Dragons

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I've just been watching a show on Animal Planet called "Dragons", which has lead me to the conclusion that dragons really did exist even as rescently as the 1400's. Much evidence has been found. What is your take?

[Watchman]

Are they part of the reason for global warming, too ? I mean, if the population has revived since then or His Pastaness liked them ?

[Papewaio]

As in dinosaurs/crocodiles/giant lizards?

Link and/or more information as I would like to see what they are calling dragons... they would leave some sort of bones/fossils and I assume that they weren't flying or firebreathing ones either.

[Aenlic]

Actually, if it's the same show I watched recently, then the conclusion was not that dragons existed but that ancient people mistook the world-wide finds of dinosaur fossils as evidence of dragons. Most prevalent dragon myths? China. Largest source of dinosaur fossils out in the open? China. QED.

In much the same way as evidence begins to suggest that Greek myths of an "age of heros" in which the people were much larger than life and things such as cyclops existed can be directly related to the frequent unearthing of mastodon fossils and such in the Greek Isles.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

After I'm finished watching, I'll inform you of the evidence.:book:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Ok, so basically there was a beast called a dragon in the Cretacious period with the dinasours. When the meteor hit the earth the "dragon" no longer could live on land, so therefore adapted to living in water, where they lived and turned into the present day crocodile or aligator. When the earth was inhabitable on land once more though, some of these crosses between a dragon and an aligator came on land in what is present day either China, or in that region, thus evolving back to the dragon from the age of the dinasour (with excepsions of course). They find mammals so they thrive on the food and eventually spread to Europe.

Now, the story skips ahead the evidence found. In the 1400's man had brought the dragon almost to extinction. The only kind left were the "Mountain dragon", which by the name you can tell, lived in the high mountains of Europe. Rescently, an entire story was uncovered in some mountains in Europe(I must have missed the name of the mountains).

In the cave they find a great many things. First of all they find a dead specimen, which no one knows what it is. They do extensive research to find that it is a female dragon baby. They find though that this dragon had not matured enough to breath fire, so it confused them when they found many human remains that were scorched to a crisp. They did more excavation to find the female mother (perhaps the last dragon alive), accompanied by more "crispy critters" if you will.

Scientists found evidence by the fact that the dragons had molars to come to the conclusion that the dragons used platinum as a catalyst to create the fire they breathed. They would grind the mineral on their molars and use it. They have a flap in the back of their throat (like an aligators) that can open and close when needed. The aligator uses this to make sure it doesn't swallow water when eating prey under water. The dragon uses it to make sure the fire doesn't scorch it's lungs and insides.

Basically the last female dragon could not find any food up in the mountains so it resorted to stealing sheep and other livestalk from the nearby peasants. The peasants got mad and attempted to climb the mountains and kill the beast, but they were not experienced enough to climb. The Lord and his Squire of that area went into the mountain to kill the beast instead at that time. When they entered the cave, the female adult was off hunting leaving the female child alone to fight the Lord and Squire. The dragon young was killed and the Lord and Squire waited for the adult to return. When the adult returns, the Lord escapes, but the Squire is burnt.

Later when the female is in a "hybernation" of sorts, many more humans come to attack the adult dragon. The dragon kills all the humans, but dies of her wounds, killing the last dragon.

The remains were kept preserved by the ice freezing over the corpses, allowing scientists to come up with the entire story and findings.

I'll try and find a link.

EDIT: Pape, they could fly and breathe fire using platinum as a catalyst.

[Csargo]

I always believed that dragons existed but not in the age were living in.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I always believed that dragons existed but not in the age we're living in.Gah, obviously you haven't met my ex yet...

[Avicenna]

I don't think the Chinese would have hunted dragons though, as they were mostly based on agriculture. The whole population wouldn't have moved, so that doesn't explain its extinction.

Anyway, what out its mouth? Its tongue and teeth would be scorched, so it wouldn't have any teeth left to eat, unless its teeth were made of some kind of salt, or a high mp metal such as tungsten, which i doubt.

I'm more inclined to believe that man had unearthed Pterodactyl fossils, taken the wings, and added them to some sort of dinosaur that vaguely resembled the dragon's body, which, depending on which culture's dragon you're talking about, could be a whole range of different dinosaurs.

Also, what about the fact that in Chinese myths some dragons lived in the sea, some lived in the sky, but as far as I know none live on land? They also seem to be literate, and know how to speak. They were sacred, unlike in Europe, where a dragon represented evil. No culture would wipe out an animal they believe to be sacred.

[AntiochusIII]

If anything, flying reptiles are a possibility but fire-breathing reptiles are crazy and only for pseudo-scientists you often see on such channels. As much as I'd like for the Dragons to be real and breathing fire, I'd bet it's quite impossible for a creature as large as that to even survive in such a condition, nevertheless having such a condition existed within it. The only things I could think of of being capable of surviving in extreme conditions--fire not included, in fact, as far as I've known--are bacterias.

Of course, I always loved the irony with the naming of the Komodo dragons. If any former living Dragons were like that, I'm glad they're all dead. I don't want to be bitten by one and got blood-poisoned to death. :dizzy2:

[Watchman]

There's also the pretty good question what the heck this supposed dragon would need a flame breath for. An organic flamethrower doesn't come across as a terribly effective hunting tool, and big carnivores tend not need much beyond their size, power, ferocity and assorted sharp protrusions to resolve arguments with their peers one way or another. For actual defensive weaponry their requirements are minimal, and normally met with evolving thicker skin, scales, mane to protect the throat, and suchlike, and/or making alternate use of a main hunting weapon if appropriate (think of the way some cobras can spit their poison at eyes).

