Continuing the discussion on Dragons

[Dragonsbane]

I'm still gonna make dragons *pouts*, and as for a moral reason........I don't have one. Maybe it will reduce the overpopulation problem in certain countries? Or provide food for those tribes smart enough to kill one? Or something like that......

[NineBirds]

I think the purpose is that if dragons existed how would they have survived, functioned, and not be found today.

Roight. I was arguing against their existence in the first place.

if they don't exist why do so many cultures have dragons?

Well, check out my explanation in my first post.

In short...nothing it's just a possibility. AFter all dragons are not known to exist so they may have functioned differently than science predicts. Now that I think some more perhaps they often submerged themselves in molten rock and that's why there's no trace.

I'm saying it's not a possibility. How would dragons speed the decomposition process after they died? It's not about prediction. Throw me a bone here as to the exact chemical process that was carried out. Don't call it a possibility if you don't have some kind of hard theory to back it up.

As for submerging in molten rock--where did this molten rock come from? And why would they submerge themselves in the molten rock? All dragons, ever were able to find a volcano and submerge themselves in it, leaving absolutely no trace? If archeology and geology has taught us anything, it's that it's really, really hard for an entire species to leave no trace. If you're theorizing the species existed up until the Middle Ages, then we're talking near-impossibility.

Now, if you want to call dragons magical that's within a whole different realm. Then you're operating on faith, not science, and can believe whatever you wish to about their existence and physiology and whatnot.

Again we don't know for sure if they're real. Besides no huge discovery is made without trying something new.

Nonono, I'm not saying not to try new things. I'm saying other element-based lifeforms have already been theorized and tried, and it hasn't worked.

What strikes me as odd is that when reports like the one from the remote dino-eatin' tribe surface, they get ignored by mainstream science.

It could be that the data was analyzed and found to be suspect. Very few scientists would turn down the opportunity to be the person to rediscover dinosaurs. I mean, do you have the exact reference to this Pygmy tribe study and proof that it was ignored for illegitimate reasons?

My personal favourite way of ignition is a pair of bio-electric organs (such as electric eels have), arranged almost next to each other in the mouth. The creature can then use this spark to ignite the fuel.

Hmmm, it would be interesting to figure out the minimum size of the organs needed to produce enough voltage to generate a spark between the two electrodes. The organs of electric eels take up about 80% of their body--and they can grow to be eight feet long.

In order to project flame, the dragon ejects a spray of flamable liquid generated in the gland.

How would the dragon generate pressure great enough to eject the liquid far and fast enough to project a good stream of flame? A quick muscle contraction might do it, but that would produce only a short burst of liquid.

The mechanism and physiology would probably be fairly easy to work out, though. The hard part's in figuring out which chemical compounds could be used.

[Dragonsbane]

From the description I heard............a Red Dragon breathed in hard first, a second or two to charge (dragons also have really big lungs, in addition to their huge hearts), then breathed out his blast of flame.....I know there are chemical compounds that acheive the desired effect, now I just need to figure out which ones to use....

[Lycanthrope]

Making dragons is about as bad an idea as making intellegent killer robots. Haven't we learned ANYTHING from hollywood?

[MP37a]

I think they were just big fish tales. Someone saw a big lizard and they told someone else. Then that person exaggerated and it became bigger. Then that person told another person and the description changed again. And so on until pretty soon we got a dragon. "So it was just a really big lizard creature, that's it?" "Ummm heck no it uh could breath out fire and fly too! I swear I saw it with my own eyes. Yeah that's right." lol Then other ppl not wanting to be left out would say oh I saw one of those too. I believe dragons could have existed but most likely they didn't

By the way what's with 6 limbs? What kind of dragons are those? They just have 4 legs and a tail right? Is that a referral to the japanese or chinese dragons? Just curious.

[Static Hamster]

Wings count as limbs. You have 2 arms, 2 legs. Birds have 2 legs, 2 wings. Frogs/Cats/Horses have 4 legs. Monkey and primates have 4 arms (ok 2 arms, two legs but they have prehensil feet). Bats have 2 Wings to legs. Most higher creatures have 4 limbs. Its only insects that have more. Thats the reference.

You see mythical creatures like Pegasus, Dragons and Angels have 4 legs/2 wings, or 2 legs/2 arms/2 wings. Hence 6 Limbs.

[Lycanthrope]

or in the case of centaurs four legs and two arms. Hmm... that's interesting Id never thought of that aspect.

[Jack of Spades]

Now, if you want to call dragons magical that's within a whole different realm. Then you're operating on faith, not science, and can believe whatever you wish to about their existence and physiology and whatnot.

I think between magic and science. I don't think that everything will ever be explained by science. Whenever we find an answer we end up with more questions. If you would take a slightly less scientific it would work. I'm not saying to forget fact all together...just accept that we may not have all the answers.

[Thaumaturge]

I'm saying other element-based lifeforms have already been theorized and tried, and it hasn't worked.

Can you point me to a reference for this? I was pretty sure that Silicon-based life-forms were theoretically viable. If I recal correctly, the important thing is the number of complex molecules that can be made based on the element in question, and silicon is not too much worse than carbon. In fact, it has many similarities with carbon in the important respects, since it is in a very similar place on the periodic table (directly below carbon, in fact - and not too far down that it becomes too difficult for it to make large molecules).

As to scientists, there is always the danger of getting caught up in the thrill of discovery, or the creation of a new technology or technique. On the other hand, there are always people more than willing to speak up if they see anything even vaguely off in the current research .

And note that there is almost always some level of outcry before any new technology is introduced. After all, there was a time when in-vitro fertilisation was decried as acting God, and it is now mainstream.

I agree with NineBirds on one thing: If there had been something in the "lost world" reports, I am certain that some scientist would have acted on it. The conservatism in science is probably down to the peer-review system. Simply put, in order for a new study, experiment, or theory to be accepted by the scientific community at large, it must first run the gauntlet of other scientists. The data is published in a recognised journal, where other scientists can easily find, analyse, and if possible within reason, pull it apart. This means that only the strongest, best argued and supported theories make it into mainstream science, thus protecting the integrity of the current theories.

On the downside, it does insert a certain level of conservatism .

We don't exactly know what the hell we're talking about here, I know I've never knowingly seen a dragon. But the point of this thread is to speculate, to wonder "What if?", and perhaps shed some light on a topic that is oft-overlooked

I agree entirely, RD. Wondering "What if?" is the basis of discovery, and in fact the foundation stone of science. Without "What if?", we would still be being eaten by large cats on a regular basis .

[Elminster_Amaur]

an ability that if it could have been evolutionaraly replicated would have been already,

First off, I must make the assessment that evolution is a tricky little word. There are six different types of evolution that "science" has conjured up to explain things away, and only one has been observed. That is micro-evolution and basically means that each kind of creature can adapt to different situations and become different species.