Debate: Were dragons ever real?

[TheManicMonocle]

Discuss, were dragons ever real?

[An Enemy Spy]

Assuming you mean only the mythical monsters and not technicalities like Komodo Dragons, Bearded Dragons, Seadragons, Dragonflies, Wyverns, or trying to say that dinosaurs count as dragons because the myths are based on their fossils, then no. Dragons have never existed.

[Prince Zahn]

I'd say Dragons weren't real, not in the sense of giant ginormous scaly beasts that fly around and breath fire, anyway.

But I remember watching a show on National Geographic, where they explained that the different qualities associated with dragons came from real animals from across the world. It might interest you to seek it out, it's rather interesting. :smallsmile:

But no, Dragons are not any more real as the tooth fairy, and no - the tooth fairy is not going to have a wacky adventure with a bunch of dragons outside of an emotional Rollercoaster action/adventure/romantic comedy children's film fabricated by Pixar or Disney. Sorry.

[TheManicMonocle]

Idk I mean, I doubt such a beast, if it existed, could breath fire, but it's plausible that a gargantuan flying lizard did exist and was simply hunted to extinction. A remnant of the dinosaurs, perhaps?

Also noting the oft-cited fact that many cultures have stories of "dragons."

[Hiro Protagonest]

Also noting the oft-cited fact that many cultures have stories of "dragons."

And they're all about as different as "trolls."

[Razade]

Idk I mean, I doubt such a beast, if it existed, could breath fire, but it's plausible that a gargantuan flying lizard did exist and was simply hunted to extinction. A remnant of the dinosaurs, perhaps?

Also noting the oft-cited fact that many cultures have stories of "dragons."

Except these have understandable sources. Dinosaur bones. They were (and are) all over the place. Ancient peoples had no idea that these things existed so when they find massive bones and skulls what are they left to think except monsters? Same way that the Cyclops probably came about because of elephant skulls.

And the answer is no. No debate needed. Dragons in any fantastical sense never existed. Ever.

[An Enemy Spy]

Idk I mean, I doubt such a beast, if it existed, could breath fire, but it's plausible that a gargantuan flying lizard did exist and was simply hunted to extinction. A remnant of the dinosaurs, perhaps?

Also noting the oft-cited fact that many cultures have stories of "dragons."

If gargantuan flying lizards existed in human history, there would be plenty of evidence, like we have with mammoths and saber tooth tigers. And "dragons" across different cultures are less all stories of the same monsters and more different stories about different monsters that shared enough superficial qualities to all be lumped into the category of Dragon.

[factotum]

Just to point out, gigantic flying lizards (well, sort of) *did* exist--the largest pterosaurs had a wingspan upwards of 40 feet, which makes them the largest flying creatures ever to exist by quite some margin. Were they dragons? No, not in the slightest.

[sktarq]

Dragons. . . dragons as we often think of them combine two very powerful symbolic animals.

Firstly think about the material world and the core of struggle at it most base level. It is a struggle to eat, to live in the material sense. What animal is the most earthy in this metaphorical sense. An animal that is basically a moving mouth and gut. That is so conected to the earth that it never leaves its belly. . . a snake or serpent. How that is interpreted can mean just about anything, but it makes the serpent a powerful symbol that is drawn on time and again.

Secondly what animals do we associate with the 'higher' life. The life of soul, intellect and whatnot. Most commonly a bird. A creature that can literally go up into the heavens. Who is unbound by the ground upon which we walk.

What happens if you combine these two creatures? The myriad ways we create flying serpents of myth are usually translated into English as a local legend of dragons. Not because dragons existed but because the human need to try to express the dynamic between a physical and spiritual/intellectual life. And that things we find in our world translate into symbols well. So because the human mind is similar throughout the world and both serpents and birds are common throughout the world then the concept of dragons comes up repeatedly. So things like dinosaur bones help too - certainly but old bones may have also been part of legends like the griffon and cyclops so just because dinosaurs were large and reptilian doesn't mean they were the great driver. Heck if anything dragons have gotten larger and more dinosaur-like in the last couple of centuries so I'd say the influence may be more modern ( at least in strength). So yeah, it is a powerful image and powerful images tend to stick around, and grow and get reused for different things over time. Becoming associated with a local culture and then vilified by a successor culture as a symbol of predecessors for example.

So did "Dragons" ever exist in the physical world. No. Do Dragons exist because of how the human mind works...yes....they are already inside us.

[TheManicMonocle]

Except these have understandable sources. Dinosaur bones. They were (and are) all over the place. Ancient peoples had no idea that these things existed so when they find massive bones and skulls what are they left to think except monsters? Same way that the Cyclops probably came about because of elephant skulls.

And the answer is no. No debate needed. Dragons in any fantastical sense never existed. Ever.

I find that to be a rather bold proclamation considering you weren't there :p

[Razade]

I find that to be a rather bold proclamation considering you weren't there :p

I don't need to have first hand experience to have knowledge of things.

[sktarq]

Can you absolutely prove a negative? No. Is there any evidence supporting it? No

[Razade]

Can you absolutely prove a negative? No. Is there any evidence supporting it? No

I'd never claim absolute anything. But I can say never and still mean 99.99999999999999999999999% Which is where dragons exist. Not in the .howevermany1%.

[sktarq]

I'd never claim absolute anything. But I can say never and still mean 99.99999999999999999999999% Which is where dragons exist. Not in the .howevermany1%.

I was actually agreeing with you.

With no supporting evidence I do not see how a debate can really be had. The only thing left is the absolute argument which really is not an argument but a truism.

[TheManicMonocle]

Still, I offer this hypothetical explanation for the absence of dragons:

Supposing that dragons were a nuisance to people, probably stealing cattle and whatnot, it would be likely that, given their existence, they were hunted to extinction.

Furthermore, the absence of even their bones can be attributed to religion. The dragon has been associated with the devil in ancient times, there is even a story of a saint who drove one off by posing as a cross. So, if a dragon was slain it's corpse was probably burned in order to keep away the demonic energies.

[Razade]

Still, I offer this hypothetical explanation for the absence of dragons:

This should be good.


Supposing that dragons were a nuisance to people, probably stealing cattle and whatnot, it would be likely that, given their existence, they were hunted to extinction.

If they were this much of a blight on the land their existence would have been recorded. Similar events are stored in the history of our species. In fact the oldest writing is this sort of thing. Them being hunted to the extinction would also give us something. Their bones. You know what people back then (and today) really liked to do? Trophy hunting. If the thing stealing your cattle was a 4 meter long reptile that could fly you think there wouldn't be trophy hunters and we wouldn't have BONES.


Furthermore, the absence of even their bones can be attributed to religion. The dragon has been associated with the devil in ancient times, there is even a story of a saint who drove one off by posing as a cross. So, if a dragon was slain it's corpse was probably burned in order to keep away the demonic energies.

Much the same as above. They have bones of saints. You think if they had some monster that comported with their religious belief that they wouldn't have put those bones on display? How could any sort of religion bury or burn such a wonderful display of the truth of their claim? Not to mention bones are difficult to burn.

[sktarq]

except we would have had naturally dying members of the species leaving their bones. We would have ancestor species etc from before humanity.

want an example? Haast Eagle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast%27s_eagle)? Big flying creature that humans hunted into extinction (imagine a heavyweight boxer version of a normal eagle). . . in a tiny range . . . very poor fossilization chances. . . . heck it probably even liked to eat people (as they did hunt bipeds in the 3-10ft height range) . . . it should be far far more difficult to get evidence for this creature than a dragon but we know about them just fine thankyou.

[A.A.King]

Yes, they were. For some reason this isn't a well known fact BUT I saw this amazing Documentary called "The Last Dragon" which tells the story of a scientist who actually proved Dragons lived during the Cretaceous period and didn't die out until the 15th Century. Frankly, I am surprised there is still debate about this.

[Eldariel]

Yes, they were. For some reason this isn't a well known fact BUT I saw this amazing Documentary called "The Last Dragon" which tells the story of a scientist who actually proved Dragons lived during the Cretaceous period and didn't die out until the 15th Century. Frankly, I am surprised there is still debate about this.

...The Last Dragon is a docufiction, not a documentary. Physically, flying creatures shaped like the western Dragons could never exist - the amount of energy needed for them to be able to take flight is just way too large and the wingspan would need to be something absolutely ridiculous. All the flying lizards had a comparatively compact body for obvious reasons - the lighter the body, the easier it is to fly. To not even get into the problems with breathing fire.

[A.A.King]

...The Last Dragon is a docufiction, not a documentary. Physically, flying creatures shaped like the western Dragons could never exist - the amount of energy needed for them to be able to take flight is just way too large and the wingspan would need to be something absolutely ridiculous. All the flying lizards had a comparatively compact body for obvious reasons - the lighter the body, the easier it is to fly. To not even get into the problems with breathing fire.