Moreover, while chemistry isn't my strong suit I'd imagine gathering the raw materials and then turning them into usable fuel would be a pretty energy-intensive activity, nevermind now nigh certainly requiring some rather complicated internal organs and "piping" in forms thus far unobserved in nature. Nevermind now that platinum AFAIK isn't a terribly common metal, particularly in even remotely pure (ie. not stuck in ore) forms. And if there was a way to get that stuff to work, and be worth all the trouble, you'd think it was a little more common too, the same way venom glands are. Even natural electricity-based weaponry is found in several widely different animals (ie. electric rays and eels).

[English assassin]

Moreover, while chemistry isn't my strong suit I'd imagine gathering the raw materials and then turning them into usable fuel would be a pretty energy-intensive activity

Energy is just energy, doesn't matter what form it comes in.

As a pure for instance, yeast metabolise common or garden sugars into alcohol. For the sake of argument some sort of organ that produced an alcohol solution at about 10%, secreted it (topologically) externally to the body, and then extracted the water in the way that the kidney extracts water from urine seems perfectly feasible way for an organism to produce a highly flammable fluid that could then be stored in a bladder until needed.

(I can't see any remotely credible way it could be ignited though.)

Also, and at risk of completely debasing the conversation, methane is readily produced in a number of real live animals, and highly flammable...

In each case the total energy in the flammable substance is less than the food needed to create it of course, but I don't think it would require a prodigious amount of food.

(NB I don't believe for one moment there were dragons, I'm just saying.)

[Aenlic]

Whoa. I know the show you're talking about. It isn't meant to be accurate. It's a sort of "what if?" scenario. Then they re-enact or just plain act out the scenario of finding a modern day dragon in a cave, etc. It's a show similar to the recent spate of dramatizations of things like the super volcano under Yellowstone park in Wyoming erupting, or the recent movie called "10.5" which was just horrible. It's a dramatization based upon speculation. Pure entertainment value. You must've missed the disclaimer where they say the show isn't based on real events or science.

[Watchman]

That's not what I meant. What I meant is that for example venom is fairly "expensive" for the animals that use it to produce; whatever biological processes now are involved in secreting the stuff require energy. Sort of the same way as using them brains is rather energy-sapping for smart animals (as most no doubt know from experience, extended periods of serious intellectual stimulation, say exams, are very tiring). Ergo, the animals that use it do so rather frugally, and only for a reason. Venomous serpents for example only inject as much as they "think" is necessary to take down the victim, and if it doesn't drop will try again. I understand young serpents are actually often more dangerous than adults, as their control of the "dosage" isn't as good and they often just pump the entire venom sac into the target especially if frightened.

Others use different applications. Komodo dragons for example mix it with their saliva, and if they can't take their prey down initially will simply chase it until the rather diluted venom weakens it enough for the lizard to move in for the kill.

I don't know the details, but I'd imagine producing a full-strenght jolt is also pretty physically exhausting for electric eels and rays. The energy has to come from somewhere after all, and maintaining enough of it tends to support vital functions tends to be among the main concerns of all organisms.

Now, what the point is is that gathering, producing and storing suitable "fuel" for an organic flamethrower would not seem to be any less of a considerable undertaking - all the more so if some of the chemicals involved are of a sort that needs to be synthetized from raw materials. Thus, an organism is unlikely to invest the energy and effort required unless it has a good reason to.

And I really fail to see why what would sound like a cross between a crocodile and a big monitor lizard would have the slightest need for that sort of complicated chemical weapon. High-end carnivores in general get by right fine with just being fast, fierce, well armed with tooth and nail, and/or good at ambush/pouncing attacks.

Most of the reasonably easily produceable flammable chemicals I can think of don't make terribly good incendiary weapons either - assorted alcohols spring to mind, and those have pretty low burn temperatures. Petrochemicals are Right Out - the natural processes that produce them are in no way reproduceable inside a living creature, and their natural supply is very limited as far as an animal is concerned (natural seepage of crude oil occurs in certain regions, but that's about it). Moreover, I don't think most animals are too flammable either. Certainly not to a degree where breathing fire on them would be an effective hunting tactic, plus that has unacceptable amounts of possible side effects (like, say, setting vegetation aflame - I doubt these supposed "dragons" particularly enjoy being charbroiled by brushfires...). One would imagine the primary function of a burst of flame would be psychological - animals fear fire, after all. But what the heck a major carnivore would need it for is beyond me. Those guys tend to sit at the top of the food chain with few natural enemies, and are more likely than not to avoid direct physical conflict with other superpredators (since the risk of a crippling injury rather outweighs most other considerations). They're not going to need a weapon to drive away enemies, since they as such have none (except others of their own species, and that mainly around mating season) in the first place.

Complicated and effective chemical weaponry is AFAIK most common in the lower and middle regions of the food-chain pyramid. Smaller predators, which lack the sheer horsepower and natural weaponry of the big superpredators, often use chemical warfare to help in defense against bigger carnivores (think skunks, or venomous frogs), offense to take down prey or both. The big critters at the top of the pile simply don't have much need for such complexities, although some - like the Komodo dragons - use it as an auxiliary weapon anyway, but then that may just be an evolutionary remnant that's stuck around because it's useful enough to pay itself back.

In short, even ignoring the practical chemical and physiological problems involved in a "living flamethrower", there's no logical reason why a large carnivore would evolve such a complicated chemical weapon system. It simply wouldn't need one for anything.

[English assassin]

Ah, well, I agree with that. The energy would no doubt be better spent on bigger muscles, or on laying more eggs, or what have you.

[Watchman]

Besides, if an animal wanted to squirt nasty stuff at things corrosives would seem a lot better choice than incendiaries. The production process isn't going to be any less taxing, but at least the product is fairly safe, stable, and effective. How many animals are going to press on after receiving a faceful of even mild acid ? Nevermind now if it's also at least slightly toxic. And a miss won't bring the forest burning down on your scaly ass either.

