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.

[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.

[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. 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...