About Dragons...

Hi everyone, Its me again!
Anyway, I want to hear your opinions on the Logic behind dragons and what's believed they could/would do. EG: Flying, flaming breath, and the structure of dragons of each culture.
This Thread is not about whether or not dragons existed or exist now.. We're talking about the faults and truths of what's believed their Anatomical structure could be like.

I, for one, can believe some of the qualities of dragons' popular depiction are possible, like flight. If they were light-boned, I'm sure it's quite possible that their large wings could power them through the air, Maybe not for long or over long distances, but I think more than a simple glide would be possible.

On the Discovery Channel special on dragons, they were believed to have a "flight bladder" which stored hydrogen for flight. I'm not too sure about this, But if this mechanism was present, Flight would be a definite possibility.

What are your thoughts, people? let's have fun with this. ^_^

Dragons are possiable, but fire breathing is not.

They would probably have very large wings and only be able to fly for short periods of time. This would be practical as they could quickly grab their food and fly a few hundred meters before eating it away for other potential predators (or predators allies trying to stop the dragon).

The basic body build of a dragon would probably be the same as a large lizard and so overall not move fast unless it needs to. Also after finding food, it will probably sleep for a while to digest it (like in some kind of cave or shelter).

Although they are agressive (as all living creatures, even humans are as it is a normal survival trait), they probably would form friendships, partnerships or families with other dragons. This can be backed with fact as there are species of lizards which display these kinds of behaviour.

Also as dragons are a lot bigger than normal lizards, they probably would have bigger brains (matching near the size of a human brain if the dragon is big enough). This would mean they probably would have some kind of ability to comunicate with other dragons and atleast form their own traditions and other simplisitc behaviours (like elephants in a way). Ofcourse they probably would not develop tools, farming or other technological breakthroughs as they do not need them to survive (humans only developed them to make surviving easier but if you are a dominant prediator thre is no reason to) but this does not mean that they would not decorate them selves with "jewlery" (maybe not in the form we know it).

The reason dragons would not exist in that form (atleast on earth with out the creationlist approch) is that it would not be the most efective way to evolve in evolutionary terms and also they can not evolve now as they would be stopped by mamals which would obviously out do them evolutionary wise and humans which would use them as target practice for their latest anti tank sub machinegun.

As dragon are reptiles, dominant preditors and constantly grow throughout their lives, they would probable (if they are lucky) be able to live to well over 200 years of age.

Dragons probably would hear a lot worse than us but would definatly see colours at a lot higher depth and number than us as well as be able to smell more accuratly than us (via the way reptiles sense smells like snakes). This would mean they probably could easilly make out a rabbit on a hill many kilometers away which humans even struggle to see with binoculars.

Remember that just because they are not human does not mean they would live shorter than us. Afterall we are mamals and mamals tend to have very short maximum life expectancies.

I believe that there are too many dragon references in nearly every culture on earth for it to be mere myth.

They probably were not as mythical as stated in the ledgends (much like elves were probably a different group of people that were higher so to speak than their barbarian neighbors, but slowly morphed into servants of the gods living in Alfheim.)

Originally Posted by Dr Super Good

Dragons are possiable, but fire breathing is not.

Nature has created some interesting creations. If she can make a bug that squirts a superheated liquid from its ass, then why not fire breathing?

Also as dragons are a lot bigger than normal lizards, they probably would have bigger brains (matching near the size of a human brain if the dragon is big enough).

Dinosaurs were gigantic lizards and they have very tiny brains. Although yes, I agree with you.

On the Discovery Channel special on dragons, they were believed to have a "flight bladder" which stored hydrogen for flight. I'm not too sure about this, But if this mechanism was present, Flight would be a definite possibility.

You saw that documentary too? I have it on DVD!

