Which road is the chicken crossing?

[eggomaniac]

This is not a homework question, not a theory, not a debate about evolution v creation, don't turn into such, please.
I'm just curious; is the chicken an animal that is evolving into a flighted bird, or a flighted bird that is evolving into a quad? OR are there some species of chickens going one way and others the other way? What will those wings be used for in the future?
I'm not a biologist, so I am hoping there will be scholarly information.
Mods, if Posters say things like 'twaddle' and 'chicken wings with beer could you just remove those Replies, instead of closing the Thread!?
If the chickens were flighted birds, and that is only one possibility, as they could be evolving towards flighted animals, did they just get conditioned by apes who could keep them in toasty barns?
Is this simple 'biology' that the great biologists and evolutionists have already explained?
[Really - scientific and scholarly Replies or not at all - we shall see]
It's either A. a completely analyzed and documented question or B. an interesting scientific curiosity.

 

[lisab]

It's my understanding that birds who find themselves in environments where there is little advantage to flight, lose that capability. Think dodos and emus. Flying is expensive, biologically speaking.

From the wiki on the Red Junglefowl (the ancestor of today's domestic chicken):

Flight in these birds is almost purely confined to reaching their roosting areas at sunset in trees or any other high and relatively safe places free from ground predators, and for escape from immediate danger through the day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Junglefowl

I used to raise hens, and that's about how much they could fly, too. But I doubt very much that the birds you find in factory chicken farms could fly anything close to that much. In fact I'd be surprised if they could lift their weight off the ground even for a second.

So I'd suggest that the domestic chicken's flying ability is decreasing, given these facts:

• its ancestor wasn't a great flier to begin with, and
• modern farming methods are reducing the need for flight the flight.

And I didn't even mention beer .

 

[nucleargirl]

I'm just curious; is the chicken an animal that is evolving into a flighted bird, or a flighted bird that is evolving into a quad? OR are there some species of chickens going one way and others the other way? What will those wings be used for in the future?

If the chickens were flighted birds, and that is only one possibility, as they could be evolving towards flighted animals, did they just get conditioned by apes who could keep them in toasty barns?

ok, so to answer question 1, I would say neither. The chicken is a perfectly evolved animal for its environment as it is - unless its environment changes (e.g. chickens find themselves in the wild, or some intraspecies or interspecies competition puts pressure on chickens to change in some way to enable them to survive better, these are just examples of environmental change) then there is no need for the chicken to change in any way.

question 2, like Lisa said, they lost the ability to fly because of human artificial selection over centuries. Humans selected for offspring of the red jungle fowl for ones that didnt fly (I'm guessing here cos I'm no chicken expert, but it makes sense: less flying = more energy for growth) so the chickens we see today don't really fly. So yes, humans made the chickens the way they are by artificial selection.

um, I know that we belong to the apes, but because 'apes' also has a derogatory meaning, you are putting your intentions at risk of misunderstanding by others by calling people 'apes'.

 

[nucleargirl]

yeah, evolution is actually a simple process, that's why it is so amazing, and why Darwin is brilliant to have discovered it - its often easy to complicate things, and under the obligatorily religious times he lived in, I think it would have taken a lot of brains and guts to think of evolution and then stand by it like he did.

 

[nucleargirl]

I mean that the process itself (as I understood it) is simple, but the implications of evolution are ginormous! Its pretty much everything we see around us!

so, I would recommend (again) that you read about evolution. if Darwin's book is too hardcore, try Richard Dawkins, basically, the more you read about it, the more it makes sense.

try this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9953-instant-expert-evolution.html

 

[eggomaniac]

