Question of the Day, July 21, 2010
- Thread starter The Escapist Staff
- Start date
Heck yes. Have you seen some of the freakish things evolution turned up in the past? Blue whales, millipedes the size of cars, humans..
Of course, the magical attributes of the creatures in question would need explaining, but dragons ability to breath fire isn't wholly impossible, for instance..
'Simple fact is, we just don't have enough knowledge to say either way, and it'd be unscientific to arbitrarily declare something like that impossible, just as with alien life.
Of course, the magical attributes of the creatures in question would need explaining, but dragons ability to breath fire isn't wholly impossible, for instance..
'Simple fact is, we just don't have enough knowledge to say either way, and it'd be unscientific to arbitrarily declare something like that impossible, just as with alien life.
It is proable that if things had panned out differently then mabye. And for all we know there were dragon like creatures here on earth that died off eons ago, we just havent found the fossils. Not that thats likely but it could hypotheticly happen.
What do you mean "evolution went differently"? Is the process of natural selection somehow changed? Do we have a different genetic code that is somehow more or less prone to mutation? Is the very landscape of the Earth different? Has a certain extinction event not occurred? Are the laws of physics slightly changed? There are millions of variables, and its impossible to give a real answer since its unknown just which variable has been changed.
No. Not at the current definition of the creatures. Well, yeah, unicorns (bar the magic bullshit) are very possible. Dragons and griffins, however, have a small problem - they are too heavy to fly. And while the definition of a dragon is loose enough to permit flightless land wurms (pretty plausible, although the selective pressures for that would be pretty crazy), there is practically no way to have a griffon that can also fly, while still looking like a griffon.
As stated maybe not the magical attributes but definitely in the physical sense they could exist. Unicorns having horns on their heads to peel back bark to get at bugs for example.
All it would take would be the right secretions occuring in the body. Like Bombardier Beetles but more volatile and on a larger scale. The flying thing is admittedly harder to come up with something. Maybe some avatar-esque natural carbon fiber bone structure making it light enough to fly. Maybe the lungs act as giant bellows that push air into the wings providing lift. It doesn't really have to be spot on standard drakes.erbkaiser said:
Ive always felt like things from mythology such as Unicorns, Ogres, gnomes, griffins, basalisk, ect ect ect ad nauseum, are signs of evolution.
Its not hard to think that someone who sees a mutated animal, or something with anomalous traits was misunderstood, and in turn, interpreted in different ways.
Back in those early days, knowledge was shared predominantly via word of mouth. And if anyone has ever played the game of purple monkey dishwasher, it is easy to see how the story of someone who didnt understand what they were looking at, could easily get distorted into something infinitely more grandiose.
Now, again knowledge is shared word of mouth, so when one person at the end of the purple monkey dishwasher line of the original instance, years later, hears of another aberration that sounds vaugely similar, they recall the original one and claim it must have been what was seen before... when these things happen repeatedly it does not take long for them to become fabled, and the longer it is perpetuated, the closer it becomes to lore.
I could see things like ogres easily being misinterpreted for the 7 foot guy, who felt misunderstood by the folks in his home village, leaving to find a place to fit in, then another village villifying him because he is different, and assuming hes not even human. Similarly with vastly smaller people, to a different end.
So to say these things could have existed under differing circumstances is a no brainer. Genetics is a somewhat schizo thing. Look at the potential for other worlds, Do you really think you would see animals and sentient life on other planets that mirror life here on earth? Infinite possibility in infinite combination.
Its not hard to think that someone who sees a mutated animal, or something with anomalous traits was misunderstood, and in turn, interpreted in different ways.
Back in those early days, knowledge was shared predominantly via word of mouth. And if anyone has ever played the game of purple monkey dishwasher, it is easy to see how the story of someone who didnt understand what they were looking at, could easily get distorted into something infinitely more grandiose.
Now, again knowledge is shared word of mouth, so when one person at the end of the purple monkey dishwasher line of the original instance, years later, hears of another aberration that sounds vaugely similar, they recall the original one and claim it must have been what was seen before... when these things happen repeatedly it does not take long for them to become fabled, and the longer it is perpetuated, the closer it becomes to lore.