Dragons can't have existed. Heck, there are too many differences between their varying mythological forms for them to have even possibly existed

European ones are classic symbols of evil, and resemble snakes in general form. And no, not all European dragons breathed fire or had four legs, or had wings. They're pretty much a conglamate of snakes, bats and lizards, which were all seen as evil
Eastern ones are symbols of good and royalty, and are far more serpentine than their western counterparts. And in some places (China) they're grouped with things like phoenixes, and I don't see anyone debating whether phoenixes existed :|

And that's just their evolved modern day counterparts. The Loch Ness Monster has been traditionally seen as a kelpie, a water horse, not a plesiosaur. That new train of thought only started in the last 100 years or so

So no, dragons didn't exist. The closest things would have been the larger flying pterosaurs, that all became extinct millenia before humans even came into being

I believe that there are too many dragon references in nearly every culture on earth for it to be mere myth.

... References which are largely incompatible with each other. Seriously, creatures of pure evil in European myths are supposed to be bearers of good luck and royalty in eastern kingdoms?

Nature has created some interesting creations. If she can make a bug that squirts a superheated liquid from its ass, then why not fire breathing?

Because giant lizards are designed to be pure specialised predators of simularly large prey, while insects are evolution's greatest achievement?

Seriously, look at all of the large predators in history. The only ones that actually flew were a few eagles in New Zealand, while everywhere else in the world land-based animals were dominant. There's a reason that pterosaurs were generally seen as scavengers and fishers

Originally Posted by Mecheon

European ones are classic symbols of evil, and resemble snakes in general form.

Humans only viewed them as evil because they ate their sheep and other livestock. But the dragons only ate those sheep because the humans had been killing the other wildlife the dragon would normally would feed on, such as wild boars. And the sheep were easy pickings, just standing there in a wide open field.

... References which are largely incompatible with each other. Seriously, creatures of pure evil in European myths are supposed to be bearers of good luck and royalty in eastern kingdoms?

You know how storytellers are. What once was a flying lizard became a multi-headed giant fire-breathing demon after being passed around.

Seriously, look at all of the large predators in history. The only ones that actually flew were a few eagles in New Zealand, while everywhere else in the world land-based animals were dominant. There's a reason that pterosaurs were generally seen as scavengers and fishers

Pterodactyls?

Originally Posted by Pyritie

Humans only viewed them as evil because they ate their sheep and other livestock. But the dragons only ate those sheep because the humans had been killing the other wildlife the dragon would normally would feed on, such as wild boars. And the sheep were easy pickings, just standing there in a wide open field.

And as for them being seen as pure good in the East...?

I'm pretty sure that, even before humans took over, there wouldn't be enough prey for a large flying reptile anyway. Because it's flying, it would favor open fields, and Europe is sure known for its forests, which favor creatures like the bears and wolves, who could either scavenge for food, or track potential prey down by working together. Heck, all the bigger species of feline in Europe were long since extinct by this time, and the environment there is generally too cold to really suit reptiles, especially large apex predator ones

Dragons have leathery wings, and leathery wings and forests do not get along well with each other. There's a reason birds are the dominant flying lifeforms these days

There just isn't, and hasn't been, a niche for dragons, yet alone creatures that have evolved anywhere near their capabilities or descriptions

You know how storytellers are. What once was a flying lizard became a multi-headed giant fire-breathing demon after being passed around.

But there are no flying lizards around, so it might have started from things as humble as crocodiles or snakes. Heck, the humble salamander was viewed as an elemental born from flame, despite its complete and utter lack of any fire based abilities

Pterodactyls?

Pterosaurs. You've got the smaller long-tailed species, such as Pterodactylus, Sordes, Dimorphodon or Ramphorynchus, and the larger species, such as Pteranodon and Quetlzcoatlas



FUN FACT

Unicorns are based off a giant northern rhino that was very horse-like and was pretty much extinct when all their myths were being talked about

Originally Posted by Pyritie

Dinosaurs were gigantic lizards

Not true at all! Dinosaurs were as closly linked to lizards as mamals arw as far as their bodies go. Dinosaurs had extreemly fast matabolisims like mamals and were warm blooded which is the oposit of most lizards. They also had bone structure similar to birds and mamals with lots of huge bloodvesals running through the bone. They also could run extreemly fast at speeds that even modern cars might struggle to keep up with offroad. Thus just because they had small brains does not mean a large lizard would.

Mecheon is right about how they possiablly could not exist, and like I said if they were to exist, they would probably be created (man made via genetic enginering) or appear as an alien species on some unexplored planet that we do not know even exists orbe in some paralel universe. There are no facts that back them ever having existed (sadly).

