wu :: forums (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi)
general >> truth >> Dragons
(Message started by: username101 on Aug 31st, 2007, 12:59am)

Title: Dragons
Post by username101 on Aug 31st, 2007, 12:59am
Anyone think that dragons are real i do

i mean how could countrys that never met have the sames basic ideas of a same creature unless it was real

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Aug 31st, 2007, 1:26am
Because the people in the countries migrate; that's how they got there in the first place.
Nevermind that a western dragon looks nothing like an eastern dragon, so they might not have the same origin. And if there is, the common origin may well lie in  something like e.g. dinosaur bones, which don't have the tendency to keep themselves to imaginary borders people thought up.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by Sameer on Aug 31st, 2007, 8:40am
You mean you were alive when pterodactyls were flying over the earth?  ::)

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Aug 31st, 2007, 4:27pm
Someone had to have been alive then.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 1st, 2007, 9:30am

on 08/31/07 at 16:27:47, mikedagr8 wrote:
Someone had to have been alive then.
Why someone? Something, certainly, but why people? (Seems to be at least some 60 million years difference going by the fossil record)

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 1st, 2007, 4:41pm
Who ever said that I was specifying the most evolved form of humans? Going back to that time period, there would have been an ancient form of a 'homo erectus', or similar.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 2nd, 2007, 7:29am

on 09/01/07 at 16:41:56, mikedagr8 wrote:
Who ever said that I was specifying the most evolved form of humans? Going back to that time period, there would have been an ancient form of a 'homo erectus', or similar.
No, there wouldn't. The old species of Homo is no more than 7 or 8 million years old (and that's stretching it.  Also see Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_%28genus%29)).
At the time of the dinosaurs mammals were limited to small rodent-like creatures. Nothing even close to human.



Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 2nd, 2007, 2:54pm

Quote:
No, there wouldn't. The old species of Homo is no more than 7 or 8 million years old (and that's stretching it. Also see Wikipedia ).
At the time of the dinosaurs mammals were limited to small rodent-like creatures. Nothing even close to human.


True, now I have read that I see I have screwed up majorly :( . But, the oldest form of homo, must have evolved from something, and that from something else, and eventually, back to the time of the dinosaurs. So assuming you believe in Darwin and his theories, there would have been some ancestor of humans at that period of time? No?

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by JiNbOtAk on Sep 2nd, 2007, 6:37pm

on 09/02/07 at 14:54:02, mikedagr8 wrote:
So assuming you believe in Darwin and his theories, ..


That is a pretty big assumption. Why would I want to believe his theory ?

( A provocation to the Darwinism champions in the forums, if any  :P )

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by Sameer on Sep 2nd, 2007, 6:40pm

on 09/02/07 at 18:37:11, JiNbOtAk wrote:
That is a pretty big assumption. Why would I want to believe his theory ?

( A provocation to the Darwinism champions in the forums, if any  :P )


Well for starters it is a better and more sound theory than the alternative!!

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 2nd, 2007, 11:20pm

on 09/02/07 at 14:54:02, mikedagr8 wrote:
True, now I have read that I see I have screwed up majorly  :( . But, the oldest form of homo, must have evolved from something, and that from something else, and eventually, back to the time of the dinosaurs. So assuming you believe in Darwin and his theories, there would have been some ancestor of humans at that period of time? No?
Some ancestor yes, but totally unlike anything human; well, as unlike a human as that mouse I just saw running through the hallway..

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 2nd, 2007, 11:27pm

on 09/02/07 at 18:37:11, JiNbOtAk wrote:
That is a pretty big assumption. Why would I want to believe his theory ?

( A provocation to the Darwinism champions in the forums, if any  :P )
It's useful. It explains observation (fossil record, distribution of species, laboratory experiments, etc), with a mechanism that we can actually use to get things done (and, in fact, unwittingly have used for thousands of years in agriculture).

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 3rd, 2007, 1:20am

on 09/02/07 at 18:40:51, Sameer wrote:
Well for starters it is a better and more sound theory than the alternative!!


The alternative being...?