I assumed that the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment was fairly obvious. It is kinda hard to miss that a show called 'The Last Dragon' isn't a proper documentary.. Though of course the size of the body is irrelevant. The Dragons could fly because they trapped light gasses in their bodies, making them much lighter than their size would suggest and therefor capable of lift off!

[Eldariel]

I assumed that the tongue-in-cheek nature of my comment was fairly obvious. It is kinda hard to miss that a show called 'The Last Dragon' isn't a proper documentary.. Though of course the size of the body is irrelevant. The Dragons could fly because they trapped light gasses in their bodies, making them much lighter than their size would suggest and therefor capable of lift off!

I actually half thought that but for some reason the post felt genuine - even having seen enough of your posts that I should've known better. Perhaps I'm just online paranoid today. Please pardon me.
That's certainly a logical means of flight - it's really too bad it is now lost to evolution :smallfrown:

[Scarlet Knight]

I don't need to have first hand experience to have knowledge of things.

I therefore defer to Marco Polo, who wrote he saw dragons on his travels ( I'll have to re-read my copy ).

The Loch Ness Monster (Nessie) is an example of "a dragon", while not proven to exist, can't be dismissed into not existing because of sightings.

A platypus is far more unbelievable than a dragon.

Therefore, I believe they did/do exist.

[Knaight]

To start with - while there are certain varieties of what gets called a dragon that are at least theoretically possible by basic physics, and while there are certain varieties that at least vaguely resemble actual animals (quadruped reptiles are a whole lot more plausible than hexapod reptiles), there's absolutely no good data that suggests that dragons actually exist, and there's tons of good data that suggests that human cultures invent mythological creatures. As for whether we can be 100% sure that dragons didn't exist, that depends on how many significant figures we're talking about. I'm pretty good with going above 99.95%, so to just three 100% seems fine.


And they're all about as different as "trolls."
It's pretty impressive just how far people are willing to stretch the terminology for their local mythological beings instead of just adapting a new term when describing mythological beings from elsewhere.


Just to point out, gigantic flying lizards (well, sort of) *did* exist--the largest pterosaurs had a wingspan upwards of 40 feet, which makes them the largest flying creatures ever to exist by quite some margin. Were they dragons? No, not in the slightest.
Where "gigantic" translates to 250 kg at a high estimate, and the term lizard is altered beyond recognition.

[Wardog]

And "dragons" across different cultures are less all stories of the same monsters and more different stories about different monsters that shared enough superficial qualities to all be lumped into the category of Dragon.

Although an interesting counterpoint to that is that early Eastern images of dragons look rather more like early Western images of dragons.

Eaxmples:

Han Dynasty dragon art:
http://perleiart.com/read/
http://perleiart.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lib_bk0722_3dragon.jpg

https://sites.google.com/a/sesdrams.org/han-dynasty2-period1/interesting-facts
http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/slideshows/pixu-han-dynasty.jpg


https://www.indigo-uk.com/collections/decorative-objects-from-china
https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0217/2522/products/C0678.jpg?v=1484158535


All these seem to me to be very reminiscent of Celtic and Norse art, which both tend to feature entwining, serpentine dragons rather than the "big flying crocodile" type dragons people usually think of when talking about "Western" dragons. (Although I'm having trouble finding original images - Google search is mostly turning up modern copies and tattoos).


I presume this would be due to Scythian/Hun influence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_style), with Eastern and Western concepts of what a dragon is diverging later.

[Peelee]

I find that to be a rather bold proclamation considering you weren't there :p

I find that to be a rather bold proclamation, considering the number of things you weren't there for.

[Sobol]

Therefore, I believe they did/do exist.
Maybe dragons existed. Maybe they visited the Earth in 3000 BC, had a wild disco party and then flew back into outer space. You can't prove they didn't.

Maybe werewolves exist. Maybe the tooth fairy exists.

However, all these statements don't meet Popper's criterion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) and therefore are unscientific. There isn't much point in discussing them.

[hamishspence]

I wonder if real animal encounters might have inspired certain famous dragon tales.

Could a real fight between a warrior and a large python or crocodile, have, over centuries of embellishment, given birth to the St George tale, or the Lambton Worm tale?

[Friv]

I therefore defer to Marco Polo, who wrote he saw dragons on his travels ( I'll have to re-read my copy ).

Technically, he wrote that he saw a thirty-foot long snake with two short legs, and even more technically he never said that he saw one, only that people in the area he was travelling in saw them, and even more technically his book was written by a professional writer that he told all of his stories to, and that writer incorporated some stories that weren't actually from Polo as Polo's accounts.

The general consensus is that he was either referring to an asian crocodile, or a giant monitor lizard; they used to exist in that area, and either a few could have survived, or they could have died out but the stories of them carried on.


The Loch Ness Monster (Nessie) is an example of "a dragon", while not proven to exist, can't be dismissed into not existing because of sightings.

Point of order - every sighting of Nessie that involves any kind of photograph or evidence has been proven to be a hoax.

[Dodom]

Would it be any satisfaction to know that some representations of dragons are exagerated pictures of existing animals?

I can't google for the pictures I have in mind because so much modern dragon art exists that I did not find search words that could take me to specific images, sorry about that.

Before the bat winged dragon became the standard western dragon, there were designs which looked quite like birds. A notable morphology I noticed in some is a fore limb that has a claw, but also a wing branching off around the elbow.
There are birds with wing/claw limbs, though they are rare. The hoatzin is mobile from birth, and uses its fore limbs like arms to climb trees. They stop using them as their feathers grow and flight becomes possible. Those birds don't live in Europe or any of the places accessible to Europeans at the time, but some now extinct population of a bird that still exists on another continent is less unlikely than an entirely undiscovered species.
http://www.mediastorehouse.com/p/172/hoatzin-chick-hanging-from-branch-wing-hook-visible-1294328.jpg
Picture: Hoatzin chick grabbing branches with its wing claws. Scary like chicks so often are, but don't worry, its mommy thinks it's beautiful.

One of the oldest lizard-like dragon I saw was printed in a science for kids magasine, in an article that discussed animal flight; it mocked this design, with fan shaped wings that sprouted from the chest at a weird angle, saying such a creature wouldn't fly.
And it was, basically, a larger and fatter version of the evocatively named Draco volans, a small lizard with modified ribs allowing it to stretch a flap of skin they use to glide. Their range is not entirely out of the reach of Europeans of the time, so a romanticised image of it could have been brought back via travelers' tales.
http://d3lp4xedbqa8a5.cloudfront.net/s3/digital-cougar-assets/AusGeo/2014/05/29/43574/dragon-lizard-draco-volans.jpg
Picture: Yes, this is real. No, they don't thrive in captivity you can't have one.


Now if we want to talk flying lizards, here's one that isn't the stuff of legends:
http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/closeup-image-of-a-kuhls-flying-gecko-kuhls-gliding-gecko-on-a-big-picture-id504691354?s=170667a
I'm sorry little guy, nothing is less scary than an aerodynamic gecko with giant webbed hands. You're just not monster stuff.

Now the real question: was this reply just an excuse to post pictures of weird animals? You bet it is! :D

[Scarlet Knight]

Maybe dragons existed. Maybe they visited the Earth in 3000 BC, had a wild disco party and then flew back into outer space. You can't prove they didn't.

Maybe werewolves exist. Maybe the tooth fairy exists.

However, all these statements don't meet Popper's criterion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) and therefore are unscientific. There isn't much point in discussing them.

If I could scientifically prove dragons existed, I wouldn't do it here. I would publish it in National Geographic and live out my days making cameos on The Big Bang Theory.

That said, science agrees that giant prehistoric lizards existed. It also agrees large carnivorous lizards still exist today. We are arguing when giant became large and when no giants existed. With the wealth of historical literature out there, I do not think it's a stretch to say dragon sized creatures possibly existed 1000-1500 years ago when knights existed.




Point of order - every sighting of Nessie that involves any kind of photograph or evidence has been proven to be a hoax.

We don't say "hoax" anymore...it offends the "alternative facts" community.

[Stryyke]

The inherent problem with the question is that "dragon" is not well defined. Did creatures with scaly bodies, wings, and a tail ever exist? Yes. Was it possible that some of those scales were different colors? Yes. Were they magical? No. Were their scales virtually invulnerable? Yes/no. Did they have different types of breath weapons? No. Did they spit different substances, from trickles of fire, to poisons, to good old fashioned saliva? Perhaps. You would have to specify exactly what qualities you use to determine whether it's a "dragon" or not.

[LughSpear]

Isn't it odd that european dragons are associated with fire, western dragons are associated with wind and eastern dragons are associated with water?

