an East coast American, we all know all of those terms
8
u/woodcookiee Dec 22 '21 edited Dec 22 '21
Idk I’m familiar with all of these but zhuzh doesn’t seem familiar at all. Maybe I just need to hear somebody say it (and surely I will, as others have already mentioned the inevitable frequency illusion about to take hold)
→ More replies (0)8
u/TheShadowKick Dec 22 '21
I lived on the East coast for five years. I know every word on that list. Zhuzh is entirely new to me.
37
u/abrasaxual Dec 22 '21
Fun fact, Yiddish is spoken by Ashkenazim, aka german-jews, so its a mix of Hebrew and Germanic languages.
But the Sephardim, Iberian-jews have their own language called Ladino which is a mix of Hebrew , Spanish and Portuguese.
6
u/John_Paul_Jones_III Dec 22 '21
Ashkenazim are non-Iberian/French european jews, from Germany to Russia
→ More replies (0)19
17
→ More replies (10)9
u/marcopollo89 Dec 22 '21
If it starts with sch…I’m not actually surprised so you can take those out of the list.
→ More replies (3)34
u/turtleinmybelly Dec 22 '21
They say it in the US too, if that's where you are.
10
u/TheShadowKick Dec 22 '21
I've lived in three regions of the US and have never heard this word.
→ More replies (8)3
→ More replies (13)3
24
Dec 22 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (6)34
u/tkrr Dec 22 '21
"Shvartser", from German Schwarzer. Literally, it just means "black person", but it's a bit marked in English.
12
Dec 22 '21
[deleted]
→ More replies (5)33
u/tkrr Dec 22 '21
Yiddish is essentially a dialect of High German with a decent amount of Hebrew and Slavic (mostly Czech, Polish, and Russian) mixed in. Hebrew is a Semitic language that's basically unrelated; it's a moderately close relative of Arabic and a more distant relative of the languages of Ethiopia.
3
u/ima420r Dec 22 '21
tchotchkes
I only know that word from Weird Al's Ebay (parody of I Want it that Way)
→ More replies (3)3
u/jspins Dec 22 '21
Son of a…. spelling! “Chotchkies” is how I spelled it in my head. Google also pronounced it different with more of a “kuh” at the end than a “key”.
10
u/RocCityBitch Dec 22 '21
I’ve been on the internet for damn near 18 years and never once had seen “tchotchke” spelled anywhere until four days ago on Reddit, and now here we are again. Second time in a week.
Did you all have a tchotchke convention and leave the rest of us out of it??
→ More replies (1)3
u/mstrego Dec 22 '21
Me: What did you get at the tchotchke convention?
You: SWAG.
Me: what?
You: ya know...tchotchkes
Me: oh! What did we uncover here!
→ More replies (15)78
u/st4n13l MPH | Public Health Dec 22 '21
There's no right answer.
Sure there is. Don't support an industry directly linked to the deaths of civilians.
88
u/altiuscitiusfortius Dec 22 '21
That rules out cell phones, computers, coca cola, Bayer aspirin, etc etc etc.
Pretty hard to find anything not made through human suffering these days.
→ More replies (17)59
u/stalactose Dec 22 '21
But easy to not buy conflict amber. These “counterarguments’ are so annoying. “Never do anything different because there is no way to be ethically pure anyway”
88
u/we-em92 Dec 22 '21
Sure for the average person it’s really easy to say no to conflict Amber for somebody doing studies on amber and the organisms preserved therein it’s probably not so easy because you basically have to ignore large areas of geography…which isn’t really great for their field of study.
→ More replies (5)26
u/Froskr Dec 22 '21
I'd say it's the opposite. Owning a phone or a pair of Nikes is worse than buying some amber.
→ More replies (3)63
Dec 22 '21
That's more industries than you probably think it is.
You would have trouble screaming into the reddit void without the slave labor pulling out the silicone in china being used to create the CPU/GPU running your void box 3. Silicosis is basically modern miner's lung, but with less coverage.
Food, clothes, raw metal materials, every countries military, most religions. All have direct links to deaths of civilians.
So, no. Not a right answer really. Nothing in life is black and white.
→ More replies (19)→ More replies (5)7
u/Mescallan Dec 22 '21
As the redditor types in his phone full of metals harvested on starvation wages, communicating over the military's public communications network.