Lisab; Dodos and Emus, Egads I wasn't even thinking of penguins, ostriches, kiwis. duh me
I'm trying to get my mind around the evolution thing. When you say ancestors of chickens, I'm thinking ancestors of ancestors of ancestors.
All of the modern thinking has the flightless birds losing the ability. Now, think about this, all of the very first birds had to, logically, be flightless animals who evolved into flighted ones.
We, apes and all, came from the primordial muds, not the primordial clouds, unless there was some kind prevailing wind that kept simple creatures airborne for millions of years, developing that way.
Given, the hypothesis, birds evolved from flightless creatures, likelihood is 99.9999%; then A. I would like to see the family tree. I have observed great scientists, like Dawkins don't hang out here but I am hoping someone has contact with a bright professor, or two, or links where this question has been dealt with.
B. Why is it 100% of the flightless birds evolved from flighted, when the other million bird species went the other way? Maybe, just maybe, some of the, present day, flightless birds are just late bloomers and are, also, evolving towards flight. Maybe some used to fly but maybe some will fly anon, like the rest learned, or evolved, to do.
[NG, I'm not calling anybody an ape, on the street; in this Forum I'm just trying to use the correct terminology. Krauss and Dawkins calls us apes.]
But let's stick to this topic of bird flight, please.
Have evolutionists, based on the hypothesis all flightless birds used to fly, categorised any others who are on their way to flightless? Seems odd if a couple of dozen out of millions 'evolved' this way, there should be at least 1000 others following the process, eh?

 

[NobodySpecial]

B. Why is it 100% of the flightless birds evolved from flighted, when the other million bird species went the other way?

Partly this is a question of classification, a flightless animal that is now flightless, never having evolved into a bird is called a lizard - you could argue that some species of flying lizards are on their way to evolving into 'birds'. But being able to fly or not isn't a characteristic of a bird.

The same thing happens with sea mammals, whales, dolphins, seals, manatees etc evolved from land mammals that evolved from reptiles, that had evolved from fish - that of course lived in the sea.
That cetaceans and pinnipeds make a good living splashing around in the water today doesn't have a lot to do with them having evolved from fish 250million years ago. The sea just has a lot of advantages as a place to live.

 

[madcat8000]

Well here's a well refrenced site with lots of interesting pictures and videos: http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/554notes1.html

All birds share the raptor base model with some modifications.

Feathers are truly ancient as they exsist in the reptile line in alligators, whtich predate the dinosaurs: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17784647

And birds start growing teeth until their genes shut them off whitch draws another line back to their raptor lineage: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1138908.ece

Chickens are animals that are responding to the selective pressures we have initiated through domistication. Unluckly for them in a few thousand more years that will probably lead them to a dead end. They have no natural place in nature anymore and probably won't make it a few generations after we stop supporting them.

 

[DaveC426913]

Given, the hypothesis, birds evolved from flightless creatures, likelihood is 99.9999%; then A. I would like to see the family tree.

Yes. Read up on Archaeopteryx. It is a precursor to flighted birds.

In a nutshell, the prevailing theory is that lizard-like creatures evolved featherlike extensions on their limbs.

When escaping from predators, these featherlike extensions allowed them to glide slightly father than their featherless siblings. Fast forward 10 million years and you have an ecology where feathered lizards have persevered where featherless ones have been eaten.

Here is the critical thing to understand:
These featherlike extensions did not initally evolve as gliding surfaces; they evolved for some utterly unrelated reason - perhaps as a mating display, or a downy coat for winters. It is only a side-effect that they ended up serving the bird in a totally different way when its environment changed.
This is key to understanding evolution.

B. Why is it 100% of the flightless birds evolved from flighted, when the other million bird species went the other way?

Because evolution is directionless. It is often driven by environmental and geographic differences. Percurors to penguins were able to fill a niche in the antarctic. The niche is fish. Flight is useless to a creature that swims to survive.

Maybe, just maybe, some of the, present day, flightless birds are just late bloomers and are, also, evolving towards flight.

No. Evolution is not "headed" anywhere; it has no program.

Current flightless birds will re-evolve flight if and only if it gives them an advantage (often when their environment changtes, or a niche is left open).

Have evolutionists, based on the hypothesis all flightless birds used to fly, categorised any others who are on their way to flightless? Seems odd if a couple of dozen out of millions 'evolved' this way, there should be at least 1000 others following the process, eh?

It's about environment and geography.

Note that it works the other way too. Lizards are not the onlyt creature to have discovered the untapped niche that is the shy.

Tiny mammals have managed to do so as well. Bats. Completely different creature, put in the same environment, finds the same solution. All those mosquitos, just waiting around for some little mammal that can drop out of a tree and glide long enough to snatch them up.