[Knaight]

That said, science agrees that giant prehistoric lizards existed. It also agrees large carnivorous lizards still exist today. We are arguing when giant became large and when no giants existed. With the wealth of historical literature out there, I do not think it's a stretch to say dragon sized creatures possibly existed 1000-1500 years ago when knights existed.

Putting aside the dubiousness involved in putting knights between ~500 and ~1000 CE and not in the high to late middle ages more along the lines of ~1150 to ~1550 (using the military caste definition here that excludes cases like modern musicians given knighthoods), and putting aside how many of the dragons that show up depicted alongside knights are smaller than modern alligators, crocodiles, and even komodo dragons: We have better information than "at some point, there were giant prehistoric lizards". Among other things, we have data on oxygen content in the air, and we're aware of specific ice ages. The likes of the 40' crocodiles that coexisted with dinosaurs were long gone a thousand years ago.

Then there's the timescales involved. Placing a giant prehistoric lizard at 65.5 MYA (before an extinction event) doesn't just put it ambiguously in the past with something 1000 years ago. It puts it 65,500 times further in the past than 100 years go. But, lets go ahead and say that somehow they survived that extinction event in tiny numbers, only to be eradicated by humans much more recently. They're still not dragons, and once you start bringing in traits like fire breath or flight (let alone the sort of godlike mystical powers that show up in the various East Asian mythological beings that got lumped into the dragon category) the idea that there even was a demonstrated ancestor goes out the window.

[shawnhcorey]

Idk I mean, I doubt such a beast, if it existed, could breath fire, but it's plausible that a gargantuan flying lizard did exist and was simply hunted to extinction. A remnant of the dinosaurs, perhaps?

Also noting the oft-cited fact that many cultures have stories of "dragons."

Gargantuan flying lizards? No. They are just the wrong shape. Small flying lizards, maybe. Small gliding lizards? Oh yeah. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draco_(genus))

[veti]

want an example? Haast Eagle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haast%27s_eagle)? Big flying creature that humans hunted into extinction (imagine a heavyweight boxer version of a normal eagle). . . in a tiny range . . . very poor fossilization chances. . . . heck it probably even liked to eat people (as they did hunt bipeds in the 3-10ft height range) . . . it should be far far more difficult to get evidence for this creature than a dragon but we know about them just fine thankyou.

Point of order: the Haast eagle wasn't hunted to extinction by humans. It died out chiefly because its prey, the moa, was hunted to extinction by humans. The eagle itself was, basically, too big to prey on anything much smaller.

That and, of course, the introduction of rats into their habitat.

[Razade]

I therefore defer to Marco Polo, who wrote he saw dragons on his travels ( I'll have to re-read my copy ).

Marco Polo who wasn't a scientist, or a historian or any sort of learned man on any matter other than trade. Marco Polo who, historians will be the first to tell you, omitted things from his works. Stole from other scholars and writers of the time, exaggerated a great deal of what he saw and outright lied on other stuff? Not to mention people of that time were eager to just romanticize exotic animals. Look at the Liber Floridus which shows crocodile with human heads and the body of cats but with scales. Or the Rochester Bestiary that showed Elephants as pig like creatures with long snouts. Ancient peoples were more than eager to shout "Dragon" or mythical beast because they knew it would make bigger news back home.

This of course being said taking you at face value. If you're being sarcastic, and I surely hope you are, you can ignore the rest too.


The Loch Ness Monster (Nessie) is an example of "a dragon", while not proven to exist, can't be dismissed into not existing because of sightings.

The moment to start believing something is when there's demonstrable evidence that that thing exists. I can, and do, reject eye witness testimony however in light of actual scientific testing to see if a thing like the Long Ness Monster could exist where it's said to exist. Because your senses lie to you. Your sight isn't as good as you think. Your hearing isn't as good as you think. Your ability to process those two things aren't as good as you think. Because every time a Loch Ness Monster claim comes out, it's debunked. No actual scientist is there scratching their head going "Ya know. Maybe this time...".


A platypus is far more unbelievable than a dragon.

No it's not. The poor platypus isn't even close to unbelievable when you actually understand the evolutionary line it took in conjunction with being separated from a larger proto-mammalian breeding pool. Hell, there's an informal fallacy called the Platypus Fallacy because people us it like this so often.


Therefore, I believe they did/do exist.

Certainly free to believe what you want. Don't need my permission for that. I however am equally free, probably on a less care bear-ish forum, to laugh.


If I could scientifically prove dragons existed, I wouldn't do it here. I would publish it in National Geographic and live out my days making cameos on The Big Bang Theory.

You aren't doing that though and no one else is. Why National Geographic though? They're not a peer reviewed scientific journal.


That said, science agrees that giant prehistoric lizards existed. It also agrees large carnivorous lizards still exist today. We are arguing when giant became large and when no giants existed. With the wealth of historical literature out there, I do not think it's a stretch to say dragon sized creatures possibly existed 1000-1500 years ago when knights existed.

Your standard of evidence is significantly less robust than mine I guess.


We don't say "hoax" anymore...it offends the "alternative facts" community.

Liars and charlatans. Right.

[TheManicMonocle]

No it's not. The poor platypus isn't even close to unbelievable when you actually understand the evolutionary line it took in conjunction with being separated from a larger proto-mammalian breeding pool. Hell, there's an informal fallacy called the Platypus Fallacy because people us it like this so often.


The platypus is actually pretty unbelievable. Early explorers who heard about the creature from natives even wrote it off as a myth until they saw it for themselves.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Early explorers

And therein lies the Platypus Fallacy.

[Razade]

The platypus is actually pretty unbelievable. Early explorers who heard about the creature from natives even wrote it off as a myth until they saw it for themselves.

If only you even had a modicum of scientific rigor they showed.

[TheManicMonocle]

If only you even had a modicum of scientific rigor they showed.

There's no need to get rude, this forum is called "friendly" banter

[The Eye]

When I saw this thread I wasn't expecting any other answer besides no...

The fact that there are people offending other people over such a silly premise makes em sad '-'

[Razade]

There's no need to get rude, this forum is called "friendly" banter

If pointing out that you're not being even as close to rigorous as scientists from several hundred years ago is "rude" you're in for a bad time anywhere you go.

[Scarlet Knight]

This of course being said taking you at face value. If you're being sarcastic, and I surely hope you are, you can ignore the rest too. Not sarcastic; let's say it's easy to dismiss something without evidence, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. Microbes existed before anyone ever theorized about them much less provided evidence.



No it's not. The poor platypus isn't even close to unbelievable when you actually understand the evolutionary line it took in conjunction with being separated from a larger proto-mammalian breeding pool. Hell, there's an informal fallacy called the Platypus Fallacy because people us it like this so often. Not true. The platypus exists and there is an evolutionary theory to explain why it exists. But don't tell me, if you had never heard of one or seen one that you wouldn't think someone was pulling your leg, especially as it is so unique in the animal kingdom.


Certainly free to believe what you want. Don't need my permission for that. I however am equally free, probably on a less care bear-ish forum, to laugh. Hey, the world needs more levity.



You aren't doing that though and no one else is. Why National Geographic though? They're not a peer reviewed scientific journal. Why National Geographic? Because more people read that than any scientifc peer reviewed journal. My goal is not to win the Nobel Prize (although that would be nice) but to get free drinks everywhere I go.


Marco Polo who wasn't a scientist, or a historian or any sort of learned man on any matter other than trade. Marco Polo who, historians will be the first to tell you, omitted things from his works. Stole from other scholars and writers of the time, exaggerated a great deal of what he saw and outright lied on other stuff? Not to mention people of that time were eager to just romanticize exotic animals.

Your standard of evidence is significantly less robust than mine I guess. Yes, it is. Evidence in history is much less stringent than in science. If you want to know if Nero really fiddled while Rome burned, it's near impossible to prove as science. No pictures or film or fossils. Even if you found a burnt fiddle from that era, you could not proved it was Nero's rather than some poor musician who couldn't get to his home to retrieve it. But you can look to corroborating evidence such as other writings. Of course that's hearsay. Doesn't prove the event, just bolsters. Did Polo see a dragon? I can't say yea or nay, but he wrote about it.



There's no need to get rude, this forum is called "friendly" banter
This.

[Razade]

It is easy to dismiss something without evidence. Hitchen's Razor exists for a reason. The rest just...I am the one asking for actual evidence to back up the claim that Dragons might actually exist. Saying "well, you wouldn't believe platypus exist without proof would you!" is exactly my point. I am giving dragons as much skepticism as I would give someone telling me a platypus exists. You however are not. And if me pointing out that fact is "rude" then I guess I am. I certainly wouldn't think it was rude if someone pointed out that I was being illogical.

[Xyril]

And if me pointing out that fact is "rude" then I guess I am. I certainly wouldn't think it was rude if someone pointed out that I was being illogical.

