The riddle has been solved by science!

I worked this out on my own about 15 years ago, using genetics. Upvote.

Good one!
27g71j.jpg (click to show)

Upvote!

You need new data in a DNA chain to turn a dinosaur into a chicken. Mutations are deletio- repi-repititions and sliyht changez. None of which addd the new data required for a chicken...

Multiple methods of mutation, yes, however none generate new information that is required. Other than maybe duplicating a body part or screwing with bone alignment, there's not much that can go on there. Any other ways? oh yea, genetic modification, but, we couldn't do that back then. What other ways are dinosaurs able to "turn into" chickens, as you suggest?

A single base pair change can generate new information via changes in conformational protein folding. See Sickle cell Anemia.
As far as your rounded second point, you make the incorrect assumption that anyone (besides you) assumes we are talking about a drastic change from dinosaur ancestor to chicken. No, we are talking a change from something that is almost a chicken "proto-chicken" to chicken, which doesn't require addressing the steps from Dinosaur to proto-chicken.

Yes, however, the "proto-chicken" is a middle step that is not seen in any paleontological evidence, as is the "middle step" between humans and apes.
If we do not have a "middle step" then entire idea falls apart.

In this context, a proto-chicken is simply the bird that was not quite a chicken genetically yet gave birth to a slightly mutated bird which was the first ever bird to qualify as a chicken. Such a very fine line would never show up in the fossil record.

Yes, I do agree with that. How ever, a species cannot jump from a dinosaur to a "proto-chicken" to a chicken in such a short amount of time.
In order for something to not show up on the fossil record, while nearly every other species is, means it passed very quickly on an "evolutionary" timescale. Which, I'm guessing, is about 10-100 years.

an absence of proof, is not proof of absence. Not having yet found the middle step, does not prove it doesn't exist.

Yet, it doesn't prove it DOES exist either.

I suppose you think that was profound.

In order for the chain of evolution to work, there has to be proof of a middle step. Scientists have fought over the "middle step" for a lot of things over the decades. So, how is the "proto-chicken" any different?

ok, clue me into "real" science then.
Since you think you're smarter than me.