Do You Believe In Dragons?

[Primordial Annihilator]

because of one key aspect of your argument: you're claiming that dragon legends are the product of actual dragons. IOW, there are (or were) people in the world with actual knowledge of dragons; dragons do occasionally interact with people.

Nonsense I never ever said that.

Where did you get that ridiculous outlandish and bizarre notion from?

I said dragons grew in mythical tradition from sightings long ago of (now extinct) large reptiles or birds or (it is remotely possible) relic survivor dinosaur species.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Not really...I am just saying it is absurd to make unsubstantiated comments.

Such as no dinosaurs or their descendants survived extinction...which is nonsense as Birds are descendants of dinosaurs and secondly no one can be 100% certain every extinct thing is actually extinct...especially when we are discussing creatures that may have left relics for our ancient ancestors to finish off.

All the available evidence points to the fact that dinosaurs (excepting birds) went extinct some 65 million years ago. To believe in stuff that we have no evidence for is just plain silly and amounts to nothing more than speculation.

The recent discovery of the Colecanthe proved that stupidity of that presumption.

And when we find a living specimen of a dinosaur we will modify our understanding. Until then, however, dinosaurs are extinct.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Fossils are only one type of evidence. In the case of a fantastical creature running around somewhere, the best piece of evidence would be a living specimen.

Fossils are the lesser of evidence..immunology and the molecular clock are far more pertinent to taxonomy and cladistic definition of species.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

All the available evidence points to the fact that dinosaurs (excepting birds) went extinct some 65 million years ago. To believe in stuff that we have no evidence for is just plain silly and amounts to nothing more than speculation.

Says you...

Pfft...

I am just saying you can't be certain everything dinosaur or large reptillian went extinct 65 mya...I am not saying I talk to dinosaurs or believe in them...or whatever...its just a hypothesis to account for Dragon myth...thats all folks...f me.

Weird...

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

You guys seem to live in black and white reality...

I have to tell you now...its all shades of grey

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Doesnt even have to be a dinosaur to account for dragon myth...maybe some large reptile was responsible...maybe some large bird....now extinct but so recently extinct (relative to dinosaurs) that it has left few discernable fossils for us to uncover...yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nonsense I never ever said that.

Where did you get that ridiculous outlandish and bizarre notion from?

I said dragons grew in mythical tradition from sightings long ago of (now extinct) large reptiles or birds or (it is remotely possible) relic survivor dinosaur species.

I was referring to your post from before:

I believe that some species of big dinosaur and/or very large reptile survived in some regions up until the start of human prehistory creating the myth of Dragons.

Your claim, as I understand it, is that the animal that lies at the core of the dragon myth, whatever it is, is a real creature. My point was that whatever this creature is, it must have been known to people, otherwise it couldn't have been the basis for the myth.

This doesn't mean that I'm trying to say that you're claiming that there were ever real winged, fire-breathing lizards running around. I'm saying that your argument necessitates that the seed for "dragon" myths is accessible to humanity. Therefore, the evidence for this creature is accessible to humanity as well.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Your claim, as I understand it, is that the animal that lies at the core of the dragon myth, whatever it is, is a real creature. My point was that whatever this creature is, it must have been known to people, otherwise it couldn't have been the basis for the myth.

This doesn't mean that I'm trying to say that you're claiming that there were ever real winged, fire-breathing lizards running around. I'm saying that your argument necessitates that the seed for "dragon" myths is accessible to humanity. Therefore, the evidence for this creature is accessible to humanity as well.

Thats better.

But I don't know if the evidence for this 'creature' remains accessible to humanity...all evidence may have perished millenia ago.

However some ancient meso american pottery depicts what appears to be bipedal reptiles interacting with humans which is interesting...I will have to find a link.

 

[Nepenthe]

Not really...I am just saying it is absurd to make unsubstantiated comments.

Such as no dinosaurs or their descendants survived extinction...which is nonsense as Birds are descendants of dinosaurs and secondly no one can be 100% certain every extinct thing is actually extinct...especially when we are discussing creatures that may have left relics for our ancient ancestors to finish off.

The recent discovery of the Colecanthe proved that stupidity of that presumption.

Do not put too much faith in fossils....never a good idea.

The coelacanth isn't a "living fossil" and is a bad example to compare against actual fossil remains of extinct creatures. The coelacanth surviving today (Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis) are very different animals than the extinct coelacanth from 360 mya; the older coelecanth are smaller and have a different internal morphology. Coelacanth are not "living fossils"; they are a different species than the extinct fossils coelacanth in the fossil record.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

The coelacanth isn't a "living fossil" and is a bad example to compare against actual fossil remains of extinct creatures. The coelacanth surviving today (Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis) are very different animals than the extinct coelacanth from 360 mya; the older coelecanth are smaller and have a different internal morphology. Coelacanth are not "living fossils"; they are a different species than the extinct fossils coelacanth in the fossil record.