It's not inherently rude to point out that something someone says doesn't seem logical. However, there is a wide range of specific ways you can do so, some of which are much more rude or insulting than others. Also--particularly in text where tone of voice is absent--how a comment is received can vary based on the person delivering it. For example, an ambiguous comment by someone who is known to be unfailingly polite and respectful to others might be seen as having no ill intent, even if on its face it can be interpreted both ways. However, the exact same ambiguous comment, delivered by someone who often goes out of his way to be unambiguously insulting, dismissive, and condescending towards others, might be read as such by most people familiar with him.

"I don't think you're being as scientifically rigorous as you should be" could have conveyed the exact same criticism, but instead you went out of your way to be sarcastic and insulting: "If only you even had a modicum of scientific rigor they showed." That's why its rude.

[golentan]

I find that to be a rather bold proclamation considering you weren't there :p

I was. Dragons weren't real.

[TheManicMonocle]

I was. Dragons weren't real.

Well that's it then, show's over folks. Thanks for playing

[Alent]

I was. Dragons weren't real.

Nonsense! Miners have discovered the bones of the feared fire dragon, the salamander, in abundance! And if that wasn't scary enough for you, the dread creature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asbestos) is even more dangerous in death than it was in life.

Kidding aside, I am generally in the school of belief that Dragons are a cryptozoology discovery waiting to happen, but won't match up with mythology, and eventually science will create home pet sized "mythological dragons" in a lab because we can.

[Togath]

Furthermore, the absence of even their bones can be attributed to religion. The dragon has been associated with the devil in ancient times, there is even a story of a saint who drove one off by posing as a cross. So, if a dragon was slain it's corpse was probably burned in order to keep away the demonic energies.

Popping in to remind you that discussion of real world religion is against the forum rules as far as I know. This seems like it's straying into the topic a bit.

[golentan]

I'm just saying. 8000 years of living on this dirtball with a background in xenobiology and an interest in zoology, and I never met a dragon nor any credible evidence of one.

Seen some big reptiles, of which my favorite is probably the "sea dragon," (saltwater crocodiles) but never anything like the mythical beast.

[Xyril]

Popping in to remind you that discussion of real world religion is against the forum rules as far as I know. This seems like it's straying into the topic a bit.

In that case, let me restate the offending comment word for word, with "historical legend" substituting for the word "religion."

Also, that reminds me that early Chinese dragons were part goldfish and part turtle, I think. So whoever mentioned that the dragon existed across multiple cultures, I think that's true only for certain values of the word "dragon."

[Knaight]

The platypus is actually pretty unbelievable. Early explorers who heard about the creature from natives even wrote it off as a myth until they saw it for themselves.

The platypus is bizarre, but unlike dragons it's physiology has always been compatible with both basic physics and the particulars of a modern earth environment. Then there's the small matter of them being found, photographed, studied, etc. There's all sorts of hard evidence for the existence of the platypus, there's a clear taxonomy leading up to them, and that makes them both demonstrated and not ever that outlandish. Dragons have neither of those things.

[sktarq]

Actually if in the 1750's England you came up with two animals a dragon and a platypus and told you believed in either I'd say you're nuts. But the "known world" from an Englishman's point of view would have much less detailed than that of someone today and back then something weird in the blank spots on the map would have been more reasonable. But if pressed I'd probably believe some near dragon creature over the platypus. I'd still think something was up if you said that there were a bunch of people in Tasmania who told you stories about such a creature. But when you come in with bones, then skins, then corpses and then live animals I'd have to change my views based on the evidence. But yeah not believing in platypi for most of history would have been a very reasonable position.

When I see evidence for dragons I'll happily change my views. But I haven't seen any evidence. Also the environmental impart and range necessary to support a creature of this size means that it should be a rather visible species which means our admittedly imperfect explorations of our planet would have an extremely high chance of finding it, if it was there to be found.

[Ceaon]

I cannot believe we are seriously discussing this.
What proof or findings would those who actually think dragons existed require before they'd change their stance?

[Porthos]

The phrase, "It's good to have an open mind, but it shouldn't be SO open that your brains fall out" comes to mind for some reason right about now. :smallsmile:

[Eldan]

I cannot believe we are seriously discussing this.
What proof or findings would those who actually think dragons existed require before they'd change their stance?

They don't. Their argument seems to be "Absence of Counter-evidence is evidence of presence". Which is ludicrous.

[Spanish_Paladin]

* open the door *

>_>

<_<

NO!!

*close the door *

[Knaight]

They don't. Their argument seems to be "Absence of Counter-evidence is evidence of presence". Which is ludicrous.

That and the ever reliable journals of medieval explorers, because those never get things wrong.

[veti]

Really, the answer was pretty much nailed in the second post.

Dragons are certainly real, even today. Beautiful creatures, I've seen them at the zoo. Apparently they make good pets, too:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/Bearded_Dragon_showing_beard.jpg/1280px-Bearded_Dragon_showing_beard.jpg

Some mythical things can be defined into existence - that is to say, by adjusting your definition sufficiently, you can arrive at something that provably does exist. The question is, how far you're willing to compromise your ideal to make it real.

Pterosaurs have been mentioned, and saltwater crocodiles. T-rex might qualify. What does it need to have, before you'll call it a dragon?

[Strigon]

Pterosaurs have been mentioned, and saltwater crocodiles. T-rex might qualify. What does it need to have, before you'll call it a dragon?

A lizard or snake body with functional wings. Must be at least the size of a horse when fully grown.

[Somensjev]

A lizard or snake body with functional wings. Must be at least the size of a horse when fully grown.

I'm almost certain that dragons as you define them don't exist, nor have ever existed (almost because some pteradons [pretty sure that's the word I want] could loosely be defined as such)

[Knaight]

I'm almost certain that dragons as you define them don't exist, nor have ever existed (almost because some pteradons [pretty sure that's the word I want] could loosely be defined as such)

If you carefully select some pretty tiny horses, and stretch the term "lizard body" pretty far, then sure.

[Icewraith]

Dragons start off imaginary, but once they start breeding and their numbers multiply they become real.
Dragon mating rituals are elaborate, resulting in the term "complex conjugal".

[Aedilred]

There's no need to get rude, this forum is called "friendly" banter

New here, are you? :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

Have you seen medieval European pictures of dragons? THey are almost always smaller than horses, sometimes much smaller.

[Giggling Ghast]

Discuss, were dragons ever real?

No. Carolinus brought all the dragons and magical creatures to a separate realm, remember?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Flight_of_Dragons

[veti]

If you carefully select some pretty tiny horses, and stretch the term "lizard body" pretty far, then sure.

The largest known pteranodon fossil has a wingspan of more than 7 metres. That's larger than even quite a big horse, if we're going by size rather than mass.

"Lizard body" - well, I think it probably qualifies under that. (Unless you want it to have four legs *as well as* two wings - in that case, we're definitely into "never existed" territory, because (I'm pretty sure) there are no six-limbed vertebrates in the fossil record.)

[Scarlet Knight]

I am giving dragons as much skepticism as I would give someone telling me a platypus exists.

Ok, valid point. Just keep an open mind that long shots sometimes come through.


Popping in to remind you that discussion of real world religion is against the forum rules as far as I know. This seems like it's straying into the topic a bit.

Good thing I didn't use the bible as evidence. :smallbiggrin:


I cannot believe we are seriously discussing this.
What proof or findings would those who actually think dragons existed require before they'd change their stance?

I don't think you understand why we debate this. Of course there's only flimsy evidence of dragons. If the Museum of Natural History had the fossils of Draco Serpentalis with a French lance head in it's eye on display, there would be no discussion. And yes, anybody with a lab coat could easily say: "Nope. Insufficient evidence." But there is some; flimsy perhaps, but still there. Maybe Marco Polo and Pliny were wrong; but they could also have been right.

A big part of science is imagination. What might have existed? How might it have existed?

I am not saying you have to believe in dragons, nor that dragonology must be taught in our schools. I just feel that the world would be a sadder one if no one believes in even the possibility of dragons.

[Hiro Protagonest]

But there is some; flimsy perhaps, but still there. Maybe Marco Polo and Pliny were wrong; but they could also have been right.

Marco Polo also said rhinos were unicorns. Anything he calls a "dragon" is a case of a previously-unseen beast he's trying to fit into terms he already knows.

[Razade]

Ok, valid point. Just keep an open mind that long shots sometimes come through.

Don't keep your mind so open your brain falls out. I think I'm fine, others not so much.


Marco Polo also said rhinos were unicorns. Anything he calls a "dragon" is a case of a previously-unseen beast he's trying to fit into terms he already knows.

