MovieChat Forums > The Last Dragon (2005) Discussion > evolutionarily impossible

evolutionarily impossible

posted 18 years ago by cypherpunk-1
21 replies | jump to latest

The flick starts very well, it seems to have a lot of thought put on it. It depicts dragons as being related to crocodiles rather than to dinosaurs, if I understood it well, it tries to explain scientifically every single thing. It fails for a moment when stating that the dragons survived the meteor impact by means of the aquatic species (what for? aquatic species at that time also became extinct, due to massive pollution of the waters), which suggests that the "current" dragons are just the aquatic dragons re-evolving their flying abilities, which is entirely implausible but passable.

But then it fails altogether with no hope of redeem when it depicts a four-legged dragon. The first dragons had their limbs with membranes to form wings - ok, very realistic. But how come the later ones gained four legs and two wings? There's no credible evolutionary path for that, as any good student of evolution theory can tell you.

They should have consulted better informed biologists to formulate the movie. It has shown such a promise!

[–] barlowe2003 18 years ago

If you recall, though, it explained that in the Mesozoic, there were two different evolutionary branches of dragons, the land/winged one, and the aquatic variety. They didn't focus too much on the aquatic dragons until they came on land somewhere in Asia. Many aquatic species did suffer during the cretaceous, but less so than those found on land. Furthermore, it was mostly in North America, as the lowering of sea levels left them without a proper environment (in what is now the mid portion of North America). The documentary speculates that the reason crocodiles survived is simply because they were an aquatic species, so we could reasonably speculate that the surviving dragons were probably freshwater as well, though why they wouldn't come into ecological conflict with their old relatives the crocodiles is anyone's guess.

[–] eldergod-1 18 years ago

People believe in Nessie, after all :)

I'll be back

[–] Ghostofthemorning 13 years ago

i had tea and crumpets with nessie..........oh wait no that was my ex......

Don't scare me....i poop easily

[–] glowberg 17 years ago

Obviously people have dug up gigantic dinosaur skulls for ages. Possibly one was found near a flying dino, which gave birth to the myths. Nessie, Ogopogo, and may more "sightings" have been reported in modern times, so without the scientific knowldege we have, imagine what the ancient peoples thought.

Personally, I would love to find out that the dragon myth had a basis of truth.

Forget love-I'd rather fall in chocolate.

[–] enos-3 17 years ago

evolution my eye, evolution is a theory, it's not fact.

[–] Bruce_Williams 17 years ago

Yes, evolution is theory - as is all science. It is just because it treats all knowledge as provisional and subject to refutation that it explains so much. It remains, however, the _best_ theory we have for explaining what we see (inasmuch as more evidence supports it than any other theory).

Rather than the _origin_ of dragons, I would be interested in how you explain their extinction? Assuming you hold a Biblical Creationist viewpoint, you would need to explain why dragons are treated as factual living animals in the Bible, but why we don't see them today.

[–] gerryrival 13 years ago

@enos-3

wrong; evolution is a fact. in science, the word 'theory' is use in the title of a proposed hypothesis and as the hypothesis gains more and more solid evidence it is then fact; such as the 'theory' of evolution, 'theory' of gravity, atomic 'theory', germ 'theory'..... need i go on.

[–] Bruce_Williams 17 years ago

Vanishingly improbable, yes - impossible, no. We regularly see mutations producing extra appendages today - snakes with two heads, a baby in Cambodia born with a tail, a sheep with an extra rear leg, an Amish population with six fingers per hand.

It is conceivable that a mutation producing four forelimbs could (note _could_, not _would_) become established in a breeding pool with later diversification into two wings and two forelegs.

[–] Icecutter 16 years ago

uhh did you miss the part when they started explaining how they could breathe fire? All evolutionary realism went out the window as soon as they said they could breathe fire.