I don't remember saying the Coalacanth was a living fossil...I wish people would stop being mendacious and inventing what I state...it is most annoying...if I could remove your frubals...I would.

It is an order that was thought to have left no descendants...that was shown to be false...or perhaps you would like to deny that? LOL

Incidently your empthasis on the differation between modern and ancient coalacanth is grossly exaggerated...certainly as the order is over 400 million years old..obviously there is going to be some change...but the essential distinguishing features have not...such as the notochord and the revolvable lobed fins, very ancient features.

I am sick of replying on this thread...later.

 

[Nepenthe]

I don't remember saying the Coalacanth was a living fossil...I wish people would stop being mendacious and inventing what I state...it is most annoying...if I could remove your frubals...I would.

I gave you frubals? Well, I'm sure it was for a post I thought was interesting or funny. I wish I could find such posts in this thread.

It is an order that was thought to have left no descendants...that was shown to be false...or perhaps you would like to deny that? LOL

Backpedaling is an acquired skill apparently.

Incidently your empthasis on the differation between modern and ancient coalacanth is grossly exaggerated...certainly as the order is over 400 million years old..obviously there is going to be some change...but the essential distinguishing features have not...such as the notochord and the revolvable lobed fins, very ancient features.

Coelacanth have changed extensively in the last several hundred million years. Just the examples from the late Cretaceous to the Carboniferous show radical changes:

Just one example of a profound difference is that the extinct species had "ossified lungs" which confined them to populate shallow waters, while the modern one have been found at depths of 700 m.

I am sick of replying on this thread...later.

Later!

 

[Riverwolf]

Taxonomy Riverwolf is not an exact science...I would prefer to construct taxonomical definitions based on molecular biological evidence....not the outward form of fossils...others differ.

Seems quite obvious that they don't fall under any modern category.

Birds are the descendants of Theropod dinosaurs, which were mostly feathered, bipedal, laid eggs, regulated their internal body temperature as birds do and in fact the only main difference between them from a physiological viewpoint is that theropods had teeth.

Theropods did not make up the majority of dinosaurs. Like now, predators (most theropods were predators) make up the minority of the population.

To say that birds mammals reptiles and dinosaurs are different 'classes' illustrates your comprehension of taxonomy.

Just repeating everything I heard throughout my life. I may not know the technical terms, but I've always had trouble with that. A lack of knowledge of technical terms is not an indication of a lack of understanding; it's just an indication of an inability to express that understanding accurately.

They are different clades...except reptiles, which are not a clade unlike Birds Insects and Mammals...the only reason dinosaurs (Therapods at least) and birds are not in the same clade is because of arbitratory taxonomical considerations.

And theropods do not make up the majority of dinosaurs. Shall we lump theropods into a different class than their food, now?

 

[Riverwolf]

The relative difference between a human and a snake is vast...the difference between a sparrow and tyrannosaur (genotypically and phenotypically) much less so by comparison...the molecular clock makes this even clearer.

Your understanding is rather flawed...biology is no simple exercise.

Again, just repeating what was told to me. I don't claim to be a biologist.

You trying to contradict all the scientists I grew up hearing? Is what you're saying an accepted theory, or one of the minority ones?

 

[Riverwolf]

I am quite aware things evolve...please try to imagine I am not an idiot.

...you've proven yourself quite intelligent and well-learned.

But I am in disagreement with your argument that dinosaurs and birds are essentially the same thing... which they are not.

After all, we're not squirrels, even though the early primate ancestors were quite squirrel-like.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If you believe in a god/gods, why do you not believe in dragons?

I do. I've always liked dragons.

 

[Riverwolf]

To believe in stuff that we have no evidence for is just plain silly and amounts to nothing more than speculation.

No to the silliness, yes to the speculation.

 

[Riverwolf]

Says you...

Pfft...

I am just saying you can't be certain everything dinosaur or large reptillian went extinct 65 mya...I am not saying I talk to dinosaurs or believe in them...or whatever...its just a hypothesis to account for Dragon myth...thats all folks...f me.

Weird...

Palm trees in the dark, clouds on a dark night, and modern animals mistaken in the dark for something they're not isn't enough?

 

[Midnight Pete]

And the difference is exactly what?

Their relationship to the rest of culture, I guess. Lighten up, will ya?

 

[tothen]

not really, but it is strange that so many people did from the past.

 

[jarofthoughts]

Their relationship to the rest of culture, I guess. Lighten up, will ya?

The Chinese legends about their spiritual and elemental dragons are deeply embedded into their culture, and many of these legends used to be religious narratives.

So again, what, exactly, is the difference?