'Course, a big superpredator would have no use for that either, for aforementioned reasons.

[lars573]

There's also the pretty good question what the heck this supposed dragon would need a flame breath for. An organic flamethrower doesn't come across as a terribly effective hunting tool, and big carnivores tend not need much beyond their size, power, ferocity and assorted sharp protrusions to resolve arguments with their peers one way or another. For actual defensive weaponry their requirements are minimal, and normally met with evolving thicker skin, scales, mane to protect the throat, and suchlike, and/or making alternate use of a main hunting weapon if appropriate (think of the way some cobras can spit their poison at eyes).

Moreover, while chemistry isn't my strong suit I'd imagine gathering the raw materials and then turning them into usable fuel would be a pretty energy-intensive activity, nevermind now nigh certainly requiring some rather complicated internal organs and "piping" in forms thus far unobserved in nature. Nevermind now that platinum AFAIK isn't a terribly common metal, particularly in even remotely pure (ie. not stuck in ore) forms. And if there was a way to get that stuff to work, and be worth all the trouble, you'd think it was a little more common too, the same way venom glands are. Even natural electricity-based weaponry is found in several widely different animals (ie. electric rays and eels).
Well to have an organic flamethrower all you'd need are to large vemon sacks that each contain a different cocktale, which combust on contact with each other in the air. And when sprayed in a mist or jet form in front of the creatures mouth they mix and combust. The only problem would be volume. Cobras and other poisonus snakes rely on quality rather than quantity. :skull: The other problem is that to use the flamethrower the wind has to be with you. Or your skin and the soft tissues in your mouth have to be flame retardant. And you eyes would need some kind of flame shield second lid. And as to the energy use of making them. Well as I said many creatures produce poisons, electric eels have an organic genereator.

But I've seen the show Alex was watching. It's from the producers of walking with dinosaurs and prehistoric beasts. And it's tongue firmly in cheek, there is a scene where knights in plate attack a dragon and slay it.

[English assassin]

Aha, the old Me 163 approach, eh? with the added bonus of the dragons beign able to accelerate backwards at a huge rate

I'm going to show the limits of MY chemistry, but for ignition the way you describe, one of those two liquids would have to be a monster oxidising agent. Much more oxisiding than air, obviously. And while I can see no in principle reason why a volatile fuel could not be produced and stored (at least if it was an alcohol), storing an oxidising agent in a biological system is much harder. Because it will oxidise it.

[Watchman]

It also doesn't make too much sense compared to carrying around a bladderful of something venomous or corrosive. That seems to be the tried-and-true method, anyway.

The fact that having to produce and store the binary agent separately would seem rather impractical and uneconomical might have something to do with it.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

There's also the pretty good question what the heck this supposed dragon would need a flame breath for. An organic flamethrower doesn't come across as a terribly effective hunting tool, and big carnivores tend not need much beyond their size, power, ferocity and assorted sharp protrusions to resolve arguments with their peers one way or another. For actual defensive weaponry their requirements are minimal, and normally met with evolving thicker skin, scales, mane to protect the throat, and suchlike, and/or making alternate use of a main hunting weapon if appropriate (think of the way some cobras can spit their poison at eyes).

Moreover, while chemistry isn't my strong suit I'd imagine gathering the raw materials and then turning them into usable fuel would be a pretty energy-intensive activity, nevermind now nigh certainly requiring some rather complicated internal organs and "piping" in forms thus far unobserved in nature. Nevermind now that platinum AFAIK isn't a terribly common metal, particularly in even remotely pure (ie. not stuck in ore) forms. And if there was a way to get that stuff to work, and be worth all the trouble, you'd think it was a little more common too, the same way venom glands are. Even natural electricity-based weaponry is found in several widely different animals (ie. electric rays and eels).

For one thing, they used their fire to keep the young warm (mountain dragons anyway). They had rocks in a cone shape and inside were the eggs. They would breathe fire on the rocks and keep a flame going inside the little cone. If the babies went under 60 degrees the embryo would die.

I didn't hear exactly what it was that kept the mouths of the dragons from scorching, but they were talking about it, so they addressed the issue.

EDIT: Also, the dragons in the cretacious period, dragons had to fight T-Rex's. Dragons were not as strong as a T-rex, and wasn't even as big, but they used fire to scorch the tops of the T-rex head or some other important area. I'll look more into it

[Watchman]

Okay, so not only did they breathe fire but use it too ? Cor blimey, and here I thought it took a bunch of hairless apes to do that...

[Avicenna]

Fighting the T-Rex? T-Rex's don't fight, they just scavenge their food from others. If it could take the food from the T-Rex anyway, there'd be no need to fight. If it did that to weaken the T-Rex, I seriously doubt that would work, because that would just get it angry and guarantee that it would bite the dragon when trying to snatch the food.

So did these cone-shaped rocks occur naturally or not?

[Watchman]

"Hijackers" like the Big Rex (which usually also double as "pouncing" hunters when they can't pillage someone else's prey) very rarely actually fight over the possession of the dead critter with others anyway. That's sort of the whole point in being big, bad and fierce; being sufficiently overwhelming that the other critter backs down without a risky and energy-wasting brawl.

Carnivores in general seem to prefer not to fight each other head on (although sufficiently bigger or otherwise more lethal ones may well count the others amongst their prey...). The return-of-investement and risk/gain ratios simply aren't worth it.

[English assassin]

Ha. I've got it. Doh, I should have thought of this before. Natural selection may be out, but sexual selection could be in. If lady dragons liked the male dragons with the biggest fireballs, then male dragons balls will get bigger and bigger, however wasteful they are.