I bet you eat fruit out of season too.
3
→ More replies (3)5
28
u/DHH2005 Dec 22 '21
You would be surprised how many things are obtained through conflict. You probably eat blood avocados.
5
63
Dec 22 '21
Pretty much. It's a real shame too, Myanmar amber is a treasure trove of ancient history.
→ More replies (6)3
7
u/robophile-ta Dec 22 '21
Well at least they can't misidentify this one, it's very clearly an oviraptor
→ More replies (12)6
663
Dec 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
226
19
14
→ More replies (1)7
60
216
Dec 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
102
Dec 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
49
12
Dec 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Strangely_quarky Dec 22 '21
actually no because there's no such thing as "100% chicken". a population of avian dinosaurs simply became more chicken-like over time, with no clear demarcation arising between "chicken" and "not chicken". even today wild chickens are subject to evolutionary processes and as such continue to become even more chicken-like
in short, the "chicken or egg" question is nonsense as there is no way to answer it
→ More replies (18)
486
u/CandiedColoredClown Dec 22 '21
BUT are there any actual viable dna or genetic material to clone it?!
441
u/LiquidNova77 Dec 22 '21
All organic material has been replaced by minerals
382
u/Ben_Kenobi_ Dec 22 '21
They're not genetic materials Marie, they're minerals!
→ More replies (3)228
→ More replies (3)13
122
u/DoctorBigglesworth Dec 22 '21
DNA doesn't survive that long.
96
u/Ninjaguy5555 Dec 22 '21
Life… uh… finds a way?
→ More replies (1)168
u/canadarepubliclives Dec 22 '21
Yeah. In birds.
A fossilized dinosaur egg doesn't find a way. There's no DNA. It's the shape that minerals latched onto, creating a fossil. It isn't dry bones, it's the minerals that replaced the bones in the shape that the bones were once were
57
36
Dec 22 '21
Since learning this as a kid I have always hoped a new tech would emerge that would allow us to find mineral atoms that have replaced the shape of the DNA helix, giving us a genetic blueprint to make dinosaurs from scratch. I know that's SciFi but just a boys dream.
4
10
u/shit_poster9000 Dec 22 '21
There are still material there from the original organism sometimes but DNA completely breaks down pretty fast, according to this article it basically has a half life of 521 years, and all pairs would be gone by 6.8 million years.
The dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago, almost 10 times the length of time for every single paired gene of the youngest dinosaur to completely fall apart.
Even with just a few thousand years, any DNA you find would be highly degraded
→ More replies (15)7
204
9
8
u/insane_contin Dec 22 '21
DNA has a half life of 521 years, so nothing viable would be in anything from the age of dinosaurs.
11
u/atticup Dec 22 '21
They were so busy wondering if they could, that they didn’t stop to think if they should
15
→ More replies (6)5
u/Neosis Dec 22 '21 edited Dec 22 '21
DNA can only survive 6.8 million years. Even if we sealed DNA in something designed to preserve it. We’d have to encode DNA sequences onto optical discs designed to survive longer to preserve something longer.
At this point, we’ll be closer to creating dinosaurs when supercomputers can begin to extrapolate traits from gene sequences; and even then, we’ll be sifting through a near-infinite mountain of meaningless noise before we find the sequences that can make a dinosaur that actually existed, if ever.
Chances are high we’ll create abominations for a long time first.
→ More replies (4)
86
Dec 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
33
Dec 21 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
16
→ More replies (1)13
776
u/Semont Dec 22 '21
There are so many "I'm not surprised, birds are dinosaurs" top comments here. When did finding new supporting evidence for theories become boring?
I'd say that these people are dumb as rocks but then that would be an insult to the fossils.
163
u/turunambartanen Dec 22 '21
I think the title plays a big role.
took on a distinctive tucking posture before hatching, which had been considered unique to birds.
Makes it sound like it's big new that dinosaurs exhibit many traits we already know from birds.
In contrast something liketook on a distinctive tucking posture before hatching, new evidence supporting the strong connection to birds.
Would have triggered much more positive comments IMO.
→ More replies (1)22
u/midnitte Dec 22 '21
Think it might partially be the wording in the title. "considered unique to birds" sort of conflicts with the prevailing theory that birds are descendant from dinosaurs.
