That's actually pretty interesting, I hadn't even heard of Xuanghanosaurus before.
However
Later paleontologists have not agreed with Dong's original assessment. They think this dinosaur walked on its hind legs as other theropods did, pronation of the lower arm being impossible.
Lol, mate I know. Believe me. I read up on new stuff related to them pretty much every day. We know they didn't just randomly have feet where there hands were though. That's not educated guesswork
We’re not actually sure whether dinosaurs even existed, or if the fossils were planted by the devil to make us doubt the bible. Remember, evolution is just a theory!
But in all honesty what if it is just a recessive gene? like how some people have the Neanderthal recessive gene come out every so often, but this is just the same thing? Is that even possible? They say when baby chicks are in the egg they have teeth and stuff like the dinosaurs dead or ridges along their beaks so is it possible that it could be like just a recessive gene? Oh God I’m over thinking possibly just bad breeding. Lol
Those little “teeth “ you refer too are not a recessive gene necessarily, they are hardened calcifications that help the chick break out of the shell, and once they do so, those “teeth” dissolve rapidly.
The "egg tooth" is basically a little horn at the tip of the beak. Not really what we picture when we think teeth. There is a mutation where chicks will develop crocodile like teeth but the mutation also causes a host of other deformities and they don't survive until hatching.
No it's a alot more complicated than that. Blue eyes is a recessive gene (and even then I'm greatly simplifying things), so we should expect four legged chickens about as often as we get blue eyed people. This more likely to be an epigenetic malfunction, where the genes for feet are turned on in cells where they should be turned off.
I don't think that this would be recessive or dominant per se. Looks like manglement of the homeobox genes so extra legs and not unusual legs. Looks like a this mutation is from the translocation of hox/homeobox gene(s) that code for legs. So it may not have inherited it: it may be the first in its lineage. No idea if its offspring could have this too.
But in all honesty what if it is just a recessive gene? like how some people have the Neanderthal recessive gene come out every so often, but this is just the same thing?
This is not a thing.
There is no "the neanderthal gene." Humans outside of Africa have about 1-4% neanderthal DNA, remnants from mixing when they were still around. And that has nothing to do with dominant or recessive genes, which are an entirely different matter.
82
u/NJRMayo Jul 21 '21
This! We've got a dinosaur thing happening here