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 3rd, 2007, 1:41am

on 09/03/07 at 01:20:57, mikedagr8 wrote:
The alternative being...?
The flying spaghetti monster

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 3rd, 2007, 1:43am
I'm a member of that religion/church/cult. I'm all for it, except I believe that the increase of politicians and not decrease of pirates is to blame for global warming. ;D

Good Call.

http://www.rof.com/PhotoGallery.asp?ProductCode=6290%2DLPS&PhotoNumber=2#largerphoto

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by hiyathere on Sep 6th, 2007, 11:21am

on 09/02/07 at 23:20:27, towr wrote:
Some ancestor yes, but totally unlike anything human; well, as unlike a human as that mouse I just saw running through the hallway..


well actually humans and mice share 99% of their genes. Scary :o

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 6th, 2007, 11:38am

on 09/06/07 at 11:21:09, hiyathere wrote:
well actually humans and mice share 99% of their genes. Scary :o
I think there's still some difference between the genes, but that they have the same function and can be pretty much exchanged.

Of course there's also other important differences that don't follow from the difference in DNA. (e.g. Protein folding isn't determined by DNA but plays a major role in how proteins function.)

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 6th, 2007, 1:28pm

on 09/06/07 at 11:38:21, towr wrote:
I think there's still some difference between the genes, but that they have the same function and can be pretty much exchanged.

Of course there's also other important differences that don't follow from the difference in DNA. (e.g. Protein folding isn't determined by DNA but plays a major role in how proteins function.)

Well, to be entirely accurate, you and the mouse do share 99% of your genetic material. The thing is which genes are turned on to become active are determind by their protein coating. So you both have thousands of identical genes, however some of his are turned on that yours aren't and vice versa, and of course you both have many that neither of you uses. Fascinating stuff  ;D

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 7th, 2007, 4:27am
So does this mean, that I have a partial one-up on towr on this occasion? ::)

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 7th, 2007, 4:39am

on 09/07/07 at 04:27:31, mikedagr8 wrote:
So does this mean, that I have a partial one-up on towr on this occasion? ::)
Well, if you look purely at genes, and ignore the non-encoding DNA, epigenetics and proteomics; then we we may be close to 99% the same as our ancestors of 65 million years ago (the most recent ancester of mice and men is probably younger, so the genetic difference further back should be larger).
Factoring in all the other differences makes the similarity much smaller though.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 7th, 2007, 4:41am

on 09/07/07 at 04:39:31, towr wrote:
Well, if you look purely at genes, and ignore the non-encoding DNA, epigenetics and proteomics; then we we may be close to 99% the same as our ancestors of 65 million years ago (the most recent ancester of mice and men is probably younger, so the genetic difference further back should be larger).
Factoring in all the other differences makes the similarity much smaller though.


Are you a lawyer? You didn't exactly answer my question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' or a combination will suffice.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 7th, 2007, 4:48am

on 09/07/07 at 04:41:43, mikedagr8 wrote:
Are you a lawyer? You didn't exactly answer my question. A simple 'yes' or 'no' or a combination will suffice.
Ah, but, how you arrive at a solution is more important than the final answer. ;)
But if you want, in this case I'd say no.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 7th, 2007, 4:50am

on 09/07/07 at 04:48:18, towr wrote:
Ah, but, how you arrive at a solution is more important than the final answer. ;)
But if you want, in this case I'd say no.


So are you saying that it is not more important how you arrive under these circumstances, or that I am not one up?

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 7th, 2007, 5:08am

on 09/07/07 at 04:50:30, mikedagr8 wrote:
So are you saying that it is not more important how you arrive under these circumstances, or that I am not one up?
The latter.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 7th, 2007, 5:09am
OK then. You be stubborn just because I'm right. ;)

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 7th, 2007, 5:22am
About what, though  ;)

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 7th, 2007, 5:25am

on 09/07/07 at 05:22:37, towr wrote:
About what, though ;)


About me being one-up, with the fact that an early form of humans(no matter the form), was around at the time of the dinosaurs. Back to the original idea, I still can't see as how you can imagine that dragons are real, unless they are underwater in the Marianna Trench or similar areas of not totally explored areas on earth.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 7th, 2007, 6:01am
I really don't think rodents by any stretch of the imagination can count as a form of humans. No matter what the genetic similarities, they simply don't have any of the traits that distinguishes our species.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 7th, 2007, 6:03am

on 09/07/07 at 06:01:07, towr wrote:
I really don't think rodents by any stretch of the imagination can count as a form of humans. No matter what the genetic similarities, they simply don't have any of the traits that distinguishes our species.