To be fair, a lot of previous works refered to Rhino as unicorns so he wasn't just pulling it out of his own butt. But that was my initial point. People in ancient times referred to commonly known animals today with mystical elements. The Romans called the Giraffe a camelopardalis because it had a body like a camel and spots like a leopard and they believed this was literally because the two had a baby together.

Ancient people weren't as learned as we are now. We won't be as learned as the people in the future. That's how it works.

[Strigon]

Have you seen medieval European pictures of dragons? THey are almost always smaller than horses, sometimes much smaller.

Ah, a common mistake. The European pigmy dragon is actually a subspecies of wyvern.

[Bartmanhomer]

I saw a dragon at Central Park millions of times. So yes dragons are real. LOL! :biggrin:

[sktarq]

Ancient people weren't as learned as we are now. We won't be as learned as the people in the future. That's how it works.

That is a hopeful way to look at it.


The largest known pteranodon fossil has a wingspan of more than 7 metres. That's larger than even quite a big horse, if we're going by size rather than mass.

"Lizard body" - well, I think it probably qualifies under that. (Unless you want it to have four legs *as well as* two wings - in that case, we're definitely into "never existed" territory, because (I'm pretty sure) there are no six-limbed vertebrates in the fossil record.)

Well the largest known confirmed Pteranodon is closer to 6.2 m wingspan but pterosaur sure. . . as for lizard like? not really - if anything most were "furry" (technically Pycnofibers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterosaur#Pycnofibers)) - and very stiff (especially laterally) which would be very un-saurian.

[Razade]

That is a hopeful way to look at it.

Barring catastrophes and a upswell in people who believe in dragons.

[sktarq]

Barring catastrophes and a upswell in people who believe in dragons.

That is a very hopeful way to look at it

[Hiro Protagonest]

That is a hopeful way to look at it.

...

You can come back when you have a real response.

[factotum]

(Unless you want it to have four legs *as well as* two wings - in that case, we're definitely into "never existed" territory, because (I'm pretty sure) there are no six-limbed vertebrates in the fossil record.)

I'm pretty sure there were many mediaeval depictions of dragons having only two legs and wings, as you'd expect. Nowadays we call those wyverns rather than dragons, but they didn't make that distinction back then.

[sktarq]

...

You can come back when you have a real response.

It is a real response. Look at this thread. Look at the world around us and the behavior of people therein. (I won't get into details to stay away from politics). And add a dose or two of humour. We may well be more fact rich than the people who came before us as less than those who will come after but learned? Wise? More able to take those facts and learn from them? Go ahead and read the news, read history....I generally think we're all about evenly prone to idiocy over eras. But if you mean learned as purely in possessions of greater facts then on a greatly uneven motion the collection of facts does accrue.

[Razade]

We live in the safest and most educated time ever in human history. So look to history? There's a gradual trend towards less war and more knowledge. Look to the news? Why would I do that? The news doesn't report positive things because those don't make headlines. The news exists to sell the sum total of human misery and banality. I'd only look at it to know where its fallen.

[sktarq]

Society - that can advance - people less so. Norms are improved but stay largely unexamined on a personal level. It is a fragile system in large part because knowledge=/=learning. Memes (as in behavior norms passed down because they generate success of the meme, hopefully by providing an advantage for the holder of that meme) - are a real thing - settling disputes through law mediation for example - most people agree it works - and have some soundbite to say why-but that's all. I don't think the people of today are more learned. But they have been given a lot by the people who came before, especially knowledge. But learning? That is a personal process that one gets from the examination of knowledge, it isn't a birthright or inheritance.

[2D8HP]

I'm pretty sure there were many mediaeval depictions of dragons having only two legs and wings, as you'd expect. Nowadays we call those wyverns rather than dragons, but they didn't make that distinction back then.

Dragons

Vermithrax in 1981's "Dragonslayer" is the Dragon that shapes my vision of Dragons, and may by some be classified as a Wyvern:

http://i0.wp.com/4.bp.blogspot.com/_talQIilzbfQ/SnmYcLF0Q3I/AAAAAAAAAUQ/Q9RWFIUpBz8/s320/2509ccca24c0760.jpg?zoom=4&w=742


Anyway, from Reliques of Ancient English Poetry (1765)


Old stories tell how Hercules
A dragon slew at Lerna,
With seven heads and fourteen eyes,
To see and well discern-a:
But he had a club, this dragon to drub,
Or he ne'er had done it, I warrant ye:
But More of More-hall, with nothing at all,
He slew the dragon of Wantley.
This dragon had two furious wings,
Each one upon each shoulder;
With a sting in his tail as long as a flail
Which made him bolder and bolder.
He had long claw's, and in his jaws
Four and forty teeth of iron;
With a hide as tough as any buff,
Which did him round environ.

Have you not heard how the Trojan horse
Held seventy men in his belly?
This dragon was not quite so big,
But very near, I'll tell ye;
Devoured he poor children three,
That could not with him grapple;
And at one sup he ate them up,
As one would eat an apple.

All sorts of cattle this dragon would eat,
Some say he ate up trees,
And that the forests sure he would
Devour up by degrees:
For houses and churches were to him geese and turkeys;
He ate all and left none behind,
But some stones, dear Jack, that he could not crack,
Which on the hills you will find.
Hard by a furious knight there dwelt;
Men, women, girls, and boys,
Sighing and sobbing, came to his lodging,
And made a hideous noise.
Oh, save us all, More of More-hall,
Thou peerless knight of these woods;
Do but slay this dragon, who won't leave us a rag on,
We'll give thee all our goods.

This being done, he did engage
To hew the dragon down;
But first he went new armor to
Bespeak at Sheffield town;
With spikes all about, not within but without,
Of steel so sharp and strong,
Both behind and before, arms, legs, and all o'er,
Some five or six inches long.

Had you but seen him in this dress,
How fierce he looked, and how big,
You would have thought him for to be
Some Egyptian porcupig:
He frighted all, cats, dogs, and all,
Each cow, each horse, and each hog:
For fear they did flee, for they took him to be
Some strange, outlandish hedge-hog.

To see this fight all people then
Got up on trees and houses,
On churches some, and chimneys too;
But these put on their trousers,
Not to spoil their hose. As soon as he rose,
To make him strong and mighty,
He drank, by the tale, six pots of ale
And a quart of aqua-vitæ.

It is not strength that always wins,
For wit doth strength excel;
Which made our cunning champion
Creep down into a well,
Where he did think this dragon would drink,
And so he did in truth;
And as he stooped low, he rose up and cried, boh!
And kicked him in the mouth.

Oh, quoth the dragon with a deep sigh,
And turned six times together.
Sobbing and tearing, cursing and swearing
Out of his throat of leather:
More of More-hall, O thou rascal,
Would I had seen thee never;
With the thing at thy foot thou hast pricked my throat,
And I'm quite undone forever.

Murder, murder, the dragon cried,
Alack, alack, for grief;
Had you but missed that place, you could
Have done me no mischief.
Then his head he shaked, trembled and quaked,
And down he laid and cried;
First on one knee, then on back tumbled he;
So groaned, and kicked, and died.



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Wharncliffe_Dragon.JPG/220px-Wharncliffe_Dragon.JPG

https://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/s--9HqElhq4--/c_fit,fl_progressive,q_80,w_320/17t7wu3lneaq6jpg.jpg

[Aedilred]

I think the distinction that the wyvern has two legs and a dragon has four legs is a rather technical and modern one which is only of interest in certain fields and doesn't necessarily reflect the mythology or popular conception. In this instance, at least, it's probably heralds and not gamers who deserve the blame, but then heralds consider lions to be leopards depending on their posture, so they've already gone off the deep end.

Even nowadays wyverns remain relatively obscure and it is not uncommon to see dragons with just two legs. The dragons in ASoIaF have two legs; so did Smaug in the Hobbit film adaptation (although I know that was not uncontroversial). It's hard for me to tell, because I both hang out in fantasy circles where wyverns are familiar and also grew up in what is probably the most wyvern-familiar part of the world, but it seems to me that two-legged dragons are just as commonly called dragons these days as wyverns.

[Knaight]

I think the distinction that the wyvern has two legs and a dragon has four legs is a rather technical and modern one which is only of interest in certain fields and doesn't necessarily reflect the mythology or popular conception. In this instance, at least, it's probably heralds and not gamers who deserve the blame, but then heralds consider lions to be leopards depending on their posture, so they've already gone off the deep end.

Where "technical and modern" means "is a D&D distinction being treated as way more universal than it actually is".

[Trekkin]

One point I haven't often seen brought up is this: if dragons in the medieval sense or anything significantly similar to them ever existed, where are the specialized weapons used to hunt and kill them?