May I remind you this is not a debate over if they existed, but more a descussion about their possiable phisical characteristics and other things like that.

Originally Posted by Pyrite

Nature has created some interesting creations. If she can make a bug that squirts a superheated liquid from its ass, then why not fire breathing?

Yes but those beetles used it for self defense and it was purly a chemical reaction that caused it. But just think about fire breathing logically. Firstly why would dragons need it? The answer to that is they would not as fire breathing would not help them capture food in any way, and probably would hinder them as it would mean other charasteristics would have to be removed. Also fire breathing is a usless form of self defense, as humans nowdays can easilly manufacture clothing that is flame resiliant and also when they fight eachother, their claws would be doing most of the damage as fire would mearly damage the surface of their scales (which are dead anyway). Next the ammount of enenrgy needed to breath fire is astronomical, especially to super heat it to a temperatre it actually does anything (1000°C+). This would mean on top of the highly energy demanding process of flying, they would need to spend even more energy just to breath fire. Also if they used it to hunt, they would have minimal net energy left to actually grow or live off. This is espically stupid considering they could hunt perfectly well with out breathing fire. And finally it is a huge risc to the actual dragon in question itself as if the chemicals burn inside it, it would literally selfcombust. This would also be very likly to happen in a fight as lizards tend to bite each other's necks and so with fire breathing that would be a problem.

Overall dragons would be unlikely to breathe fire by themselves as it would not be an evolutionary advantage and also would be un nesecescary. Since remember that fire breathing would also reduce the ammount of food they find as there would be a lot more forest fires and so less animals.

One can not deny a dragon is physically possiable, just it makes no evolutionary sence to ever have been created.

Originally Posted by Dr Super Good

Also fire breathing is a usless form of self defense, as humans nowdays can easilly manufacture clothing that is flame resiliant

The animals 4000+ years ago had fire-proof clothing? Strange.

fire would mearly damage the surface of their scales (which are dead anyway).

Scales are made of the same stuff that your fingernails are made from: chitin. And that can melt/burn as much as plastic can.

Next the ammount of enenrgy needed to breath fire is astronomical, especially to super heat it to a temperatre it actually does anything (1000°C+).

Not true. All you need is a little spark.

Animal planet said that the dragons got hydrogen for their hydrogen sacs from bacteria in their stomach. This hydrogen would be used for flying (hydrogen floats) as well as fire breathing. Dragons also found platinum deposits and ate some of that as a catalyst for the spark. Animal planet also said that dragons would have a flap at the back of the throat (like crocodiles do, to prevent water from going down the throat when it is submerged) to prevent the fire from burning the dragon's innards.

The spark is right at the dragon's mouth, not inside its chest or anything.

This would also be very likly to happen in a fight as lizards tend to bite each other's necks and so with fire breathing that would be a problem.

True, I guess. Biting into the others necks + flame breathing = dragon asplodes.

Originally Posted by Pyritie

The animals 4000+ years ago had fire-proof clothing? Strange.

No but they did have armor over 4-5 CM thick which is pretty fire retardent.

Originally Posted by Pyritie

Scales are made of the same stuff that your fingernails are made from: chitin. And that can melt/burn as much as plastic can.

Yes if exposed to enough heat, a simple blast from a flamethrower would not set it alight and that hits temperatures of past 1000°C.

Originally Posted by Pyritie

Not true. All you need is a little spark.

Yes to set it off, but onlike humans I do not think dragons would fly to their nearest gas station to refuel on a flamable substance for the spark to actuall set off.

Originally Posted by Pyritie

dragons got hydrogen for their hydrogen sacs from bacteria in their stomach

Yes which aids the fact that they would be less lightly to evolve it as all that hydrogen would be energy that the dragon could absorb and use itself to move and fly and fight. Remember that such bacteria would be atmost 50% energy efficent, which would mean that all that combustion energy would usually be absorbed by the dragon for and movement growth at a near 80%+ effcency (yes reptiles are a hell of a lot more efficent than us humans which only absorb about a quarter of the energy out of the food in the firstplace). Thus it would only make their survival less suscesful and so it would not form in the first place.