I could see things like ogres easily being misinterpreted for the 7 foot guy, who felt misunderstood by the folks in his home village, leaving to find a place to fit in, then another village villifying him because he is different, and assuming hes not even human. Similarly with vastly smaller people, to a different end.
So to say these things could have existed under differing circumstances is a no brainer. Genetics is a somewhat schizo thing. Look at the potential for other worlds, Do you really think you would see animals and sentient life on other planets that mirror life here on earth? Infinite possibility in infinite combination.
If the evolution would find it needed. Yeah. Why not? If lizards would have reasons to actually be big and breathing fire i'm pretty sure the nature could equip them with such traits, but apparently it was not essential for their survival.
Thing with nature is it doesn't really like to do more than needed, and even then the process is slow, carefully adapting to the environment rather than going "Oh those little geckos are not really eating enough, lets scale them up 100 times, add wings, big fangs and firebreathing and see what happens!"
Thing with nature is it doesn't really like to do more than needed, and even then the process is slow, carefully adapting to the environment rather than going "Oh those little geckos are not really eating enough, lets scale them up 100 times, add wings, big fangs and firebreathing and see what happens!"
Not even a chance. You have to look at these creatures from the perspective of adaptation.
Dragon: It has wings but it's also an extremely massive animal. Giving that it's a carnivore it would take a lot of food to sustain his mass. The only animals who managed to get close in looks to a dragon were the dinosaurs but if you noticed the most massive of the beasts did not have wings. That is because there is no need for them in an evolutionary point of view(their mass was enough to assure survival. Wings would just be overkill). So, in a sense, dragons "did" exist on earth but they were nothing like the dragons of mythology.
Unicorn: It's basically a "horse" with a horn. The closest an animal has come to resembling this creature is the stag. In regards to it actually existing. Having a horn would not be advantageous from an evolutionary point of view. 2 huge horns are way better at protecting the animal from predators than one small one is.
Griffin: A combination between a lion and an eagle. Firstly, it would be impossible to find an animal having both feathers and fur. There's simply no need for that and as such it wouldn't appear. Secondly, a lion is quite a massive creature. His main prey is on the ground. It would make no sense for a lion, a perfectly adapt predator, to pop wings and attempt to hunt in the sky. There's simply nothing for him up there.
No matter what course evolution takes, these 3 creatures are simply impossible.
Dragon: It has wings but it's also an extremely massive animal. Giving that it's a carnivore it would take a lot of food to sustain his mass. The only animals who managed to get close in looks to a dragon were the dinosaurs but if you noticed the most massive of the beasts did not have wings. That is because there is no need for them in an evolutionary point of view(their mass was enough to assure survival. Wings would just be overkill). So, in a sense, dragons "did" exist on earth but they were nothing like the dragons of mythology.
Unicorn: It's basically a "horse" with a horn. The closest an animal has come to resembling this creature is the stag. In regards to it actually existing. Having a horn would not be advantageous from an evolutionary point of view. 2 huge horns are way better at protecting the animal from predators than one small one is.
Griffin: A combination between a lion and an eagle. Firstly, it would be impossible to find an animal having both feathers and fur. There's simply no need for that and as such it wouldn't appear. Secondly, a lion is quite a massive creature. His main prey is on the ground. It would make no sense for a lion, a perfectly adapt predator, to pop wings and attempt to hunt in the sky. There's simply nothing for him up there.
No matter what course evolution takes, these 3 creatures are simply impossible.
Unicorns? Certainly, an extra appendage/horn for mate attraction is quite possible.
Griffons and dragons? Certainly not, there is a reason you don't see any animals larger then birds fly. Our atmosphere simply won't allow a being that large and heavy to sustain flight.
Griffons and dragons? Certainly not, there is a reason you don't see any animals larger then birds fly. Our atmosphere simply won't allow a being that large and heavy to sustain flight.
Maybe unicorns. But dragons and griffins have four wings and two legs, making them unlike any other creature that currently exists or has ever existed as far as we know, so they would have to have a completely different evolutionary starting point than the rest of the animal kingdom.
Who said they didn't exist and Christianity is actually right, except Noah was just a jerk and didn't bring them on the Ark?