Millennia of inventive murderousness have left us with weaponry designed to kill specific animal species, whether for military purposes or safety reasons or simply because animals are tasty. Look at the manifold convolutions of the simple broadhead arrow intended for different game, or the vast profusion of polearms intended to let a person on foot kill a horse and rider -- or an elephant. Traps, too, exist for anything that swims, crawls, walks or flies, from lobsters to fish to foxes to bears to deer to all manner of birds.

And yet, somehow, there are no dragon traps. There are no dragon-slaying ballista bolts. After all the time humans allegedly spent being eaten by dragons, our legendary dragonslayers are armed with what? Swords? Spears? It seems slightly anachronistic that we developed special weapons for everything from sparrows to whales and yet for dragons we just shrugged and decided they were close enough to horses.

Even if you assume fantastic properties on the part of dragons, I find it hard to assume the humans dealing with them for centuries were just as exceptional.

(Incidentally, the spiny armor described in the poem above sounds a lot like the bear-baiting armor pictured.)

[pendell]

So what would it take to bring dragons into existence via genetic engineering? Large reptile is easy. Large reptile breathing acid or venom -- a little bit harder but there are already reptiles that do that.

Flying reptile? Going to be harder because of the cube-square law, I think. There are already examples of flying lizards, but the wingspan required to lift a 1000+ kg creature into the air would be ... what? Larger than a 747's?

And what is this tremendously huge creature eat?

Finally, if we could create them from existing DNA, could we domesticate them? Screw my Toyota Highlander, I wanna commute to work on my dragon :smallamused:

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[thorgrim29]

Dragons? Not so much as we'd understand it, but a ton of creatures like that can be explained by a traveler seeing things he didn't understand while in north africa and then embellishing the tale to get free drinks. A roman soldier stationed in modern Lybia kills a big monitor lizard (lizard beast or dragon in the local tongue), boom! Dragon. And then when that same roman soldier eventually becomes the symbol and rallying cry for the warriors of a major nation then the dragon grows with him.

[Aedilred]

Where "technical and modern" means "is a D&D distinction being treated as way more universal than it actually is".

Well as I say, to be completely fair, it's a heraldic distinction, later adopted into D&D. So gamers are merely followers in this instance. But otherwise, yes, I agree completely, and in most similar cases it is indeed D&D which should shoulder the blame.

[2D8HP]

One point I haven't often seen brought up is this: if dragons in the medieval sense or anything significantly similar to them ever existed, where are the specialized weapons used to hunt and kill them?


Left on the island of Colossa:


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3njDyVPavzs

[Stryyke]

Of course dragons are real . . . I . . . AM . . . The Dragon.

[veti]

Even nowadays wyverns remain relatively obscure and it is not uncommon to see dragons with just two legs. The dragons in ASoIaF have two legs; so did Smaug in the Hobbit film adaptation (although I know that was not uncontroversial).

Tolkien's own drawings showed Smaug as having four legs.

Dragons in Skyrim have only two, and that's a pretty darn' modern interpretation.

[Icewraith]

So what would it take to bring dragons into existence via genetic engineering? Large reptile is easy. Large reptile breathing acid or venom -- a little bit harder but there are already reptiles that do that.

Flying reptile? Going to be harder because of the cube-square law, I think. There are already examples of flying lizards, but the wingspan required to lift a 1000+ kg creature into the air would be ... what? Larger than a 747's?

And what is this tremendously huge creature eat?

Finally, if we could create them from existing DNA, could we domesticate them? Screw my Toyota Highlander, I wanna commute to work on my dragon :smallamused:

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

Everything but size is technically manageable with spitting cobra + wings. You could tack on some small limbs pretty easily.

Reptile, check.
Scales, wings, tail, check.
Expels venom/acid from mouth, check.

[Ursus the Grim]

Everything but size is technically manageable with spitting cobra + wings. You could tack on some small limbs pretty easily.

Reptile, check.
Scales, wings, tail, check.
Expels venom/acid from mouth, check.

I don't know. Adding limbs to a snake means a whole lot of anatomical adjustments. Muscles, nerves, and bones. You'd have to somehow change snake behavior from 'slither' to 'walk on these limbs you're not supposed to have/fly'.

And spitting cobra venom is pretty harmless unless you get it in your eyes, IIRC.

[pendell]

Might it be easier to modify a lizard, which already has legs, then to try to add them to a snake?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Peelee]

I vote we don't add anything to a snake. Except maybe death. That's a good addition. Nothing else. Just death. Dead snakes. Snakes no more. Gone.

[Scarlet Knight]

But I like snakes....:smallfrown:

[Peelee]

But I like snakes....:smallfrown:

We can make a zoo that's allowed to have snakes, I suppose. On an island. In the arctic. With a laser-mounted mongoose security system.

[McBish]

As a believer in the infinite multiverse theory I would say yes they did, do, and will exist. Just probably not in anyway that would interact on the world I live on.

[2D8HP]

As a believer in the infinite multiverse theory I would say yes they did, do, and will exist. Just probably not in anyway that would interact on the world I live on.


I really liked Castle Falkenstein's take which had descendents of

Pteranodon's (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pteranodon)

being Dragons in the 19th century.

https://forums-wildcardproperti.netdna-ssl.com/uploads/monthly_2016_04/ornith14.jpg.cca7fdae5d69eea66c36be1ee6cfde3b.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/Hp2t0YZ.jpg

[Scarlet Knight]

Might it be easier to modify a lizard, which already has legs, then to try to add them to a snake?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

The one thing we know is rich people must throw their money somewhere.

Create one and people will buy them for pets, even if it can't fly , no matter the cost.


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/af/31/14/af311489f092366498d491c0c6566ab8.jpg

[Trekkin]

Oh, I eagerly await the explanation of how "manageable" the necessary homeobox modifications alone are going to be to add limbs to anything, let alone something that is intended to be profitably sold as a pet.

What it would take to make dragons is, quite frankly, scientific research on a scale that would necessitate profound societal changes to condone, let alone fund. It's not going to happen.

[Eldan]

Agreed. We're not currently homeoboxing anything on anything, much less limb types they don't have, much less make them function correctly. Have fun with the neural architecture, too.

[Jay R]

What do you mean by a "dragon"? There were certainly snakes and crocodiles and dinosaur bones. There are Asian spitting cobras (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spitting_cobra) that spit their venom, which may be the source of the legends of dragon breath.

It's worth remembering than in most medieval European renditions of St. George, the dragon is considerably smaller than his horse.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b9/Martorell_-_Sant_Jordi.jpg

And the Greek word "δράκων" (drakon) could mean "snake" as well as dragon. So it's quite possible that "dragons" existed, in the form of snakes or crocodiles without wings or flame breath, and the legend grew around them, just as some scholars now think there might have been a Romano-British war leader who inspired the legend of King Arthur, although Lancelot, Gwenevere and the rest were added later.

[Eldan]

Though size and perspective are tricky in medieval pictures. You can't quite judge them literally. St. George is also taller than his horse in that picture, and the castle in the background is quite wonky.

[Jay R]

Though size and perspective are tricky in medieval pictures. You can't quite judge them literally. St. George is also taller than his horse in that picture, and the castle in the background is quite wonky.

But the dragon is still clearly much smaller than today's versions, such as Smaug in The Hobbit.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/0d/68/7e/0d687e6cd4cbc727c64949a30ce8d4f4.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/6b/d5/e6/6bd5e624da1505cef214de0f65c9fc6b.jpg

https://iconreader.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/basedonnovgorod14c.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/d4/aa/54/d4aa54b6ffae68f9557567044bbdaa22.jpg

http://www.speel.me.uk/gppic/stgeorgedragon/stgeorgedragon1.jpg

Have we established a pattern yet?

[Peelee]

Yes. Clearly, the man was a giant.

[factotum]

Yes. Clearly, the man was a giant.

Now we're extending the thread to cover mythical creatures other than dragons, are we? I want to know if Wendigos ever really existed, personally. :smalltongue:

[Strigon]

Now we're extending the thread to cover mythical creatures other than dragons, are we? I want to know if Wendigos ever really existed, personally. :smalltongue:

Well, at the risk of sparking another debate about classifications while the original still rages on, how do we define a wendigo?

I'd like to know about Loch Ness, myself.
And possibly the Bray Road Beast, but that one seems less credible.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I'd like to know about Loch Ness, myself.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/settled.png
(link (https://xkcd.com/1235/))

GW

[Strigon]

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/settled.png
(link (https://xkcd.com/1235/))

GW

Ah, but Loch Ness isn't in the United States, is it?

Seriously, though, make no mistake; I don't believe in the existence of any such cryptids. But people saw something, and I'd like to know what.

[Aedilred]

Assuming they weren't just lying or telling tall tales for attention, people see what they want to an extent. It could have been a log, fish, a bird, a large eel, an otter, a seal, or whatever. There isn't really any agreement over what Nessie looks like and even the handful of "tests" done with sonar that have suggested something's there (which are already in the minority) haven't been particularly consistent as to size or shape.