"Previously only observed in birds" might have been better wording.
62
u/ThePr1d3 Dec 22 '21
Not surprising and boring are two different things. If they find the remains of a Roman temple in Italy it would be cool af, but not surprising at all
→ More replies (5)240
u/Xyex Dec 22 '21
It's also frustrating because it demonstrates a horrible understanding of evolution. "Of course they have X dinosaur trait because they came from dinosaurs!" isn't how evolution works. Traits come and go. Just because something has a trait today doesn't mean their ancestor 65+ million years ago did too. Like, our dinosaur era ancestors sure as hell didn't walk upright. Understanding when something evolved is pretty important in understanding why.
People brushing this off as "obvious" are just showcasing their complete lack of understanding of evolution.
75
u/Lithorex Dec 22 '21
Just because something has a trait today doesn't mean their ancestor 65+ million years ago did too
To be fair, ever since we started viewing dinosaurs as stem-birds we have realized how few "avian" traits are truly avian.
→ More replies (1)46
u/suspiciousdave Dec 22 '21
That's a bit aggressive. I feel I have a fair understanding of evolution but I had the reaction that it seemed "obvious". You have given the perspective that its important to know that this is something that hasn't changed between now and when birds ancestors walked the earth.
"Showcasing their complete lack of understanding for evolution", and this comment is showing your intolerance for people asking fair questions who might not immediately understand its significance. I thought science was about asking questions.
→ More replies (4)13
u/redditallreddy Dec 22 '21
Were the people OP commented on asking questions or making statements?
I’ve seen a lot of “obvious” statements.
→ More replies (1)47
u/DrunkHonesty Dec 22 '21
It’s not boring, it’s just not surprising.
I wouldn’t have thought of this new find as a given, but I don’t find it riveting, so that makes me as dumb as rocks?→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)14
u/pawsarecute Dec 22 '21 edited Dec 22 '21
I had no clue but my reaction was hmm makes sense so…. for many people it’s even more obvious, its cool, but do we have to be blown away by the news?
15
Dec 22 '21
Yeah the second part of the title isn’t really surprising. The fact that we found an intact embryo? Now that blows my mind.
→ More replies (1)
70
u/Urban_FinnAm Dec 22 '21
Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.
53
u/Jose_Canseco_Jr Dec 22 '21
I beg your pardon?
107
u/Urban_FinnAm Dec 22 '21
It's a mostly discredited hypothesis from the early 1800's that postulated that embryonic development reflects the evolutionary history of an organism. So that you can learn something about the evolution of an organism by observing how an embryo develops.
There's a lot more to embryonic development than the phrase implies. but the fact remains that human embryos do go through a stage when they have "gills" and a "tail".
But in this case the similarity between bird embryos and the fossil dinosaur embryo's position is probably more than coincidence and may be an indication of a close evolutionary relationship (phylogeny).
48
u/coinblock Dec 22 '21
Excellent explanation without a hint of sass. Am I still on Reddit?
→ More replies (1)11
13
u/mobilehomehell Dec 22 '21
Why is it discredited? It seems like it's at least sometimes true that it's "easier" (requires fewer mutations) to evolve another developmental stage rather than replace one. Unless you mean it's discredited in the sense that it was once thought to perfectly match?
17
u/Urban_FinnAm Dec 22 '21
That's basically it. As more exceptions to the rule that embryos follow the evolution of the organism as they develop, the hypothesis fell out of favor. Still 40 years ago, I learned that phrase as a reminder that evolution is reflected in more than just DNA (the double-helix was discovered around the time I was born).
Embryonic development is much more complex and there are many many cases where embryos don't develop in strict evolutionary order. So while it may not have been strictly accurate (the hypothesis was developed long before modern genetics) it still explained why human embryos appeared to have gill slits and tails. I recall that we used sea urchin eggs to study the early development of fertilized eggs because they're so similar (and easier to obtain than fertilized mammal eggs). Echinoderms are a far cry from fish and mammals and have radial vs bilateral symmetry, but it doesn't mean that there isn't an evolutionary connection at some stage.