We've still got insurmountable problems with the basic chemistry, (and don't think I haven't noticed the sudden appearance of an entire extreme thermophile biochemistry, hitherto unknown in multicellular organisms, implied by the eggs dying below 60 degrees) but you can't say there couldn't be an evolutionary pressure.

[Watchman]

Truly exaggerated developement of secondary sexual traits - think those "paradise birds" for an example - only seems to happen in the absence of dangerous competition, though. Mating arrangements can get pretty wacky (I've watched assorted waterfowl dance around each other recently, and wondered just what kind of evolution programs those ballets into their little brains), but if they take a turn towards exaggerated physical characteristics to a point that become liablity in a dangerous environment they're obviously going to get cut pretty short.

I mean, flame-belching shows are going to leave the males with some mammoth "fuel bills" they're not going to have too easy a time to meet. Plus they're kinda likely to, shall we say, burn the house down on their ears...

[Ja'chyra]

As much as I would like it to be true, I think it's very unlikely that Dragons existed, at least the fire breathing type.

Oh, and Komodo Dragons aren't venomous, it's the bacteria in their mouths that make wounds fester and so poison the bloodstream.

[English assassin]

I'm not giving up on sexual selection that easily. There's a pretty good argument that the truly freakish development of the human brain is as much due to sexual selection as the peacock's tail, and that occured in an environment of dangerous competition (eg lions) and imposes a huge energy burden on us.

[BTW when did the monastery become the genetic modification forum?]

[Watchman]

I recently read it's actually venom, not bacteria. Which really makes sense when you think about it; all animals have their mouths crawling with microbes after all, so why would the Komodos have so much more virulent strains especially as this attack method AFAIK isn't known in any other animal ? On the other hand, venom glands in carnivorous reptiles aren't all that unusual.

The Komodos just let the stuff mix with the saliva in their mouth rather than injecting it directly from the storage sac into the target like snakes do, so of course it's pretty diluted. But then their hunting method doesn't require fast takedown either; I've read the tenacious buggers can follow their targets for days if need be.

[Watchman]

I'm not giving up on sexual selection that easily. There's a pretty good argument that the truly freakish development of the human brain is as much due to sexual selection as the peacock's tail, and that occured in an environment of dangerous competition (eg lions) and imposes a huge energy burden on us.The male lions' manes serve clear practical function - they protect the throat from hostile fangs. And how do about all the major competitors male lions can expect to fight against (other lions and hyenas mostly) primarily kill things ? By going for the throat. AFAIK aside from their reproductive duties (and fighting off up-and-coming male lions) one of the males' chief duties in lion prides is to act as the heavy artillery in the endless squabbles with the hyenas, which are wont to give way to the big lugs where they otherwise wouldn't.

The human survival strategy came to be based on cunning, communications and eventually tool use. That needs brains. Since it's also pretty workable, the brains kept growing. Duh.

As for the peacocks... well, males are more expendable anyways as far as reproductive strategy goes. Plus they obviously didn't have all that many critters after their heads, given the grotesque size the males' tails have reached. Their assorted cousins seem to generally favor lot less cumbersome methods of showing off.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Fighting the T-Rex? T-Rex's don't fight, they just scavenge their food from others. If it could take the food from the T-Rex anyway, there'd be no need to fight. If it did that to weaken the T-Rex, I seriously doubt that would work, because that would just get it angry and guarantee that it would bite the dragon when trying to snatch the food.

So did these cone-shaped rocks occur naturally or not?

The dragon mother and father would make the cone-shaped rock structures using many rocks. They built it in their caves in the mountains.

The mature male T-rex when searching for food, would often come upon the young dragon in the nest. The T-rex would win that fight, but if the parent dragon came, there would be a fight...

[Watchman]

T-Rex weren't exactly mountain dwellers AFAIK, though. They seem rather more like the plains/sparse woodland sort...

[English assassin]

The human survival strategy came to be based on cunning, communications and eventually tool use. That needs brains. Since it's also pretty workable, the brains kept growing. Duh

I didn't mean lions as an example of sexual selection, I meant we evolved an every energy intensive organ despite being under predation pressure from lions.

Cunning communication and tool use you get with a chimp sized brain. What can the selection pressure have been that drove humans to evolve such an extremely overdeveloped brain? Lions don't seem that bright, our brains are way over specified for that.

It can only have been social interection with other humans. I make your girl laugh, I tell you I saw some nice berries down by the waterhole where in fact I saw hungry lions...bingo, no more you and more little me's. Or maybe you see through my lying game, get a couple of mates together, and bingo, no more me and its my girl looking for a new squeeze.

And so it went.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

T-Rex weren't exactly mountain dwellers AFAIK, though. They seem rather more like the plains/sparse woodland sort...

You are correct. When I'm talking about dragons in the cretacious time, with the dinasours, I am not talking of the "mountain dragon". The Mountain dragon came later on after the meteor killed most land animals.

[Watchman]

I didn't mean lions as an example of sexual selection, I meant we evolved an every energy intensive organ despite being under predation pressure from lions.

Cunning communication and tool use you get with a chimp sized brain. What can the selection pressure have been that drove humans to evolve such an extremely overdeveloped brain? Lions don't seem that bright, our brains are way over specified for that.

It can only have been social interection with other humans. I make your girl laugh, I tell you I saw some nice berries down by the waterhole where in fact I saw hungry lions...bingo, no more you and more little me's. Or maybe you see through my lying game, get a couple of mates together, and bingo, no more me and its my girl looking for a new squeeze.

And so it went.Humans took a few alternate turns from the path the chimps pursued, AFAIK. Anyway, you yourself listed some of the main points - communication and creativity. It takes fairly advanced mental capacity to intentionally lie for example, by what I understand of it.