It's almost impossible to conclusively disprove Nessie's existence short of draining the loch, but the evidence that there is something there is pretty thin once you look at it and take the proven hoaxes into account: just a persistent "urban" myth.

[Icewraith]

Oh, I eagerly await the explanation of how "manageable" the necessary homeobox modifications alone are going to be to add limbs to anything, let alone something that is intended to be profitably sold as a pet.

What it would take to make dragons is, quite frankly, scientific research on a scale that would necessitate profound societal changes to condone, let alone fund. It's not going to happen.

There are some snakes with vestigial limb structures. Probably not cobras (nothing's ever that easy), but I figure knowing what a vestigal snake pelvis looks like, where it's located, and which species have code for one would give a group of researchers a leg up on the problem.

I'm honestly trying to contribute, but the desire to make dragon/snake/science/math jokes and puns cannot be denied. It's a problem that scales exponentially.

[2D8HP]

It's a problem that scales exponentially.


Apparently.

[Trekkin]

There are some snakes with vestigial limb structures. Probably not cobras (nothing's ever that easy), but I figure knowing what a vestigal snake pelvis looks like, where it's located, and which species have code for one would give a group of researchers a leg up on the problem.

I'm honestly trying to contribute, but the desire to make dragon/snake/science/math jokes and puns cannot be denied. It's a problem that scales exponentially.

I am afraid you figure incorrectly, although you're correct in saying nothing is ever that easy. Not even remotely close. Explanation spoiled below.

Genes are not modular, particularly not in eukaryotic organisms; there are no "genes for wings" or "genes for limbs" -- or, indeed, code for vestigial limbs -- to be shuffled around, even with the new CRISPR-Cas9 system that has so captured the attention of laypersons and amateurs. Anatomy is polygenic to a degree well beyond conventional molecular biology's capacity to describe; the smallest detail of morphology depends on a complex and highly dynamic interaction between spatiotemporally localized biochemical anisotropy, the chemical (and, often, thermodynamic on multiple scales) determinants of cell state, and the manifold transcriptomic permutations elicited thereby. I can't even generate an accurate analogy to anything within normal experience.

This is not a single complex problem. This is literally thousands of complex problems interacting with each other via systemic causation well beyond our present capacity to track; we only now have the computational resources to begin modeling the simplest of them at ludicrously short time scales. We can understand in gross terms what is happening to turn an embryo into an organism; what can happen, in terms of limbs alone, is a far larger state space filled mostly with expensive non-answers and terminal cancer.

This is not a matter for a single group of generic researchers. Even the basic science required to develop the tools to develop a manipulable understanding of vertebrate developmental biology would require legions of molecular biologists, bioinformaticists, structural biologists, microscopists, biochemists, biophysicists, computer scientists, and more I haven't even thought of yet. Funding requirements could easily run into the low billions over the course of decades -- and that's assuming you can guarantee that budget for that long, which no one currently can.

The answer to the question "can we make dragons" has little to do with snake limbs and more to do with our utter inability to perform research on the necessary scale. The gaps in our knowledge are just too big.

[veti]

Just thinkin', from my position of total ignorance of genetic engineering...

Rather than trying to put wings on a snake or lizard, I'd approach the problem from the other end. Trying to replace a bird's body feathers with scales sounds a lot more feasible to me. (Birds already have scales, on their feet, and anyway a feather is basically a fluffy scale.)

So start with a big bird, like a condor or an albatross, and work from there.

(Presumably if we replaced the wing feathers with scales, the poor thing wouldn't be able to fly. So one step at a time.)

[Aedilred]

I'd have thought the best starting point would be with something like Dimorphodon, if you could get hold of its genetic code. Scale it up and it fulfils pretty much all the dragon criteria apart from fire-breathing (which is obviously not something you can derive from existing fauna anyway). It only has two legs, but four-legged dragons are always going to be a nightmare. Whether you start with a lizard and add wings or with a bird and add forelimbs, the amount of work involved in adding the extra limbs and making them work is going to be the hardest part of the process.

I think you'd probably want to start with an animal that can already fly rather than bolting wings onto a terrestrial one, just because there are flight adaptations (like bone structure) which flying animals already have, and would have to be retrofitted into a lizard or snake. By the time you've added wings and then adapted the rest of the animal to be able to use them to fly, it would probably have been easier to start with a bird. Or even a bat, and find a way to replace fur with scales...

Size is always going to be a problem if you want to create something on the scale of fantasy dragons. Even the largest living reptiles would be too small. But it's also one of the issues that is likely to be easiest to resolve, in some respects. Yes, the square-cube law will eventually cause problems, but rescaling an animal is likely to be a walk in the park compared to adding limbs, flight capacity, or fire-breath.

[Trekkin]

I'd be genuinely curious to know where people are getting their ideas concerning which morphological changes are more difficult than others.

I mean, they're all flatly impossible, for reasons I outlined above. But people seem to have more opinions about (what they think of as) genetics than other sciences, and I'm curious where those ideas come from.

[Aedilred]

I'd be genuinely curious to know where people are getting their ideas of which morphological changes are more difficult than others.

I mean, they're all flatly impossible, for reasons I outlined above. But people seem to have more opinions about (what they think of as) genetics than other sciences, and I'm curious where those ideas come from.

It's possible within the space of a few generations to selectively breed, let's say, dogs, that are larger or smaller than their forebears. It is not possible in the same amount of time to breed a dog with six legs.

That is the logic I at least was applying to the principle that altering the size of the animal is going to be easier than giving it wings or (if it already has wings) forelimbs.

[Knaight]

Rather than trying to put wings on a snake or lizard, I'd approach the problem from the other end. Trying to replace a bird's body feathers with scales sounds a lot more feasible to me. (Birds already have scales, on their feet, and anyway a feather is basically a fluffy scale.)

So start with a big bird, like a condor or an albatross, and work from there.

This runs into the same problem described above. There's no "scale" gene, and something like replacing a bird's body feathers with scales would involve figuring out the intricate combination of thousands* of biological molecules involved in feather production, cell signaling (to get feathers where they're supposed to be), regulating the feather production and cell signaling, regulating the regulators, etc. A similar thing would need to be done with scales. Then the manufacturing processes for all of those molecules would need to be figured out, then once you have the key proteins you need to figure out how to both get the nucleic acids for said proteins (relatively easy, once you have everything) and figure out how to precisely regulate the translation and transcription processes of that part of the genome (way beyond current technology). Then once you have all this, you still get to deal with whatever the unknown complications are that we haven't discovered yet, on top of the known complications involved in how annoyingly often the same molecules show up in several different biochemical processes. Then once you solve that, assuming nothing more comes up, you have a bird with scales on it.

*This is a really conservative estimate here.

[Icewraith]

I'd be genuinely curious to know where people are getting their ideas concerning which morphological changes are more difficult than others.

I mean, they're all flatly impossible, for reasons I outlined above. But people seem to have more opinions about (what they think of as) genetics than other sciences, and I'm curious where those ideas come from.

Well, I know we figured out how to get goats to extrude spider silk proteins using what sounded like (but probably wasn't) drag-and-drop gene editing.

I also know that there are genetic defects that can cause limb duplication. Wasn't there a six-legged baby or something last year? We can already do this with fruit flies, producing flies with extra legs or wings or antennae.

Adapting an existing structure, even if vestigial, for a new purpose seems far easier than flat-out adding a new structure. So, considering that the challenge is "put limbs on a snake", knowing that snake proto-pelvises already exist (and that we can differentiate between snakes and legless lizards) seems like an advantage.

Probably the biggest significant factor is the slower reproductive times of snakes/lizards compared to the ten day cycle for flies. That's a lot fewer opportunities to iterate.

[Scarlet Knight]

Use the same principle as growing an ear on a mouse; attach the structure for a wing to a lizard and allow the flesh/ cartilage to grow over it.

[Knaight]

Well, I know we figured out how to get goats to extrude spider silk proteins using what sounded like (but probably wasn't) drag-and-drop gene editing.

Modifying DNA to add a protein production center is about as easy as it gets (although using a goat is comparatively uncommon; this sort of stuff is exactly what e. coli is for*). Adding limbs that an animal doesn't have in the first place is a different matter entirely. Cell signaling "make this thing here" requires the rest of the biochemistry involved in making the thing, and that's the harder part - hence the occasional mutation where a turtle is born with two heads and the total absence of a fully formed limb appearing in snakes.
*Among other things, it's easily one of the most useful model organisms.

[factotum]

I also know that there are genetic defects that can cause limb duplication. Wasn't there a six-legged baby or something last year? We can already do this with fruit flies, producing flies with extra legs or wings or antennae.