 

[Evo]

We, apes and all,

Twice now I've seen you refer to apes and evolution. You are aware that we are not descended from apes?

As lisab pointed out, chickens have been bred for specific qualities, and flight is not one of those qualities.

There is no reason to believe that the current flightless birds ever flew or flew well, so they did not necessarily go from flying to not flying.

 

[eggomaniac]

Chickens are animals that are responding to the selective pressures we have initiated through domistication. Unluckly for them in a few thousand more years that will probably lead them to a dead end. They have no natural place in nature anymore and probably won't make it a few generations after we stop supporting them.

I'm totally impressed by the great Replies, it was better than I hoped, and now have hours of reading.
[A bit of levity, Madcap, the chickens saw the 'dead end' I am assuming you mean, so they started laying real crappy eggs to force us to do free range. By the time we are extinct they will soaring like pigeons. I wonder what Darwin would have thought of the pale yellow super store eggs?]
One question, is it 'possible' one or more of the flightless birds is evolving towards flight? The penguins might want to consider it.

 

[eggomaniac]

Twice now I've seen you refer to apes and evolution. You are aware that we are not descended from apes?

As lisab pointed out, chickens have been bred for specific qualities, and flight is not one of those qualities.

There is no reason to believe that the current flightless birds ever flew or flew well, so they did not necessarily go from flying to not flying.

hmmm...
I was only going by a book from the 60's by Desmond Morris, The Naked Ape
Wiki >
Morris first came to public attention in the 1950s as a presenter of the ITV television programme Zoo Time,[2] but achieved worldwide fame in 1967 with his book The Naked Ape.[3] The book is an unabashed look at the human species, notable for its focus on humanity's animal-like qualities and our similarity with apes, and for explaining human behaviour as largely evolved to meet the challenges of prehistoric life as a hunter-gatherer. Reprinted many times and in many languages, it continues to be a best-seller.
And there is this http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
"""assembled a series of references and abstracts that document striking evidence for the common ancestry of humans and the great apes"""
>>>> .like your the Mod and all so if its against the rules to say we are apes, I will stop.
If there is info we are not, like you say, I would like to read about it, is there threads on that Topic?

 

[NobodySpecial]

You are aware that we are not descended from apes?

Not only are we descended from apes - we are apes.

There is no reason to believe that the current flightless birds ever flew or flew well, so they did not necessarily go from flying to not flying.

It's pretty likely that the ancestors of chickens once flew. The odds that all their ancestors back to lizards were flightless, and yet evolved feathers, chest bones, wings and beaks - all adapted to flight - but never flew is rather unlikely.

Although the immediate ancestors of domestic chickens were ground dwelling fowl that if they flew at all it was probably limited to fluttering up into trees to sleep

 

[eggomaniac]

just for the record, pf Mentor changed the Topic from birds, flight, and evolution, to apes and man,,,,,
as the OP I don't mind if it goes that way, as the leads for information I was looking for on THIS Topic came out.
I would like to hear from others about whether we are monkeys or apes. It appeals to my curiosity. I cannot swear, but I am sure I heard Krauss and or Dawkins, in the You Tube discussions that led me to the Site, say we are apes...
Dang... it would take awhile to find those 'talks' again.
I am sure IF Dawkins did say it, well then it would be OK! and class anybody disagreeing with him as an anti evolutionist.

 

[eggomaniac]

There is no reason to believe that the current flightless birds ever flew or flew well, so they did not necessarily go from flying to not flying.

on this Topic, that is a statement which makes sense. That is the question I will be looking into from all of the great links supplied. If flightless birds are evolving towards flight, like all the other species did, that would make for a pretty good 'proof' of evolution.
Notice on Wiki it 'conjects' that these birds 'lost' their flight ability, but it has the 'citation needed' sticker.
"""It's believed by some[citation needed] that most flightless birds evolved in the absence of predators on islands, and lost the power of flight because they had few enemies — although this is likely not the case for the ratites; the ostrich, emu and cassowary, as all have claws on their feet to use as a weapon against predators."""

 

[Evo]

Not only are we descended from apes - we are apes.

No, we are not descended from apes.

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

Hopefully this makes it clearer to you.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat02.html

It's too late to try to dig something else that sums it up clearly in a paragraph.