They like junk food. ;D

Double entendre there. Also, have you seen Bad Boys II by any chance, there is something in there which is very similar to traits of our species, although I'm definitely not confirming it as true.  :)

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Sep 7th, 2007, 6:11am

on 09/07/07 at 06:03:54, mikedagr8 wrote:
They like junk food. ;D
So do pigeons, and seagull, and roaches ::)


Quote:
Also, have you seen Bad Boys II by any chance
I haven't seen it (nor Bad Boys I for that matter).

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 7th, 2007, 6:13am
I'll let someone explain it for you then, I'm not very good at explaining the details, as I haven't watched it for a while and can't remember how the scene goes. If they don't know what I'm talking about I'll be happy to tell you the event.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 7th, 2007, 8:20am
I never said they were close mirrors of modern humans... just that it wasn't incorrect saying we are 99% the same genetically. And really if you think about it there are rather a lot of similarities  :P , but yeah, I highly doubt mice are where the original source for visual concept of dragons was first stored...very very tiny minds... though some humans are no better...

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by JiNbOtAk on Sep 7th, 2007, 5:41pm
Come on, there are more to us than just the genetic makeup !! It could be true, maybe we are identical genetically to rodents ( up to 99% ) but genetics are not really everything, eh ? If it were, there would only be one type of man..rite ?

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 7th, 2007, 6:01pm
JiNbOtAk, you're preaching to the choir... I'm not arguing with you... just saying that we do have many similarities with other mammals. And as for different kinds of man... evolutionary adaptation just as you see in any other species of mammals and life. Thus the different colors of butterflies, etc to match with their surroundings yet they are still butterflies.
But of course not everything is all about genetics! Personalities are something, I personally, am endlessly fascinated with... how your perception developes based on experiences and so forth. Life is a fascinating topic... *plunges off into thought*

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by JiNbOtAk on Sep 7th, 2007, 6:26pm

on 09/07/07 at 18:01:32, ima1trkpny wrote:
JiNbOtAk, you're preaching to the choir..


All together now, "I will follow him, follow him wherever he may go.."   ;D

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by ima1trkpny on Sep 7th, 2007, 7:08pm

on 09/07/07 at 18:26:28, JiNbOtAk wrote:
All together now, "I will follow him, follow him wherever he may go.." ;D

"oooooooooo oooooooo ooooooooooo there isn't an ocean too deep..."  :P

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by mikedagr8 on Sep 8th, 2007, 2:40am

on 09/07/07 at 18:26:28, JiNbOtAk wrote:
All together now, "I will follow him, follow him wherever he may go.."   ;D



on 09/07/07 at 19:08:46, ima1trkpny wrote:
"oooooooooo oooooooo ooooooooooo there isn't an ocean too deep..."  :P


"Not one I cannot send members of this forum to see the end of their days. I MUST do this. (http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~wwu/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=riddles_general;action=display;num=1189210311) I must do this! I MUST DO THIS!!!"  

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by iatkrox on Jul 2nd, 2012, 4:35am
No,I don't think so  ;D Do you need the reason for that ??? K my question is how will dragon stock fire in his stomach ???   :P

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by lopez on Jul 13th, 2012, 5:04am
A dragon is a legendary creature, typically with serpentine or reptilian traits, that features in the myths of many cultures

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by rmsgrey on Jul 16th, 2012, 6:48am

on 07/02/12 at 04:35:52, iatkrox wrote:
No,I don't think so ;D Do you need the reason for that ??? K my question is how will dragon stock fire in his stomach ??? :P


Some substances spontaneously combust when exposed to high temperatures in the presence of oxygen (say over 270 Kelvin and about 20kPa partial pressure)

If a dragon stored such chemicals away from air, and then exposed them to suitable conditions for ignition, say by spitting them out (or exhaling them as an aerosol) then it would be "breathing fire" without having anything burning within...

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by towr on Jul 16th, 2012, 8:50am
Perhaps a better option would be for a dragon to store two (or more) chemicals that combust only when mixed.
That's basically what certain beetles do.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by littlemisschic on Jul 26th, 2012, 9:54pm
Ha !

Even the question is wrong!

a chinese dragon is differant from a us dragon....

... I think you have had too much of puff the magic dragon. ;D

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by atyq on Jul 27th, 2012, 5:27pm
No, dragons didn't exist... They all had the same idea because kings created monster to afraid their population.

Title: Re: Dragons
Post by anglia on Aug 15th, 2015, 2:13am
I have seen the dragons in the movies only. I am not sure about it. They are like Dinosaurs.
Can we relate Dragons with Dinosaurs?



Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.4!
Forum software copyright 2000-2004 Yet another Bulletin Board