December 13, 2013 | David F. Coppedge

A Dinosaur Is Not a Rooster

An apparent fleshy appendage on the head of a hadrosaur does not mean it is an evolutionary link to birds.

A specimen of Edmontosaurus was discovered with impressions of what might have been a fleshy appendage, about 8 inches tall, on the skull.  Most of the science news sites could not help likening the feature to the cock’s comb of a rooster.

  • Dinosaur Fossil With Fleshy Rooster’s Comb Is First of Its Kind (National Geographic).
  • How Is a Rooster Like a Dinosaur? (Science Now).  “Because birds evolved from dinosaurs, and the combs of roosters and other birds are widely considered to be for sexual display, the team concludes that this is also the most likely explanation for its presence in some duckbills.”
  • Dinosaur mummy’s fleshy head crest (BBC News).  “They suggest the ornaments were used to attract mates in the same way modern birds use bright appendages.”
  • It’s a Duck; It’s a Rooster; It’s … a Dinosaur?  (Live Science).

There can’t be an evolutionary connection between this hadrosaur and a chicken.  For one, evolutionists do not believe that birds evolved from hadrosaurs.  For another, even if the ancestor had a fleshy head crest, the evolutionary line would have lost it long before chickens evolved.  It would have had to be a second innovation in birds.

It’s kind of fun to watch evolutionists go stir crazy with their tall tales, even when they are inherently contradictory to their own plot line.  They could have picked any traits common to unrelated animals and woven a tale about evolution.

What should be the most interesting part of the story is that delicate soft tissue impressions have been found after 65 million “evolutionary years” (i.e., imaginary) of asteroid impacts, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, and other catastrophes.  When you give yourself all the time in the world, you can make up any story.


(Visited 298 times, 1 visits today)


  • rockyway says:

    Dinosaur mummy’s fleshy head crest (BBC News). “They suggest the ornaments were used to attract mates in the same way modern birds use bright appendages.”

    – I’m always amused at this notion that Darwinists can know what birds (and other animals) find reproductively appealing. I wonder how they do it… how they’re able to tune in to this hormonal hotline. It seems a remarkable talent indeed, and one that I can only helplessly admire from afar.

    – It’s my opinion, and let me admit that I’m as far from being an expert as P. G. Wodehouse was from being a jungle explorer, that the whole idea of sexual selection is a fantasy… a projection of man’s overheated imagination and inherent dementia.

    – I find it wonderfully comic to say birds ”use” combs to attract mates. This makes it sound as if they were wigs the birds bought at WalMart.

Leave a Reply