 

[eggomaniac]

Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed
5 to 8 million years ago. .

So we're not apes, we are apoids? How spell semantics?
Watch Dawkins call us apes.
argue with him about it.

and this>>>
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4121-elaine-morgan-says-we-evolved-from-aquatic-apes

 

[Ken Natton]

Eggomaniac, if I might try to help you to grasp what it is, it seems to me, that you are missing: I always think that the whole misunderstanding about the common ancestry of apes, of primates or of whatever other point you want to take in the complex phylogenetic structure has the wind taken out of its sails by this little astonishing evolutionary fact: There is powerful evidence, from microbiology, that human beings have a common ancestor with fruit flies. Now grasp it straight away, that common ancestor was neither fruit fly nor human. It might have borne no obvious morphological resemblance to fruit flies or human beings. And yet, whatever is common between modern fruit flies and modern humans – and there is a great deal more commonality between us than you might realize – existed in that common ancestor. There are any number of vastly different modern species who have a common ancestor, if you go far enough back down the evolutionary chain, but whose common ancestor would not belong to the modern classification of either modern species. So, the obvious morphological similarities between human beings and any other primate species is pretty powerful evidence that our common ancestor is much more recent than is human beings common ancestor with fruit flies. But that common ancestor still existed an awfully long time ago, and there is no accuracy at all in the idea that human beings are descended from any other modern primate.

And the key point in answer to your original post was explained in close detail by DaveC426913 in post #9. You should pay very close attention to that post. It is a vital point to grasp that no evolutionary change that has ever occurred in any species did so with any specific purpose. Those that happened to give the organism a selective advantage have survived and propagated through the species by the process of natural selection. But penguins are evolving neither in the direction of flightlessness or flightedness. They have developed their superb ability to swim because of the powerful selective advantage that ability has in the environment in which penguins live. But none of the incremental changes that occurred in their ancestors did so with the specific goal of becoming such superb swimmers. Evolution can’t do that.

 

[DaveC426913]

...human beings have a common ancestor with fruit flies. Now grasp it straight away, that common ancestor was neither fruit fly nor human.

...
So, the obvious morphological similarities between human beings and any other primate species is pretty powerful evidence that our common ancestor is much more recent than is human beings common ancestor with fruit flies. But that common ancestor still existed an awfully long time ago, and there is no accuracy at all in the idea that human beings are descended from any other modern primate.

Worth repeating.

You have no trouble understanding that the common ancestor of humans and fruit flies was neither. We did not descend from fruit flies.

Likewise, the common ancestor of humans and apes was neither. We did not descend from apes.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no reason to believe that the current flightless birds ever flew or flew well, so they did not necessarily go from flying to not flying.

This would astonish me.

Are you suggesting that no ancestor of modern penguins could fly?

I would bet a lot of money that no ancestral birds developed flight wings yet could not fly. It is only an adapation after the achievement of flight - and the extinction of any flightless prespecies - that birds found other niches where their flight withered.

In fact, I'm not sure it makes sense to call the flightless precursors of birds 'birds' at all. They would be ... lizards. I submit that the definition of birds is that it is that precursorial line of lizards that did develop flight.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

This would astonish me.

Are you suggesting that no ancestor of modern penguins could fly?

I would bet a lot of money that no ancestral birds developed flight wings yet could not fly. It is only an adapation after the achievement of flight - and the extinction of any flightless prespecies - that birds found other niches where their flight withered.

In fact, I'm not sure it makes sense to call the flightless precursors of birds 'birds' at all. They would be ... lizards. I submit that the definition of birds is that it is that precursorial line of lizards that did develop flight.

It takes many thousands to million years for a species with certain characteristics to evolve . How can we begin to speculate what was there before a particular species.

 

[DaveC426913]

It takes many thousands to million years for a species with certain characteristics to evolve . How can we begin to speculate what was there before a particular species.

We can see that all species that followed it had a certain trait. That is powerful evidence that he ancestor had that trait. To wit: flight.

If the precursors to penguins could not fly, they would not have wings. Wings were fully developed as flight controls before penguins went swimming and lost the ability, if not the structures.