I'm pretty sure those extra limbs aren't actually functional, though, which is the problem--you need all six limbs to be useful if you want a four-legged dragon to fly (almost literally).

[Trekkin]

Icewraith, Aedilred: Thanks. I'd forgotten what it must be like to live without constant access to primary literature; as you can imagine, this makes it difficult to put lay thought in the appropriate context.

At any rate, the biggest obstacle in our path is not which organism to start modifying. It's that the requisite basic science is far beyond our current capability to research.

More accurately, it's beyond our capability to defend. We can, with great difficulty, determine what (probably) is, and therefore what can be. It is far easier and more immediately gratifying to determine what "should" be, particularly where funding is concerned. Quite apart from the people demanding our money would be the people demanding our heads, because what we're doing is an abomination according to whatever moral code they hold dear, or being done by people they'd rather not see succeed, or they'd rather we all "cure" whatever is ailing their relatives, or perhaps just because they feel like burning down a big complicated thing that a bunch of people care about and laughing over the ashes at all the sad nerds.

If you want a pat aphorism, here is one: people hate and fear what they fail to understand. Dragons would require advancing our understanding of biology into the biggest bogeyman in human history; it will not happen. When I said above that we'd need science beyond what society can condone, this is what I meant.

[Eldan]

Well, I know we figured out how to get goats to extrude spider silk proteins using what sounded like (but probably wasn't) drag-and-drop gene editing.

I also know that there are genetic defects that can cause limb duplication. Wasn't there a six-legged baby or something last year? We can already do this with fruit flies, producing flies with extra legs or wings or antennae.

Adapting an existing structure, even if vestigial, for a new purpose seems far easier than flat-out adding a new structure. So, considering that the challenge is "put limbs on a snake", knowing that snake proto-pelvises already exist (and that we can differentiate between snakes and legless lizards) seems like an advantage.

Probably the biggest significant factor is the slower reproductive times of snakes/lizards compared to the ten day cycle for flies. That's a lot fewer opportunities to iterate.

There's a efw special cases where such a thing is possible, yes. Mostly, however, they are based on pre-existing mutations we know the effect off. I.e. scientist sees fly with eight limbs, sequences it's genome and has a guess at which differences to a standard genome cause the change. The scientist does not sit down with the genome of a standard fly and edit the "number of limbs" gene.

Edit: one may then try and find homologous genes in a related species and try to induce similar changes. The outcomes would be difficult to predict, though.

[Icewraith]

I am afraid you figure incorrectly, although you're correct in saying nothing is ever that easy. Not even remotely close. Explanation spoiled below.

Genes are not modular, particularly not in eukaryotic organisms; there are no "genes for wings" or "genes for limbs" -- or, indeed, code for vestigial limbs -- to be shuffled around, even with the new CRISPR-Cas9 system that has so captured the attention of laypersons and amateurs. Anatomy is polygenic to a degree well beyond conventional molecular biology's capacity to describe; the smallest detail of morphology depends on a complex and highly dynamic interaction between spatiotemporally localized biochemical anisotropy, the chemical (and, often, thermodynamic on multiple scales) determinants of cell state, and the manifold transcriptomic permutations elicited thereby. I can't even generate an accurate analogy to anything within normal experience.

This is not a single complex problem. This is literally thousands of complex problems interacting with each other via systemic causation well beyond our present capacity to track; we only now have the computational resources to begin modeling the simplest of them at ludicrously short time scales. We can understand in gross terms what is happening to turn an embryo into an organism; what can happen, in terms of limbs alone, is a far larger state space filled mostly with expensive non-answers and terminal cancer.

This is not a matter for a single group of generic researchers. Even the basic science required to develop the tools to develop a manipulable understanding of vertebrate developmental biology would require legions of molecular biologists, bioinformaticists, structural biologists, microscopists, biochemists, biophysicists, computer scientists, and more I haven't even thought of yet. Funding requirements could easily run into the low billions over the course of decades -- and that's assuming you can guarantee that budget for that long, which no one currently can.

The answer to the question "can we make dragons" has little to do with snake limbs and more to do with our utter inability to perform research on the necessary scale. The gaps in our knowledge are just too big.

Translation (using simple words): We don't know how a single cell "knows" how to grow into a bunch of cells and end up with the right number of working arms and legs and heads (most of the time). It would take a lot of really smart people with a lot of tools that cost a lot of money to figure it out. It would be really, really, really hard to do.

Please note that "really, really, really hard to do" is not the same as "we could definitely never do it".


Icewraith, Aedilred: Thanks. I'd forgotten what it must be like to live without constant access to primary literature; as you can imagine, this makes it difficult to put lay thought in the appropriate context.

At any rate, the biggest obstacle in our path is not which organism to start modifying. It's that the requisite basic science is far beyond our current capability to research.

More accurately, it's beyond our capability to defend. We can, with great difficulty, determine what (probably) is, and therefore what can be. It is far easier and more immediately gratifying to determine what "should" be, particularly where funding is concerned. Quite apart from the people demanding our money would be the people demanding our heads, because what we're doing is an abomination according to whatever moral code they hold dear, or being done by people they'd rather not see succeed, or they'd rather we all "cure" whatever is ailing their relatives, or perhaps just because they feel like burning down a big complicated thing that a bunch of people care about and laughing over the ashes at all the sad nerds.

If you want a pat aphorism, here is one: people hate and fear what they fail to understand. Dragons would require advancing our understanding of biology into the biggest bogeyman in human history; it will not happen. When I said above that we'd need science beyond what society can condone, this is what I meant.

You are participating in a thread titled "Were dragons ever real?" located in the general discussion section of a webcomic forum. If I were a biologist capable of describing in accurate detail consistent with current literature steps necessary to genetically engineer a dragon from a snake in order to support assertions in a post I made in part so I could sneak in the "leg up" pun, I would either be applying for funding or actively working on that project.

Talking about ethics in a discussion about genetically engineering dragons is like talking about the trivial zeroes of the Riemann zeta function. Yes, we know, blah blah ethics, blah blah pitchforks and torches, but those aren't the interesting parts of the subject.

[pendell]

If you want a pat aphorism, here is one: people hate and fear what they fail to understand. Dragons would require advancing our understanding of biology into the biggest bogeyman in human history; it will not happen. When I said above that we'd need science beyond what society can condone, this is what I meant.

I can't speak to the technical aspects , but I believe you're underestimating your fellow human beings. Remember vaccines. Remember the study of dead bodies. Much of modern medicine involved violating some of the strictest possible taboos in the handling of dead bodies, in putting blood of animals into human beings. Doctors and scientists went to jail for that sort of thing.

Today? We eradicated smallpox and polio because even the most conservative religious people of the 50s and 60s went and made sure their kids got their shots.

People can be really morally flexible when they have a reason to be. So while they might look askance at creating a dragon (say) purely for fun's sake, if there was a really good reason for it, they'd come around. By "really good reason", I mean "it saves lives, or otherwise makes everyone's life better."

Yes, I know there is an anti-vax movement today which I probably can't discuss on this forum. I will content myself with saying that it is a rarely new phenomenon and practically no one before the 1990s had any problems whatsoever with vaccines, even the religious communities which most zealously opposed them in their infancy back in the 19th century.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Wardog]

People can be really morally flexible when they have a reason to be. So while they might look askance at creating a dragon (say) purely for fun's sake, if there was a really good reason for it, they'd come around. By "really good reason", I mean "it saves lives, or otherwise makes everyone's life better."

Or you convince the government it would have military applications. (And that the Other Side have already started their own research).

[Grey_Wolf_c]

We eradicated [...] polio

No, we haven't. We are very close, but we are not there yet. Mostly because a couple of decades ago, certain militaries used the Red Cross/Crescent teams as infiltration vectors for their agents, which means the Red Crescent is not trusted in certain areas of the world, which has hindered their efforts to propagate the Polio vaccine.

Grey Wolf

[pendell]

No, we haven't. We are very close, but we are not there yet. Mostly because a couple of decades ago, certain militaries used the Red Cross/Crescent teams as infiltration vectors for their agents, which means the Red Crescent is not trusted in certain areas of the world, which has hindered their efforts to propagate the Polio vaccine.

Grey Wolf

Noted. Thanks for the correction.

:Grumbles a bit about things that would get him an infraction, so I'll leave it at that:

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[pendell]

Just saw this link (http://globalnews.ca/news/1829704/bestiality-and-human-cow-hybrids-the-original-anti-vax-movement/#tableau_frame_5caf8) on the original opposition to vaccinations in the 19th century. Seemed apropos and interesting. And we did overcome these concerns.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Skitterbug]

Dragons? No. Sadly they were never real. Dagrons on the other hand...

http://www.hrwiki.org/w/images/b/b2/Dragon_Attempt_-_Strong_Mad.PNG
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4_pQvSUoAA4RkW.jpg