Dragons

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by English assassin

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon

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.

Quote:

---

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...

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Bombardier beetles do not spit fire. 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 ?

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.

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...

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

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

---

Are you trying to be a jerk?

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...

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Oh, I see. Okay.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

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 - it mentions the virulent bacteria in the creature's mouth.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

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).

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....

---

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.

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!