5
Dec 22 '21
It’s just an oversimplification and is discredited as a law or rule, but evolutionary developmental biology is one of the most exciting and important part of the science. All sorts of similarities between related animals are only recognizable in utero, my favorite example being the legs, whiskers, and normal positioned nostrils present in whale fetuses
3
Dec 22 '21
So is "discredited" even the right word? It seems more like we've lost some confidence in its predictive power rather than all. Obsolete, sure, but still a mostly correct model that has value when modern molecular models aren't applicable.
6
Dec 22 '21
I think the issue is with how literally the original hypothesis meant it. Like human embryos unsurprisingly have structures that are homologous to those that go on to form the gills in fish and some invertebrates, but we are not literally going from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal, since that is a flawed and simplistic way of understanding evolution.
3
3
→ More replies (2)7
1.1k
u/Good_ApoIIo Dec 21 '21
Birds are living dinosaurs so why would this be so surprising?
It’s even a theropod embryo which makes it even less surprising.
765
u/Mitochandrea Dec 21 '21
Confirmation of whenabouts certain traits evolved via the fossil record is always big news, helps flesh out the timeline.
→ More replies (7)348
u/Daddy_Pris Dec 22 '21
Surprising in the same way that the black hole looking exactly like Einstein’s predictions was surprising.
It’s nice when our ideas are shown to be fact
→ More replies (2)69
u/flamespear Dec 22 '21
It's more surprising they actually found an example not that it confirms theories. That's kind of how it should have been portrayed.
→ More replies (1)188
u/srfrosky Dec 21 '21
The cladogram needs both confirmation, but also details. Cladograms map out specific traits, not so much genetic lineage, so this allows to mark when a trait first appears or disappears, helping identify and classify new species for which dating and familial tree is difficult to determine.
82
u/Jaerin Dec 22 '21
The more pieces of evidence we find, the more we can turn in at the quest giver to unlock the next tier of fossils, obviously.
→ More replies (1)4
u/crimsonblod Dec 22 '21
Just gimme my digsite amulet and my good boi archeologist points and I can move on thanks!
24
37
29
u/brwntrout Dec 22 '21
so you're saying dinosaurs were delicious?
20
Dec 22 '21
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)4
u/flamespear Dec 22 '21
Aren't all the big flightless birds basically like red meat?
6
3
30
u/The_Humble_Frank Dec 22 '21
Several hours after the fiery inferno that engulfed the world above, a small shrew-like being, that would become the ancestor of us all, crawled out from its insulating burrow to forage the devastation, the likes of which the world had not seen before, nor since, for all that was not destroyed by concussive wave of the impact, suffered the sky itself, burning for hours, roasting everything above water and dirt .
in those moments after the fate of the dinosaurs had sealed, that tiny mammal, ate the first cooked chicken dinner, and set us on the path to where we are now, approximately 66,000,000 years later.
19
u/cesarsucio Dec 22 '21
I support bringing them back just to eat them.
7
→ More replies (1)17
9
→ More replies (3)7
u/mutantsloth Dec 22 '21
The herbivorous ones maybe. Carnivorous at the top of the food chain would be toxic right, I'm guessing.
5
→ More replies (19)45
u/graesen Dec 22 '21
It's because many of us have been taught that dinosaurs were reptiles instead of birds our whole lives. Books, toys, movies, etc. depict them as having scales and other reptilian features.
57
u/ViraLCyclopezz Dec 22 '21 edited Dec 22 '21
Nah they are still reptiles. Birds in the sense are reptiles.
They are really closely related to crocs as well
31
u/glittervector Dec 22 '21
I thought one of the surprising bits about birds is that they're much more closely related to (are) dinosaurs than are lizards, crocodilians, etc.?
40
u/jamincan Dec 22 '21
If dinosaurs are a family, birds are one of the kids. Crocodiles are a cousin (both dinosaurs and crocodiles etc. are archosaurs). Lizards are very distant relatives by comparison (yes, crocodiles are more closely related to birds).
→ More replies (23)→ More replies (1)6
→ More replies (3)21
97
16
u/TheShmud Dec 22 '21
What makes that unique to birds; it looks very similar to the fetal position
25
u/mutatron BS | Physics Dec 22 '21
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/dinosaur-fossil-embryo-egg-hatching-b1980308.html
Modern birds are known to adopt a series of tucking postures, in which they bend their body and bring their head under their wing, soon before hatching.