Being clever is one way to survive predators. It seems to be particularly common amongst omnivores (who need to be reasonably smart to figure out what's edible too). Succesful strategies often seem to become kind of self-reinforcing too. Sharks for example seem to have hit on to a pretty winning combination millions of years ago, as have for example crocodiles. The speed of cheetahs forced some of their primary prey to also become fast and agile, which duly forced the fast cats to become even better sprinters, which...

You get the idea. The smarter early humans got the better they were at finding food and surviving predators, so they kept getting smarter. Along the way they traded off quite a bit of stuff - as becomes readily apparent if you put a Homo Sapiens Sapiens next to any ape - but it seems to have worked pretty well overall.


You are correct. When I'm talking about dragons in the cretacious time, with the dinasours, I am not talking of the "mountain dragon". The Mountain dragon came later on after the meteor killed most land animals.Oh ? Then you really need to formulate your posts more clearly.

How big are these "dragons" supposed to be anyway ? T-Rex are pretty sodding huge -typical of "hijackers"- as well as tall. I'm under the impression these critters ought to have a bit of a hard time breathing fire on any even remotely sensitive part of the big critters...

Of course, reptile scales aren't terribly flammable either. Larger animals didn't start going around covered with stuff you can actually set on fire until rather a bit later, so the flamethrower's efficiency as a weapon is more than a bit suspect.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

How big are these "dragons" supposed to be anyway ? T-Rex are pretty sodding huge -typical of "hijackers"- as well as tall. I'm under the impression these critters ought to have a bit of a hard time breathing fire on any even remotely sensitive part of the big critters...

Of course, reptile scales aren't terribly flammable either. Larger animals didn't start going around covered with stuff you can actually set on fire until rather a bit later, so the flamethrower's efficiency as a weapon is more than a bit suspect.

Well, I couldn't tell you exactly how big these dragons were, but it was big enough to give the T-rex a fight. (the males in their prime at their best though).

The dragons would use it's claws to sort of 'punch' at the T-rex, while flying (sort of a hover) above the ground, making it's head the same height of the T-rex's head. It just spout flames in the face of the T-rex, making it go away, if not mortally wounding it...

[wolftrapper78]

Has anyone heard of the Bombadier Beetle. It makes fire and shoots it at it's enemies. Why couldn't a dragon/dinosaur use the same stuff, just on a bigger scale? Look at some the crazy headgear on some dinosaurs. Who's to say that they weren't chambers holding combustible materials. Maybe 'primitive' man wasn't making all that up.

[Avicenna]

The fact is, the T-Rex would probably bite its head off before it got within punching range.

[Watchman]

Has anyone heard of the Bombadier Beetle. It makes fire and shoots it at it's enemies. Why couldn't a dragon/dinosaur use the same stuff, just on a bigger scale? Look at some the crazy headgear on some dinosaurs. Who's to say that they weren't chambers holding combustible materials. Maybe 'primitive' man wasn't making all that up.Bombardier beetles do not spit fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_beetle). Period.

'Sides, primitive man never saw a single dinosaur anyway. It was busy dodging felines with really big canines.

...
Wait... flying ? Since when have we been discussing flying creatures here ? And just how many limbs are we talking about anyway ?

[Avicenna]

Since Alexander didn't specify apart from saying that that dragons existed, I think that according to him they did fly and had four legs. He mentioned about them 'hovering at head height' or something along those lines.

[Watchman]

Six limbs (not counting the tail, obviously, but that's just an extension of the spine anyway) would pretty much make them space aliens then. No terrestrial vertebrate has more than four limbs. None.

:idea2:
That'd actually explain a whole lot when you think about it...

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I'd like to say sorry, for lacking the skills to completely explain everything.

Anyway, it had four legs (front and rear) and a tail for balance as well as wings. They did fly.

Keep asking questions and I'll answer, since I'm not the best at giving all info.

[Watchman]

So which astronomical object they came from ? Has their ship been found yet ?

[Alexanderofmacedon]

So which astronomical object they came from ? Has their ship been found yet ?

Are you trying to be a jerk?

[Watchman]

Sarcastic.
So where'd all the other six-limbed animals be hiding then ? If the design is even remotely workable you're going to have quite a few variations of it after all...

[Justiciar]

Wasn't it said a few posts ago that said show was purely for entertainment and not to be taken literally? I think you should perhaps look into the program before continuing the debate, Alexanderofmacedon. If it's the one I remember, you shouldn't take it as gospel.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Wasn't it said a few posts ago that said show was purely for entertainment and not to be taken literally? I think you should perhaps look into the program before continuing the debate, Alexanderofmacedon. If it's the one I remember, you shouldn't take it as gospel.

Oh, I know. In that show, some was deffinetly entertainment (like the way they found their mate and did a 'ritual' like the eagle does. They grasp tallons high in the air and spiral down in a freefall).

Watchman, they had FOUR legs, not six. The other variations are the alligator, and the crocodile. I'll try to find more.

[Watchman]

Limbs, not legs. Wings are limbs. Two wings plus four legs equals six limbs.

Aside from insects, all the winged critters we have ever had around were four-limbers whose front/upper limbs serve as wings.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Limbs, not legs. Wings are limbs. Two wings plus four legs equals six limbs.

Aside from insects, all the winged critters we have ever had around were four-limbers whose front/upper limbs serve as wings.

Oh, I see. Okay.

[Aenlic]

I saw the program. I'll repeat my earlier post and try to be more clear. It was a dramatization. A "what-if" scenario made real with special effects. It was similar to a recent program I saw on the same channel where scientists tried to envision what alien life forms would look like in various conditions on their worlds. They then used special effects to bring the suppositions to life. This program was exactly the same thing. Various ways were discussed in which dragons might have developed and acted if they were actually real, which the program specifically stated they were not. They then brought them to life visually with special effects to illustrate the points. The program was intended as pure fantasy. It wasn't intended as fact, but as entertainment.