------------
"Like Kane in Kung-Fu"

[–] bushwack14 16 years ago

Actually, there are some species of animal that can do some very interesting things that are almost like breathing fire. The bombardier beatle when bothered shoots out a combination of chemicals that heats up very hot quickly to boiling, and can inflict burns on humans and kill attacking insects. The pistol shrimp can snap its claw shut so fast, that it creates a buble in the water. This isn't an air bubble as we know it, but a temporary void in the water where no water is. It can shoot this "bubble" at prey to stun/kill it. The thing is, that this bubble for an instantaneous second as it collapses, heats up to the same temperature as the surface of the sun. If animals such as these can exist, it is not really a big jump to think of something breathing fire, it would just be by a mechanism we don't understand yet.

[–] Sabracad 15 years ago

Realistic or not (and this was a mockumentary - so you take your pick) I thought they did explain the fire breathing, a chemical reaction between Hydrogen and Oxygen with a Platinum catalyst. The Hydrogen being stored in the flight bladder and Platinum coming from mineral deposits (which as we all know are common in dragon habitats).

[–] KungFuVooDoo 13 years ago

Dude, those shrimp are vicious....They are referred to as "Thumb Splitters" and I've personally seen one break a mason jar. I hear their claws move at the same speed and hit with the same force as a .22 caliber bullet. Doesn't surprise me at all....So yes, evolution does some very interesting things...

She's gone from suck to blow!

[–] squeakytoad 16 years ago

It would be far more logical to assume, due to the fact that so many human cultures around the world have recordings of dragons in their art and history, that dragons and humans lived around the same time. Instead, they make this massive leap in logic to try to explain its surviving the 'KT meteor', an event that is highly speculation and imagination, with nearly no evidence to back it up.
Of course, along this same line of thought, they'd have to think that dinosaurs might've existed at the same time as humans, which most scientists have absolutely refused to confront, making up more speculation and false facts to cover up. Completely closing your mind to the idea that certain species could've existed in a totally different way and time than they could currently conceive isn't proper science. It's no better than the close-minded ways of the middle age scientists, who refused to embrace a heliocentric universe.

[–] chinkmaster2000 16 years ago

And nobody believed in dinosaurs before they dug some up.

[–] e25171971 15 years ago

While there is little evidence to the KT meteor (a giant crater in the gulf of mexico isn't evidence enough for you?) there is NO evidence NONE that dinosaurs existed along with man. Mid age scientists believed heliocenticity, it was the church that denied it.

If you think your game has lag...it took Jesus three days to respawn!

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheHypnotron 14 years ago

This film is entertainment. It's fantasy. I enjoyed it.

I didn't believe in dragons before watching this film and it didn't change my mind, nor was it trying. It was just trying to be a whimsical sort of "what if" fantasy.

I can dig that.

[–] joeman-12 13 years ago

It was not a documentary intended to make us believe dragons ever existed, it's just an "if". If there were dragons, they would have been "this way".
I remember many stupid facts, such as keeping the eggs in a pile of rocks and fire, regulating the temperature (more or les fire) to set the sex of the dragons, an idea taken from crocodiles. Ok, temperature sets the sex, fine. EGGS IN CONSTANT FIRE??!!?!!??!?!?!? uncientific, just plain ingnorant and stupid. Then, if dragons breathed fire, why would it use it to cook the meat of the pray? not that he cannot, but using a flamethrower cooks no meat, it just burns the outside, then again, why would an animal cook his pray if he could??
I saw almost no evidence of a scientific doing his part, just stupid statements based on science, like the temperature of the eggs to determine the sex, that's no science, thats just info, I'm not scientific and know that, also know if I keep an egg in the fire for a day (much less than a dragon egg needs to hatch) it will burn and cook the inside. If the egg is strong enough to resist fire, it would NOT keep the heat from cooking it, it might even be imposible to the little dragon to break out through it.

I was dissapointed, I could have done better just chatting with some friends who know more science than average people.

AKA Joe78man

[–] wrinkledlion 13 years ago

It said they kept the eggs at sixty degrees or above. The flames were just to keep the rocks warm.

[–] Dream_Demon 10 years ago

I don't care about whether it's evolutionarily implausible. I just watched this mockumentary for a fun "what if" premise and I was entertained. I'm pretty sure that was at least the main goal of the filmmakers.

Welcome to my Nightmare- Freddy Krueger

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]