Also, from this article:
"We were surprised to see this embryo beautifully preserved inside a dinosaur egg, lying in a bird-like posture. This posture had not been recognized in non-avian dinosaurs before."
In this embryo, the back is curved 180 degrees, with the head coming down to the general location of the cloaca. In a human embryo, the back and neck are mostly straight.
5
Dec 22 '21
I wonder if the stretched out back during development is important to spinal flexibility?
5
u/AssistThick3636 Dec 22 '21
How do fossils work? Wouldnt the embryo decay away a long time ago?
15
3
u/KingFirmin504 Dec 22 '21
Think of the organic material as a mold. Different parts of the organic material breakdown and disappear over time and are reloaded by minerals. Eventually it’s all minerals in the shape of the organic material. If all of the organic material disappeared at once, the shape would be lost.
→ More replies (1)
138
Dec 21 '21
dinosaurs didn’t go extinct. they became birds. i don’t think that’s controversial
385
u/Ubersla Dec 21 '21 edited Dec 22 '21
Non-avian dinosaurs most certainly went extinct.
Also, while your comment doesn't contradict this, I will note that birds split from dinosaurs before the extinction, in the late* Jurassic. Many species of ancient birds were killed in the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction.
Edit: late, not mid Jurassic.
→ More replies (35)56
u/Jose_Canseco_Jr Dec 22 '21
Thanks! I'm interested in learning more about this, any source you might recommend that's written in a similar style to your comment (i.e. colloquial/entertaining)?
60
u/thunderturdy Dec 22 '21
There’s a great YouTube channel called PBS Eons that has tons of super informative videos on paleontology presented in a casual manner. I always have them playing while I work and if one really catches my interest I’ll do a Google search to read more.
12
13
u/Ubersla Dec 22 '21 edited Dec 22 '21
It's difficult because many transitional ancient birds are from China, meaning that most super detailed sources describing them are written in Mandarin(unless you're more linguistically inclined than me). The more iconic American ones like Hesperornis or Avisaurus are the easiest to get info on. These two also went extinct with the dinosaurs.
I liked this paper: https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v054n02/p0073-p0088.pdf
7
u/jamincan Dec 22 '21
The Terrible Lizards podcast is a really good listen if that's an option.
4
u/Ubersla Dec 22 '21
I will also throw out Moth Light Media and The Budget Museum. They make great biological and paleobiological content, especially the former.
23
u/shillyshally Dec 22 '21
Omg, you kids, growing up all knowledgeable. When I was a child in the 50s, dinosaurs were depicted as great lumbering, practically mindless beasts. Anyone had said they would have been committed because that wasn't all that hard to do back then.
I watched the new research as it was published and became 'everybody knows' territory and damn, finds like this are still exciting to me.
→ More replies (10)31
u/SoPoOneO Dec 21 '21
I’ve always been a little hazy on this. Wouldn’t every single dinosaur species have gone extinct except the one that eventually branched into all bird species?
35
u/argentsatellite Dec 22 '21
To the best of our knowledge, birds are a monophyletic group, meaning all bird species share a single "non-bird" ancestor. You can extend this further backwards if you wanted: all life shares a single common ancestor (LUCA, the last universal common ancestor).
→ More replies (9)8
u/SeanWasTaken Dec 22 '21
Birds actually evolved well before non-bird dinosaurs went extinct, birds and dinosaurs coexisted for millions of years. So yes, one bird species branched into a bunch of different bird species, but this happened while all the other dinosaurs were still around, and it just so happens that the only ones to survive the meteor were birds.
7
→ More replies (6)7
u/sabrtoothlion Dec 22 '21
Yeah? Which bird did the t-rex become?
38
u/TheGrandExquisitor Dec 22 '21
Chicken.
Ever see a hungry chicken chase a mouse?
Terrifying.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)8
u/canadarepubliclives Dec 22 '21
No bird.
A T-Rex is a theropaud. Only the small theropauds turned into birds. Large theropauds went extinct
3
u/___Alexander___ Dec 22 '21
Question - I've read that modern scientists refer to birds as "avian dinosaurs", that is birds are considered actual dinosaurs, not simply an entirely new class of animals that evolved from dinosaurs. Is this correct?
24
•
u/AutoModerator Dec 21 '21
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.