Originally Posted by Pyrite

This hydrogen would be used for flying (hydrogen floats) as well as fire breathing

Very bad evolutionary trate, since the more they would breathe, the harder it would be to run away. Also you are aware HOW MUCH hydrogen is required to lift any serious volume and how easilly it escapes? No organic system can contain pure hydrogen without it gradually escapping, this is because the molecules are so small that they squeeze inbetween cells and through cells. The only real way to keep hydrogen is in metal (due to it being a higher density) and I dought dragons would have a huge sack filled with it made of solid metal, as the metal would weigh more than the hydrogen would displace.

Also hydrogen is a CRAP flamable fuel. It is one of the worst you can get because it burns in an almost explosive like manner (would hardly go far if breased out as a flame thrower) to form water which then absorbs most of the energy given out to form water vapour due to water's high latent heat capacity. This means that the average flame would reach no more than 250°C out side the mouth (the mouth being much hotter because most of the burning would occure there due to hydrogens explosive nature) which would inflict nothing to the scales of other dragons and would only badly burn some. Thus reducing the likly hood even more.

Originally Posted by Pyritie

Animal planet said

You actually believe what they say? I dought anyone who came up with that conclusion and theroy actually studied biology or even physics for that sake. The entire idea was probably generated by some science fiction writer and they purly asked "experts" to pretend it was possiable. I definatly would not trust it if it was from the discovery channel as that is mostly "Ge WIZ" and not very scientific.

Remember that most things on TV are fake, and theroies like this can be written by 1-3 scientists that purly want fame without it being physcally possiable. It is like the ploy with putting solar technology in london which never pays off for its self, looks good from the outside actually is impossiable when looked into. Something like dargons is extreemly likly to be fake as it is so easy to make people believe anything you say about it, as they never existed.

I have read an interesting article about how dinosaurus existed even 3000 year b.c. so if the cave-people saw some flying ones this could be where the myth comes from. so maybe the people wanted to make the stories more interesting and added the fire legend stuff. so it's all plausible

Actually it was the people in the middle-ages finding dinosaur skeletons that thought up of a myth about dragons.

Anyway,science has proven that there were a bunch of ice ages after the dinosaurs were extinct,and then came the forming of the homosapiens.Dinosaurs,as reptiles used to high temperatures,couldnt survive it,especially not the flying ones.The only life forms that were there in the age of dinosaurs and are here today are crocodiles(probably because they were amphibious,thus they didnt have to expose their bodies to the complete frost on the surface)and dragonflies,who are immune to cold.

Actually, Japut3h, the iceages were not as bad as that.

Around the equators, temperatures were still hot. What actually killed the dinasaurs was a metor impact that killed 75% of all life on this planet. It left them with too little to live off so they also joind the metor casualties.

Also dinasaurs were warmblooded and some were big enough that they could easilly live and survive in sub zero temperaturs if there was enough to eat. However, there was not enough to eat after the metor impact so all large species became extinct. They have not been able to re-evolve due to the fact that mamals have been in direct competition ith reptiles, thus there can no longer be any large animals supported (elephant being the largest land one).

I know that...im not saying that they died from the ice ages,im just saying that they wouldnt survive it,and live to see the evolution of mankind,although youre probably right,they would live through it if most of them werent wiped out and left out of food.

But pterodactyles could hardly survive all 4 ice ages even if they werent killed by the meteor.Flying predators couldnt really find stuff to eat.I was just saying(although i picked the wrong way to say it)that theres hardly a chance that a homosapiens ever witnessed a living pterodactyle,even a less chance that the roots of their beliefs exist in our society today.

Dinosaurs did survive the Ice Ages. Not the big ones though, just those feathered ones that could fly around and drove the pterosaurs to extinction before the end of the dinosaurs, just because they could do their job much better than pterosaurs could

Conditions nowerdays don't support large animals at all, unlike the Ice Ages. All the Megafauna are long extinct, so something like a dragon, in an age where there were giant elephants with backwards tusks and other such creatures, wouldn't evolve. Reptiles had their go at ruling the world, and that ended right before the age of the Dinosaurs, with a mass extinction that wiped out 90% of life