Same with legs in whales. And snakes while we're at it.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

We can see that all species that followed it had a certain trait. That is powerful evidence that he ancestor had that trait. To wit: flight.

If the precursors to penguins could not fly, they would not have wings. Wings were fully developed as flight controls before penguins went swimming and lost the ability, if not the structures.

Same with legs in whales. And snakes while we're at it.

M y point is what if precursors to penguin were both aquatic and land based animal/bird. Then we have to go further back in time , which i feel sometimes becomes speculation.

I agree with the idea of using traits.
Problem with evolution is when we go further and further back, its difficult to understand what processes, pressures or traits were involved.

 

[madcat8000]

So we're not apes, we are apoids? How spell semantics?
Watch Dawkins call us apes.
argue with him about it.

and this>>>
http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4121-elaine-morgan-says-we-evolved-from-aquatic-apes

Actually were the third or forth subspecies of chimpanzees, Homo Sapian is a sever misnomer in that we were given our own classification through hubris. Hopefully well have that little mistake corrected in textbooks someday. Technicly we should be Pan sapien.

 

[JordanN]

Edit: Never mind.

 

[DaveC426913]

M y point is what if precursors to penguin were both aquatic and land based animal/bird.

How could proto penguins have developed wings if they never flew?

Then we have to go further back in time , which i feel sometimes becomes speculation.

I agree with the idea of using traits.
Problem with evolution is when we go further and further back, its difficult to understand what processes, pressures or traits that were involved.

If two animals share a trait, then (barring convergent evolution), they acquired that trait prior to speciating.

 

[bobze]

We can see that all species that followed it had a certain trait. That is powerful evidence that he ancestor had that trait. To wit: flight.

If the precursors to penguins could not fly, they would not have wings. Wings were fully developed as flight controls before penguins went swimming and lost the ability, if not the structures.

Same with legs in whales. And snakes while we're at it.

Bingo Dave.

Birds are birds, collectively, because they share a common ancestor who must have flown, The chances that lineages split off while they were "proto-birds", yet evolved all this time the exact same characteristics (wings, feathers, metabolic regulation, musculature, etc) is unrealistic.

 

[cosmos 2.0]

How could proto penguins have developed wings if they never flew?



If two animals share a trait, then (barring convergent evolution), they acquired that trait prior to speciating.

question is are those appendages (penguin flippers ) thought to come from wings that evolved under certain conditions ?

 

[eggomaniac]

Bingo Dave.

Birds are birds, collectively, because they share a common ancestor who must have flown, The chances that lineages split off while they were "proto-birds", yet evolved all this time the exact same characteristics (wings, feathers, metabolic regulation, musculature, etc) is unrealistic.

Dave and Bobze, it goes back to the title question. Which way is the chicken crossing the road?
1. I can contemplate the notion they, and other flightless birds, lost their ability to fly, especially if there are fossils showing this pattern.
2. Is it impossible chickens, and others, are in between, in the process of, becoming full flighted birds? You, yourself, and others claim birds were once reptiles.
It boils down to 2 possibilities, measured in Steps.
A. Step 1, lizards: Step 2, dodos, chickens: Step 3, eagles, hummingbirds
or your choice, if I understand what you are saying >>>
B. Step 1, lizards: Step 2, dodos, chickens: Step 3, eagles, hummingbirds: Step 4, Back to flightless
Instead of penguins, once flew, maybe?, it is one day they will fly!?
[[[ I wonder if the Earth is old enough for Option B
I don't know if there is enough 'proof' to confirm which one.
hmmmmm... Could, did, would any birds go back to being reptiles? eh

 

[turbo]

Something to think about. Here in Maine, we have ruffed grouse. They are strong fliers, at least for short distances, and when I shoot them, I harvest pretty much only the breast meat, because that's where all the muscle is. Their thighs and legs aren't worth dealing with - there is no meat in them. They are not descended from chickens. They are fast and skilled fliers (at least in short bursts in heavily-wooded terrain), but most of their muscle mass is dedicated to providing that adrenaline-pumping burst of speed when they flush. (Upland-game hunters know what I mean). Where do they stand in the evolution and the human selection of desirable traits that led to today's chickens?

