It's might not be that dumb of a question actually. Maybe the boss heard that scientists have found evidence linking chickens to tyrannosaurs and thought maybe they would be considered reptiles (which they have) and wanted to know what his employee thought. But seeing as I wasn't there I can't vouch for the boss he may very well just be dumb, just taking a guess here.

It's like saying a tree is an orange. The two thinfs are in no way close. And you'd have to be an idiot to believe it.

138, oranges grow on trees. Which makes it somewhat close.

Wait.. Are birds reptiles tho?

Chickens are dinosaurs, they have just got smaller and yummier.

Zoologically speaking, chickens are mammals. But, in terms of evolution, the most recent common ancestor of birds and mammals would be a reptilian species. This is evident with several body systems in birds, including gizzards. So yes, chickens are technically reptilian.

I actually just finished a biology paper on the subject, yes, aves are the closest relative to reptilian species, and if you look closely at the chicken, it can be noted that they actually are scaled creatures, just have an extra feathery layer on top. A common ancestor for such a clade would be the archaeopteryx… look it up if you don't know what it is…

Archaeopteryx. Look it up

I did not read racer x's comment.........this is embarrassing.

Still, as things stand chickens are not considered to be reptiles as we know them today. At the very least, the boss should have expounded and not over-reacted at what can easily be construed as a comical question.

This may be very delayed but how the hell are birds classified as mammals?? I majored in zoology and I've never ever heard that one

It's based on genetics, not necessarily physical appearance. The DNA strands could share similarities while not looking alike. Also, they found that velociraptors had feathers so they did look alike.

Original poster, be glad you're, most likely, not working for him anymore.

"Chickens are mammals" I just winced at that

Well I can probably guess who didn't pay attention in class in elementary school

What exactly is your line of work ?

It's really not that big of a mistake. It's one that anybody who didn't do a lot of science in high school could make.

A quick glance at Wikipedia shows us that birds are indeed sometimes classified as reptiles, though not officially. In fact, crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards, despite both crocodiles and lizards being reptiles. If one is aware that birds evolved directly from dinosaurs, it's not that much of a stretch to be curious as to whether they are actually classified as reptiles. So, the boss was wrong, but not laughably so.

^ No, you pretty much would have had to skip elementary and high school altogether, rarely leave the house, and never talk to anybody about things like that. It's COMMON SENSE. I don't see how ANYONE, besides uneducated children, would even CONSIDER a bird to be a reptile. (And no, we're not talking about flying dinosaurs here - I'm pretty sure there were actual birds in dinosaur times... But not sure. Seems like there could have been.... Anyone who knows for sure, feel free to enlighten me, lest I search google for my answer.) OP, somebody who's THAT stupid should NOT be your boss. FYL.

you're using wiki as a factual source? you're laughably stupid, along with the boss

34- thanks for the info, although I wouldn't be so hasty as to use Wikipedia as your form of validation. Some more research will have to be done on this subject from a variety of sources before I can believe that a bird is, in fact, of the reptilian family.

I find it funny how my dad uses Wikipedia to help do his job, and he works in safety at a chemical plant.

Watch the Discovery Channel. You can learn a thing or two. They say turkeys evolved from dinosaurs.

yeah, according to wikipedia, birds are reptiles and humans are a form of birds especially when drunk! (you know we fly)

Pretty sure wiki doesn't say that, 64..

65- dude, he was--- never mind....

The T-Rex of our time is the every day chicken. Just look at how they run then you'll believe me

Lol it's funny cuz they actually are reptiles...

Relax a bit, I'm using Wikipedia as a source for an anonymous comment field on the Internet, not a doctoral dissertation. Most studies on the subject points to Wikipedia being as correct, or even more correct, than other encyclopedias when it comes to the natural sciences.

Theory of evolution people, theory of evolution! What 34 said is correct, there are species in one group (reptiles, mammals, etc.) that are more related to species from another group than of their own group. These so-called groups include the animals that have similar behavior and similar characteristics but that doesn't mean that their ancestor was the same. Different animals from the same ancestor develop different ways of living, as well as species from different ancestors develop similar characteristics, thus being classified from the same group. These animals change because they adapt to different conditions that nature provides them. Now, I'm not sure about the evolution of birds and yes, they might have evolved from reptiles but I'm almost positive that no bird belongs to reptiles. Being a descendant of something doesn't mean that you belong to it.

Yeah, I may be descended from him, but I'm not my Grandpa Jack. I don't think so anyway.

101; we're not saying birds are dinosaurs, we're saying that they're kinda reptiles like the dinosaurs were, just like you're kinda human like your Grandpa Jack was/is.

76- do us all a favor, just go jump in a big pile of your own shrooms... ******* teemo, stupid yordles... AHHHHH!!!

Hmm well according to my biology professor feathers are just evolved scales and if you look on a chickens leg you will see what appears to be scales...so that's a valid question.

By the looks of it #37 you skip anything that might even be remotely educational. There were no birds (as you imagine them) in dinosaur times, there were dinosaurs that had feathers and could fly = reptiles. So in fact birds might be considered close to reptiles, as they've even retained their bone structure, the only difference is their warm blood.

130- That's not the only difference. Birds have lightweight bones with air sacs in between bones.

Gonna get down voted, but aren't we going off of the assumption everybody believes in the theory of evolution? Not saying you're not entitled to your belief system but you're throwing creationism out of the window.