[Uesugi Kenshin]

I recently read it's actually venom, not bacteria. Which really makes sense when you think about it; all animals have their mouths crawling with microbes after all, so why would the Komodos have so much more virulent strains especially as this attack method AFAIK isn't known in any other animal ? On the other hand, venom glands in carnivorous reptiles aren't all that unusual.

The Komodos just let the stuff mix with the saliva in their mouth rather than injecting it directly from the storage sac into the target like snakes do, so of course it's pretty diluted. But then their hunting method doesn't require fast takedown either; I've read the tenacious buggers can follow their targets for days if need be.

Wouldn't we be able to find a venom sack in a dead Komodo Dragon?

I'm, sure if I had a couple of corpses to work with I could track it down in a weekend so long as it was larger than a golfball.

If you want to test this just send me some corpses!

EDIT:NVM

[Alexanderofmacedon]

I saw the program. I'll repeat my earlier post and try to be more clear. It was a dramatization. A "what-if" scenario made real with special effects. It was similar to a recent program I saw on the same channel where scientists tried to envision what alien life forms would look like in various conditions on their worlds. They then used special effects to bring the suppositions to life. This program was exactly the same thing. Various ways were discussed in which dragons might have developed and acted if they were actually real, which the program specifically stated they were not. They then brought them to life visually with special effects to illustrate the points. The program was intended as pure fantasy. It wasn't intended as fact, but as entertainment.

Some of it I agree deffinetly was, but most is based on factual information and very, very, very educated guesses.

[Reverend Joe]

Watchman- from what I have heard, the Komodo Dragons do indeed use bacteria, not poison. Apparently it's some pretty horrendous stuff, and it takes several days to bring down the animal via rot and bacterial poisoning. I also believe they get a lot of mouth problems because of this, so it is almost as much of a liability as an asset. Apparently their breath is horrendous as well.

[Atilius]

from what I have heard, the Komodo Dragons do indeed use bacteria, not poison. Apparently it's some pretty horrendous stuff, and it takes several days to bring down the animal via rot and bacterial poisoning.

Here's a link to the Honolulu Zoo's Komodo Dragons (http://www.honoluluzoo.org/komodo_dragon.htm)- it mentions the virulent bacteria in the creature's mouth.

[Ja'chyra]

I think the jury is still out on the bacteria venom issue tbh, most people believe that it is bacteria but a few have suggested venom as they reckon the effects are too fast acting to be bacteria, no-one, as far as I know, has found a venom gland yet though and suggest is is produced as part of the saliva.

I would've thought it would be easy to confirm with a sample of saliva though.

[Aenlic]

I think the jury is still out on the bacteria venom issue tbh, most people believe that it is bacteria but a few have suggested venom as they reckon the effects are too fast acting to be bacteria, no-one, as far as I know, has found a venom gland yet though and suggest is is produced as part of the saliva.

I would've thought it would be easy to confirm with a sample of saliva though.

Komodo dragons aren't exactly cooperative test subjects. :wink:

The bacteria isn't especially fast-acting. From what I've read it takes a couple of days to kill the victim. Komodo's simply wait for it to die, when they can then smell the dead flesh. Their sense of smell is very exacting; so they then just follow the scent to the meat. Unfortunately for them, so can many others, as well. It seems that komodo's live off each other's kills most of the time. But it isn't their primary means of hunting. It's just an added bonus if their prey escapes. If they used poison, I'd expect it to be their primary hunting method, from an evolutionary standpoint, like venomous snakes.

[Pannonian]

Well to have an organic flamethrower all you'd need are to large vemon sacks that each contain a different cocktale, which combust on contact with each other in the air. And when sprayed in a mist or jet form in front of the creatures mouth they mix and combust. The only problem would be volume. Cobras and other poisonus snakes rely on quality rather than quantity. :skull: The other problem is that to use the flamethrower the wind has to be with you. Or your skin and the soft tissues in your mouth have to be flame retardant. And you eyes would need some kind of flame shield second lid.

Wouldn't it be better to produce flame from the other end of the digestive system? Digestion already produces methane, while there is less need to protect the rear end and hence less need for complicated mechanisms for protecting delicate tissues. Skunks and a number of other animals thusly propel protective liquids from their rear. Actually, unless the liquid explicitly works in combination with the teeth, there is little advantage in having it propelled from the front a la spitting cobras (whose venom is a progression of the normal get in bloodstream kind).

[Aenlic]

Flaming dragon flatulence is much less romantic. St. George would have ended up being the patron saint of proctologists! :wink:

[Avicenna]

Unless you had an eye at your rear end, I think you'd find it terribly difficult to aim well :tongue:

[Ianofsmeg16]

Ok, so basically there was a beast called a dragon in the Cretacious period with the dinasours. When the meteor hit the earth the "dragon" no longer could live on land, so therefore adapted to living in water, where they lived and turned into the present day crocodile or aligator. When the earth was inhabitable on land once more though, some of these crosses between a dragon and an aligator came on land in what is present day either China, or in that region, thus evolving back to the dragon from the age of the dinasour (with excepsions of course). They find mammals so they thrive on the food and eventually spread to Europe....
Sorry I've responded to this so late but the budding Palaeontologist in me just clicked alive.
No offence meant at all AoM but that whole first paragraph is wrong to the core. Crocodiles and Alligators did not evolve in the cretacious period, fossilized skeletons of Primitive Crocodiles that did indeed live on land were found in 2004 that lived 230 - 150 mya called Junggarsuchussloani. These types of Reptile were called psuedosuchians and walked on their hind legs. Slowly but surely they lived more and more of their time in the water, slowly adapting to living aquatically.
The whole notion of Dragons may or may not be true, but until I see a skeleton I'm not convinced. I certainly don't believe that they evolved from crocodiles.

