Question of the Day, July 21, 2010

[kingcom]

ofcourse! DNA is a strange thing!. chimpansees and humans only differ about 3 % of DNA, so..
if a horse would be somewhat differrent, it could be a unicorn.

problem is evolution doesnt work that way, it needs a reason to have a horn. What purpose does it serve? Is it a defence mechanism? Would that mean a horse rams things rather than kicks? Does that mean that a horse is grown to have stumpier legs to get better grip when charging? Maybe a stronger skin so the impact doesnt rip the skin around the horn? You know what you have then? A rhino.

 

[ottenni]

Dragons? Yes, just not with the fire breathing, we already have this anyway.

Spoiler

Unicorns perhaps as well, the horn could appear for similar reasons that deer have horns. But i cant see a reason why griffon's would appear.

 

[Pingieking]

Yes to unicorns, but no for the others.

If the laws of physics changed slightly, then it would be yes to all three. Both dragons and griffons are too inefficient to accomplish sustained flight.

 

[Kiju]

I just find it odd that these fantastical creatures exist in all cultures. Dragons come from a lot of different nationalities, and share similar traits, if not appearances. There are two kinds of Unicorn, several types of gryphon...it makes me wonder if they actually did exist at one point, but were hunted to extinction.

Why there is no record of it, I'm not entirely sure. But, it's just my theory.

I did enjoy watching this documentary on the History Channel (I think..) about a fictional 'find', where some scientists discovered the frozen remains of a dragon. They went on in detail on how it would be possible for these creatures to exist, evolve, and what might have happened to them to lead up to their extinction. It was really quite fascinating.

 

[Choppaduel]

yes, but only if the dragons don't have the ridiculous fire breathing ability.

 

[Queen Michael]

Sure. A horse with a horn? Why shouldn't it be possible for it to exist? And dinosaurs practically were dragons. 'Cept not firebreathing ones. Griffins? Sure.

 

[Lordpils]

The poll is flawed because there is no options to say some are possible but not others.

For example, a unicorn is quite possible, perhaps even plausible.
A griffin is possible but it's very unlikely that evolution would follow that path.

And the standard idea of a dragon is physically impossible.

A lizard with wings that breaths fire is physically impossible?
We've seen bombardier beetles that fire scalding hot liquid as a defense mechanism.
I think given the right conditions a dragon could be possible. Hell animal planet had an entire special on the concept.

 

[chaos order]

Unicorns sure, the rest no. There are no real evolutionary benefits to the other two biological make-ups.

lol breathing fire isnt a benifit?

Actually I think dragons would end up the way terry pratchet described them, unstable chemical factories just waiting to blow up.

well there are animals that produce extremely caustic chemicals and dont blow up. for example the bombardier beetle can fire burning liquid from its abdomen

 

[JohnSmith]

Unicorns sure, the rest no. There are no real evolutionary benefits to the other two biological make-ups.

lol breathing fire isnt a benifit?

Actually I think dragons would end up the way terry pratchet described them, unstable chemical factories just waiting to blow up.

well there are animals that produce extremely caustic chemicals and dont blow up. for example the bombardier beetle can fire burning liquid from its abdomen

Not burning, just very hot,and quite caustic. It is a relatively simple and fairly safe chemical reaction as opposed to a biological flamethrower.

 

[chaos order]

Unicorns sure, the rest no. There are no real evolutionary benefits to the other two biological make-ups.

lol breathing fire isnt a benifit?

Actually I think dragons would end up the way terry pratchet described them, unstable chemical factories just waiting to blow up.

well there are animals that produce extremely caustic chemicals and dont blow up. for example the bombardier beetle can fire burning liquid from its abdomen

Not burning, just very hot,and quite caustic. It is a relatively simple and fairly safe chemical reaction as opposed to a biological flamethrower.

idk man if we have the platypus i dont see why we can't have dragons lol

 

[JohnSmith]

Unicorns sure, the rest no. There are no real evolutionary benefits to the other two biological make-ups.

lol breathing fire isnt a benifit?

Actually I think dragons would end up the way terry pratchet described them, unstable chemical factories just waiting to blow up.

well there are animals that produce extremely caustic chemicals and dont blow up. for example the bombardier beetle can fire burning liquid from its abdomen

Not burning, just very hot,and quite caustic. It is a relatively simple and fairly safe chemical reaction as opposed to a biological flamethrower.

idk man if we have the platypus i dont see why we can't have dragons lol

I grant that monotremes are weird but I submit that a dragon would be evolutionarily selected against. Particularly given the catastrophic nature of any injuries it could suffer and how dangerous to itself being a living flamethrower would be.

 

[chaos order]

Unicorns sure, the rest no. There are no real evolutionary benefits to the other two biological make-ups.

lol breathing fire isnt a benifit?

Actually I think dragons would end up the way terry pratchet described them, unstable chemical factories just waiting to blow up.

well there are animals that produce extremely caustic chemicals and dont blow up. for example the bombardier beetle can fire burning liquid from its abdomen

Not burning, just very hot,and quite caustic. It is a relatively simple and fairly safe chemical reaction as opposed to a biological flamethrower.

idk man if we have the platypus i dont see why we can't have dragons lol

I grant that monotremes are weird but I submit that a dragon would be evolutionarily selected against. Particularly given the catastrophic nature of any injuries it could suffer and how dangerous to itself being a living flamethrower would be.

id pretty much consider any giant lizard that shoots burning stuff out its mouth a dragon, cause it would be awesome

 

[monkey_man]

ofcourse! DNA is a strange thing!. chimpansees and humans only differ about 3 % of DNA, so..
if a horse would be somewhat differrent, it could be a unicorn.

problem is evolution doesnt work that way, it needs a reason to have a horn. What purpose does it serve? Is it a defence mechanism? Would that mean a horse rams things rather than kicks? Does that mean that a horse is grown to have stumpier legs to get better grip when charging? Maybe a stronger skin so the impact doesnt rip the skin around the horn? You know what you have then? A rhino.

i said different, not in which way it would be different. maybe if we would genetically blend a horse and a rhino, it would become an unicorn. that would be awesome.

 

[Nihilism_Is_Bliss]

unicorns, yes. dragons...maybe. gryphons, no.

 

[saxist01]

Technically there were dragons (dinosaurs, fire breathing is just silly) and the others aren't that far off from actual animals.

Fire breathing is silly, yet we have bugs that shoot acid out of their asses?!?