Creationism can be thrown out the window, evolution is a plausible theory and it makes much more sense than "oh humans have always been humans" there i clear evidence that we evolved from apes. Creationism a stupid idea for stupid people

Birds actually are decedents of dinosaurs. You don't need wiki to tell you that. It's all over the internet and you learn it in first year biology in university if not earlier. Here is your daily biology lesson (yes I know its summer but it won't hurt you). "Reptiles" are a paraphyletic group, which means it includes some but not all descendants and as such birds typically do not fit into it. However, it is because of this odd nomenclature that people get confused, like OP's boss.

61- would it be creepy if I said I know you? Cuz you look awfully like sam's girlfriend You know just saying Also to contribute to this: the classification of Aves has been eliminated and birds are now classified as reptiles. A little fact that a few people might like to know :)

to dispel the current myth, reptiles are no more, they have been reclassified to sauropsids. Birds have also been reclassified as sauropsids due to many similarities that are undisputable. that being said, they are still far enough from said group that they aren't typically discussed with "reptiles" and in fact when scientists refer to birds they use aves and when talking about former "reptiles" use the term non-avian sauropsids. It's a relatively new classification (within 6 years) due to the advances and discoveries of cellular biology.

YouAreMyPrey, I AM a religious troll! And i know we evolved from a common ancestor but that was the first thing that came to min when i was writing that, i apologize for my incorrect use of terms. But either way Creationism is a load of bull crap

So basically every one who believes that we all came for Adam and Eve are all sinners because incest is wrong but yet every one came from two original people that's F-ed up if you ask me. Just think about it next time you kiss you spouse/partner your really kissing a family member.

197- I don't think 192 was calling people sinners for believing in creationism, I think he/she was just rudely stating his beliefs. Plus the theory of evolution is that many individuals of a population develop the same traits at around the same time period that help them survive and reproduce in their environment. Not one person messing up and creating a whole species. But you support of creationism is completely valid 197 And to everyone else, please respect other people's beliefs :)

So if it is, how come it is still a theory? Nothing solidified?

Because we don't have time machines quite yet. We're still working on that part, sorry for the inconvenience.

truth_spitta- I can't believe people like you still use that argument, I mean, really? The word "theory" has a completely different meaning in the scientific world. In the scientific world, it's basically synonymous with "proven fact". Maybe before trying to run with the big boys, you should learn a little something about the matter you're arguing? I'll help you out: "The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)...One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed." You're ******* welcome.

Hey, guess what! Birds are reptiles! Seems like the majority of you needed to pay attention in your biology class!!! So, before you slam someone for asking an honest question, in this case one where the answer was "Yes," please educate yourself.

There were no flying dinosaurs. Pterosaurs were no Dinosauria, and the only thing that could be considered a flying dinosaur is a bird (although conventions divide them based on physical grounds rather than genetic grounds).

Wikipedia is not the best source and this is why. Thy are officially classified as reptiles now due to the mass amount of similarities especially in their bone structure.

I seem to recall from school that part of the definition of reptile which helps differentiate them from other egg layers is that they are cold blooded..

Well 204, for one i see no connection between adam&eve incest and creationism being bullshit. But anyway i feel no need to respect other people's beliefs if their beliefs are based on something stupid.

Determining if one's beliefs are "stupid" is so very subjective. There will always be issues in which there is no definitive answer and you will choose a side. That is your belief and I'm willing to bet that you'd appreciate others not calling you an uneducated ignorant ass hat when they disagree with you. Please extend a similar courtesy.

Aren't they? My whole life is a lie! D:

Try saying "Daaayyummm. Ouch." out loud. No, seriously. It made me feel properly gangster.

With a fedora and everything?

I was thinking more like a bowler.

He was probably thinking of the Pterosaurs. They come from the reptilian family.

Yes..nevertheless birds aren't reptiles anyway. OP, sorry for you but your boss is definitly not very bright haha

Right, that was hundreds of million years ago. Interesting factoid - but it in no way changes the argument. Humans descended from small rodent like creatures less than 5million years ago. Does that make you a rat? I think not. (well....not that fact alone, anyway)

No but it makes us mammals. We're not saying that birds are dinosaurs, we're saying they're kinda reptiles.

Has nobody heard? THE BIRD IS THE WORD.

That is the most ridiculous argument I've seen in a while.

Birds aren't "descended from" dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs. That would be like saying cows are descended from mammals. they are mammals.

If his job has nothing to do with birds or reptiles, then he could still know a lot about his job..

What if OP works in a zoo? O_o

66, what if he doesn't? O__o o__O. God, I hate dumb questions. It would've been stated in the FML had the job actually been related to the question the boss asked.

Because he's such a boss.. ;D LOLOL..mk /:

Is it me or past few FMLs have weird bosses?

No. Didn't you go to class at all? Birds are marsupials.

53- i thought crabs were marsupials...

You sir, are retarted. Birds are just birds. They are a seperate class.

You, sir, misspelled retarded. Oh the irony

Birds are aves, not reptilian.

97 - And "separate". It's not as ironic, but still wrong.

Have you heard?

Haven't you heard? Heard what?? That the bird is the word... Have the guys check that out.. Sir, the bird is greater than or equal to the word! Check it again!!! -family guy reference-

bird is the word?

First, the boss sounds like an asshole if OP knows that she's gonna get fired. Second, I fail to see how that was a stupid mistake.

Pfffft. Who need social filters?

I don't think knowing if birds are or aren't reptiles is common sense. Common knowledge, maybe. But common sense, no. Now, looking before crossing the street is common sense.

I'm sure that's what she actually meant, 31. I made the same mistake in an earlier post and failed to notice it until it was too late.