[Flavius Clemens]

Many years ago when I was at school, one of my friends wrote a 'what if' article for the school magazine on whether dragons could have existed. One of his arguments was that the fire breathing was obviously hydrogen, as only a big internal sac of such a light gas would allow as bulky creature as a dragon to fly!

Sounds like this TV show came from the same school of imaginative whimsy!

[GoreBag]

What if a dragon wasn't using fire to hunt, but to cook, the same way as humans learned to, simply because it makes it easier to separate meat from the bone?

[Seagrave]

Chemistry isn't my strong suit, but isn't there chemicals (potassium i think) that reacts and burns when it touches water? The body can absorb potassium from foods, such as bannanas, and uses it for it's own uses. Wouldn't it be possible that the body was able to seperate it and store some as a solution, in one bladder. Then store water in another. You could in theory have 2 wind pipe type tubes such as snakes use that can extend out so they can breath while swallowing, this would allow the solution and the water to be sprayed from the mouth with out mixing and buring within the critters mouth.

About being able to burn things to death. I can tell you from personel training as a firefighter that it would be easy to kill a large animal with out torching it. Fire can burn from several hundered to thousands of degrees F. The heat can sear and destroy lung tissue. A blast of flame to the face of a critter that was breathed in could very easily kill, or in the very least severly incapacitae the target.

All that being said, I seriously doubt dragons existed, or atleast in that form, but we'll never know. As for Dinosaurs, you gotta remember, we've never seen let alone diasected one. All we know is bone structure, and some skin imprints. There is a lot biologicaly that was contained with in that skeliton that we'll never know. We place ideas that seem logical into things we don't know. Look back at history and tell me how many time people KNEW what the ONLY answer could be , because to what they knew it was the only possible logical answer. Yet now we know they were wrong.

Anywho, thanks for the laughs, the 2nd page of this tread about killed me. :laugh4: :laugh4:

[English assassin]

Chemistry isn't my strong suit, but isn't there chemicals (potassium i think) that reacts and burns when it touches water? The body can absorb potassium from foods, such as bannanas, and uses it for it's own uses. Wouldn't it be possible that the body was able to seperate it and store some as a solution, in one bladder

Sorry, and not being arsey, but no. Potassium in food is in the form of potassium ions, which are not flammable (they have "already burnt" in a sense). I'm not sure know if a biological system could generate enough reducing power to convert K+ ions to metallic potassium, but lets assume it could. Given that animals are about 70% water, though, the problems of transporting and storing metallic potassium (which as you say ignites spontaneously in water) would surely be insuperable. You'd somehow have to get the potassium formed in a lipid (ie oil) environment, which would complicate what was already a very unfeasible reaction.

I'm going with methane (for ease of production and ignition) ignited with a small amount of spontaneously inflammable gas (bit more tricky that) when I GM my dragons.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Sorry I've responded to this so late but the budding Palaeontologist in me just clicked alive.
No offence meant at all AoM but that whole first paragraph is wrong to the core. Crocodiles and Alligators did not evolve in the cretacious period, fossilized skeletons of Primitive Crocodiles that did indeed live on land were found in 2004 that lived 230 - 150 mya called Junggarsuchussloani. These types of Reptile were called psuedosuchians and walked on their hind legs. Slowly but surely they lived more and more of their time in the water, slowly adapting to living aquatically.
The whole notion of Dragons may or may not be true, but until I see a skeleton I'm not convinced. I certainly don't believe that they evolved from crocodiles.

No, either you read my post wrong, or I'm not very good at explaining things, but let me go again.

Dragons were around in the cretacious at the end when the meteor hit. After the meteor hit, the dragons were forced into the water, where they adapted into the alligator and crocodile AFTER the cretacious. Dragons did not evolve from crocs, its the other way around. :2thumbsup:

[Alexanderofmacedon]

What if a dragon wasn't using fire to hunt, but to cook, the same way as humans learned to, simply because it makes it easier to separate meat from the bone?

You are correct. They did use it for cooking purposes.

[Peasant Phill]

alexanderofmacedon are you all basing this on that TV show?

I find the fact that dragons would use fire to cook not really believable unless a dragon prefers it meal burnt on the outside and rare on the inside. Lets assume the dragon caught something the size of a pig. The dragon would then have to breath fire on it for hours to get it cooked and even longer if it supposed to fall of the bones. And don't begin with that it builds a fireplace like the one it builds to keep its offspring warm. If dragons would be that smart it would be at the same level as early humans.

An other remark, about the land-water-land evolution. Why would an animal have fire as a weapon if it lived in the water? breathing fire is useless in a wet enviroment.

[English assassin]

No, either you read my post wrong, or I'm not very good at explaining things, but let me go again.

Dragons were around in the cretacious at the end when the meteor hit. After the meteor hit, the dragons were forced into the water, where they adapted into the alligator and crocodile AFTER the cretacious. Dragons did not evolve from crocs, its the other way around. :2thumbsup:

What Ian meant was crocodiles have been around for longer than the dragon story allows. Modern crocs evolved during the Cretaceous period, not after it. They survived the meteor. (And well developed fossil record traces crocodile evolution back well before even that time, its just the modern species that "only" arose in the cretaceous).

Crocodiles are actually a very ancient family.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

alexanderofmacedon are you all basing this on that TV show?

I find the fact that dragons would use fire to cook not really believable unless a dragon prefers it meal burnt on the outside and rare on the inside. Lets assume the dragon caught something the size of a pig. The dragon would then have to breath fire on it for hours to get it cooked and even longer if it supposed to fall of the bones. And don't begin with that it builds a fireplace like the one it builds to keep its offspring warm. If dragons would be that smart it would be at the same level as early humans.