 

[NobodySpecial]

No, we are not descended from apes.

I think that article is trying to emphasize that we are not descended from any of the other current great ape species - which is of course correct.

But to the extent that 'ape' has a meaning it is synonymous with the family 'Hominidae' = the great apes. One species of the family of Hominidae, along with our cousins gorilla and chimps, is homo sapien - or if you are feeling particularly pleased with yourself, "homo sapien sapiens"

I'm an ape, my parents were apes, the common ancestor of homo-sap and chimps was an ape and the common ancestor of human-chimp and gorillas was an ape.

 

[eggomaniac]

Eggomaniac, if I might try to help you to grasp what it is, it seems to me, that you are missing: I always think that the whole misunderstanding about the common ancestry of apes, of primates or of whatever other point you want to take in the complex phylogenetic structure has the wind taken out of its sails by this little astonishing evolutionary fact: There is powerful evidence, from microbiology, that human beings have a common ancestor with fruit flies. Now grasp it straight away, that common ancestor was neither fruit fly nor human. It might have borne no obvious morphological resemblance to fruit flies or human beings. And yet, whatever is common between modern fruit flies and modern humans – and there is a great deal more commonality between us than you might realize – existed in that common ancestor. There are any number of vastly different modern species who have a common ancestor, if you go far enough back down the evolutionary chain, but whose common ancestor would not belong to the modern classification of either modern species. So, the obvious morphological similarities between human beings and any other primate species is pretty powerful evidence that our common ancestor is much more recent than is human beings common ancestor with fruit flies. But that common ancestor still existed an awfully long time ago, and there is no accuracy at all in the idea that human beings are descended from any other modern primate.

Hey, if you check the Posts, someone else started the ape/human,,, side track. for the record, I'm just a passenger on that one. Now I wish he had started his OWN Thread.
What makes you think I can't 'fathom' flies as ancestors? In Krauss's talk about the Universe of Nothing he says our earliest 'ancestor' is star dust'. If I can contemplate that, what is so hard about flies, or anything with carbon and protein being our ancestor?
Dawkins calls us the 5th Ape and isn't He sort of the highest and mightiest of this stuff.
[[Reading your comments, sorry for my poor vocabulary, I can't understand if you are saying we are apes or no?]]
If someone started a Thread on that SEPARATE Topic, I would like to see if the Origin of Thought figured in there!? That is the main, pertinent, question in any ape/human study/debate.

 

[Evo]

My comment last night was based on

“Many of the world’s largest flightless birds, known as ratites, were thought to have shared a common flightless ancestor. We followed up on recent uncertainty surrounding this assumption,” said Dr Phillips.

“Our study suggests that the flighted ancestors of ratites appear to have been ground-feeding birds that ran well. So the extinction of the dinosaurs likely lifted predation pressures that had previously selected for flight and its necessary constraint, small size. Lifting of this pressure and more abundant foraging opportunities would then have selected for larger size and consequent loss of flight.”

http://www.sciencealert.com.au/news/20102201-20523.html

Apparently they had earlier ancestors with flight.

 

[eggomaniac]

Now that would make an interesting timeline, size and location species chart.
150 million year ago Archaeopteryx, [first bird] 0.5 m in Germany, leading up to a small flying tinamous of South America, then dinosaurs dieing off 65 million years ago for the develpoment of very large ratites, mostly in NZ and Au. It would seem to put 50 million years as a ball park figure for species change, among birds, anyway.
Edit; add 5 to 10 million years
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchiornis

 

[Ken Natton]

Okay eggomaniac, if I misread what it was you didn’t understand then I apologise. But there is no doubt, when you keep talking about which direction penguins are evolving in you are misunderstanding something pretty fundamental. Penguins are not evolving in any direction. No species ever evolves in any direction. You might have a case to argue about what penguins evolved from – although I have to say the evidence that they are descended from flighted birds is quite strong and it does not depend on interpreting their flippers as vestigial wings – but there is unquestionably no case to argue what they are going to evolve into. That depends on parameters we can’t know because they belong to the future. So to put it in terms of your original question, the chicken isn’t crossing the road in either direction. Perhaps it’s walking along the road, and no-one knows where it is headed.