Mythical creatures entirely myth, or do you think some may have been based in reality

[Savannah]

I've heard that unicorns came from rhinos. The earliest myths have them as giant and violent.

Interesting; I've never heard that. I have heard that narwhal tusks were misrepresented as unicorn horns. (Personally, I think narwhals themselves are cool enough, without mixing them up with unicorns!)

[lordlundar]

Missed this post first time around.
That for ENTERTAINMENT only program was laughable in its pathetic attempt at scientific explanation.
It came up with a ludicrous hydrogen production for flight and fire.
Ludicrous, because of the ridiculous amount of energy required to make usable quantities, and the sheer volume required for buoyancy. It would have to have a hard to move hot air balloon sized ass to fly very very slowly.
Also. hydrogen burns with a faint blue tinge.

The discovery channel has a piss poor record for rational speculation.

Then you obviously missed that throughout the ENTIRE show that they were saying that they were simply theories, not that anyone accepted them. Every single expert on the show said that it was simply a possibility, not a fact.

[Flyndaran]

Then you obviously missed that throughout the ENTIRE show that they were saying that they were simply theories, not that anyone accepted them. Every single expert on the show said that it was simply a possibility, not a fact.

It was an entertainment show with not a single fact in it. Did you really believe some part of it.
The Discovery channel sucks on numerous supposedly factual shows.

[lordlundar]

It was an entertainment show with not a single fact in it.

Oh no! Discovery doing a show for entertainment, say it isn't so! This travesty must be abolished! <waves bye bye to Mythbusters, Dirty Jobs, and 90% of the shows, to be replaced with monotone documentaries, and effectively shutting the network down>

Did you really believe some part of it.

Missed the point again. The experts on that show were asked that IF dragons exist, how could they function in a realistic setting. What was offered was THEORIES, not facts and all in fun, never having to be proven. That was the point of the show. Whether I believe anything in it isn't even REMOTELY relevant. But then again, you seem to think that theories are magic, which shows your grasp of scientific process is minimal at best.

[Flyndaran]

...
Missed the point again. The experts on that show were asked that IF dragons exist, how could they function in a realistic setting. What was offered was THEORIES, not facts and all in fun, never having to be proven. That was the point of the show. Whether I believe anything in it isn't even REMOTELY relevant. But then again, you seem to think that theories are magic, which shows your grasp of scientific process is minimal at best.

I would fire any scientist that offered the ludicrous "theories" on that show.
They suggested hydrogen for lift! That's absurd. Who ever heard of hot air balloon sized slow moving yet ever hungry dragons? Also, hydrogen, besides being disgustingly hard to store or manufacture, burns a faint blue. So you wouldn't get gouts of visible flame.
No there were simply too much bad science to believe that real scientists had anything to do with it. Then again, maybe they asked biologists chemistry questions, and physicists biology qeustions, and kept asking different ones until they got something they could animate.
Believing in a fantasy show with bad science is relavent to this overall discussion. We are writing about reality. Gullibility and ignorance about basic science is relavent.

[Slytovhand]

So Flyn, are you suggesting that the question "IF dragons were real, how would they have existed?" is completely outside the realms of science??

I would find that hard to believe.... I think it's actually a very good question.

Perhaps pointless, but still....

Whether their theories are even half-way accurate is a different matter, but I still think the questions are worth asking.

[Flyndaran]

So Flyn, are you suggesting that the question "IF dragons were real, how would they have existed?" is completely outside the realms of science??

I would find that hard to believe.... I think it's actually a very good question.

Perhaps pointless, but still....

Whether their theories are even half-way accurate is a different matter, but I still think the questions are worth asking.

Of course the question is interesting in a mental exercise way. Heck, I've done it for the gaming RPG GURPS in a few different ways.
I just felt so insulted with its lame attempts that I consider the whole Discovery's lineup of "What if?" programs to be completely non-scientific nonsense.

What do you want in a dragon? It's not as obvious as it sounds. Different cultures have different ideas.
In many, a simple giant wyrm would be a large snake like a legendary but plausible 30 foot anaconda. That's a monster in my book.
Is it a ferocious flying creature? The extinct pteranadons got up to a 40 foot wingspan if no more than man weight. They were slow gliding flyers, so if anything, that made a surprise attack stay at ground level. Very gothic hero stuff.
If it's fire breath, that's a bit harder. There are creatures that vomit gastric juices that would burn "like fire", or the every popular spitting cobra type venom which fits many legends of toxic "breath".
For mini-drake game purposes, I like an enzymatic luminescent spit that creates a flash when exposed to air. It isn't fire, but a light flash used to startle just long enough for the creature to take flight and get away.