An other remark, about the land-water-land evolution. Why would an animal have fire as a weapon if it lived in the water? breathing fire is useless in a wet enviroment.

I'm sorry I didn't specify. They used fire to cook their meat after the dinasour age when they were eating mammals with fur because the fur was hard for them to digest.

Again sorry for not specifying.

[Xiahou]

As several people have tried to mention- this show is fake, as in not true, as in madeup. :wink:

The show was basically about attempting to apply real-life biology to a fictional creature. There were no fossils, preserved bodies or anything else- that was all dramatized.

[Tellos Athenaios]

If I'm not mistaken, I've seen the same show and you must admit that it's an 'what if' - based on (fake) observations that could be seen as proof of the former existance of dragons, right?

In this post I have read several parts on the (non)existance of dragons, some seeking a mixture that would explain the fire breathing part. Now, if one dragon would use, for example, hydrogen it would end up without fire (hydrogen burns invisible and way too fast) while getting itself killed in the process (since even before little of the hydrogen has escaped the dragon it blasts the animal away into very tiny pieces (properly cooked by now)). Forget about converting K+ ions to metal, this needs an molten salt enviroment containing K+ ions. And the molten salt enviroment would require a dragon made of steel, or similair stuff. Methane seems most likely, since swamps for example contain lots of this gas. But the problem is that to ignite this gas you'd still need an open flame. Which requires not only loads of energy to make it utterly pointless, but makes it also highly unlikely that an living animal would use such a feature. Given the natural habitat of the animal, it would set the surroundings on fire and burn the dragon itself. Maybe if we just forget about a flame throwing animal?

(One note on the process of thinking requiring loads of energy as proven by an after-exams fatigue: thinking consumes so little energy that it's nearly minute and so difficult to measure that devices to measure thinking processes use the fact that while thinking your brains change chemically (i.e. K+ and Na+ ions are organized in a distinct pattern when one cell transmits a tiny jolt to an other cell). However with exams, it's the upkeep of your high hormone levels (such as that of adrenaline) that makes you tired - these processes involve lots of chemical reactions and 'wasting' of energy.)

[cunctator]

This whole thread seems to be based on the Dragon's World fictional documentary.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0007MAO0W/qid=1148726168/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-2643626-3825545?s=dvd&v=glance&n=130

Amazon online review:


Fantasy enthusiasts and animal documentary aficionados alike are sure to get a kick from this imaginative blend of adventure and nature special that purports to investigate the discovery of a dragon’s corpse in modern-day Romania. Director Justin Hardy skillfully balances the framing story of a British scientific team that attempts to understand the creature’s unique capabilities (flight, fire breathing) with documentary-style "re-creations" (narrated by The Lord of the Rings’ Ian Holm) that explain how dragons evolved since prehistoric times. Stunning CGI effects (members of the visual effects team worked previously on the Walking with Dinosaurs series and Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets) help make these flashbacks as realistic as possible, but what really sells the premise is the script by Hardy and Charlie Foley (with assistance from acclaimed fantasy author Neil Gaiman), which uses real animal biology and history to present a compelling and plausible case for the existence of these mythological animals. --Paul Gaita




To produce a scientific study of a creature that never existed, then place it in a format that makes it seem credible, should be considered a sci-fi/fantasy flick, right? Nope, the good folks over at Animal Planet took the time to create an entire biological and environmental make-up for dragons, and then presented it in a format similar to all of those dinosaur documentaries such as "Walking With Dinosaurs."

By doing this, we are asked to believe in the "what if" factor. The documentary, scattered with recreations of T-Rex and dragon fights, mating rituals, hunting, and other day-to-day happenings in a dragon's life, follows the work of a small British scientific team who research a creature found in Romania. There mission is to prove or disprove a hoax.

The team, headed by a very enthusiastic rookie, begins to explain how dragons might have been able to fly, survive the K/T incident, adapt to colder climates and, most importantly, breathe fire. They explain how this precious fire gives them an edge on all of the other animals that inhabited their world until man comes along.

Though some of the science is sketchy and hard to swallow, you have to let your mind go and "pretend" that dragons actually could have roamed the earth. The acting in the flick is pretty good, though the lead scientist seemed to be forcing his emotions. The special effects are wonderful for a documentary. They are right up there with "Walking With Dinosaurs" and easily outperform any flicks put on by the SciFi channel.

Overall, an enjoyable flick that gives hope to those who have always wondered if dragons really existed. Perhaps Animal Planet will do more show like this explaining the science of creatures like Bigfoot, Chupacabra, griffins, etc.

Highly recommended for the whole family. There is just a little bit of violence, and it is all handled very well.


http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0007MAO0W.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

[Geoffrey S]

This topic based on a hypothetical tv-programme is entertaining, at least.

Flaming dragon flatulence is much less romantic. St. George would have ended up being the patron saint of proctologists! :wink:
Kinda reminds me of Discworld, with Norbert the dragon, reversing his flame to become jet-propelled.

[NodachiSam]

I've seen that documentry, which was pretty good, but they in no claimed that their conjecturing was anything but imaginative. It isn't meant to be seen as something plausible and certainly not historical. Cunctator nailed it I think. This thread, as interesting as it is, really should be in the tavern.

[Aenlic]

I did say, way back in reply #13, that the show was a "what-if" scenario based upon scpeculation to create a special effects program.

[BHCWarman88]

Dragons are Fake,Period.. I like studying about them, but they just being used in Docutmays and Myths and Fictional Stories..

[Murfios]

That new show on animal planet is faked. So are the remaining "dragon parts'' found in the cave. It's just something to entertain you while you imagine it. If dragons where actually found they would have hit the news, tv and made the finder rich. No one would have kept quiet with such a revolucionary find.
But I do watch it, Its kinda fun