Why dragons aren't pterosaurs

[Mallon]

Calminian and myself have been having it out in another thread as to whether tales of dragons were based on real pterosaur-human encounters. Calminian holds that this is true, thinking the early depictions of dragons look just like pterosaurs. I disagree with him, thinking depictions of pterosaurs and dragons have virtually nothing in common besides the most superficial details. I thought I might start a new thread to elucidate my thoughts, rather than bring the original thread too far off topic.

Here is one of the dragon images Calminian posted earlier (the others are linked to below):

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=85909&d=1158797868

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=85910&d=1158797868

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=85911&d=1158797868

http://www1.christianforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=85912&d=1158797868

Here are some illustrations of various pterosaurs. I’ve opted to show several different kinds of pterosaur skeletons, representative of their diversity, so I cannot be accused of being choosy.

Dimorphodon

Pterodactylus

Pteranodon

Aside from the wings, I can see virtually nothing in common between the above dragons and pterosaurs. Certainly, there is nothing that they share together that isn’t also shared with other creatures, like dogs, pigs, birds, or other tetrapods. For the sake of thoroughness, I thought I might compile a list of differences and similarities between the above dragons and pterosaurs.

Similarities:

1. Wings
2. Feet
3. Tails

Differences:

1. Dragons have bat-like or bird-like wings bearing feathers (pterosaur wings were supported by but a single digit – unlike bats – and fossil impressions show they did not have feathers)
2. Dog- or pig-like snout and face of dragons
3. Big mammal-like ears of dragons (reptiles have only internal ears)
4. Eyebrows (!) of dragons (no reptile has these).
5. Long, snake-like tail of dragons (as you can see, the biggest pterosaurs had stubs for tails).

I could go on, but I’ll cut myself short here. Feel free to add any other observations of your own.

One thing I do want to point out is that the similarities I mention above are also shared with other tetrapod groups like birds, reptiles, and mammals. There are no features depicted here that are exclusive to dragons and pterosaurs.

Moreover, I think it’s important to note the mix of animal characters borne by the dragons – quite obviously a chimaeric combination of reptilian, avian, and mammalian features, lending strong support to the entirely mythical nature of dragons. When the differences outweigh the similarities, you have to honestly ask yourself whether dragons and pterosaurs really were the same creatures.

 

[Brennan]

Early Artists had a hard time creating images of fantastic creatures: if you look at the picture you show you can see that the artist has used parts of familiar creatures mixed up: the head looks like a dog, the feet are from a bird, the wings are from a bat and the rear end looks like a snake or the back of a lizard. The thing it is eating looks similar but I note that it has birds' wings.

 

[shernren]

My biggest gripe is that in almost all of these medieval pictures, the wings are attached dorsally opposite the legs. By this I mean that from the same segment of the torso, the wings are attached dorsally and the legs ventrally. It is as if an alien had decided to draw one of us Earthlings with our legs growing out of our chests instead of from our butts.

The reason I find that most challenging to the "pterosaur-dragon" idea is because if you look closely, the pterosaurs' wing attachment structure is similar to that of any bird: wings attached to the side of the upper torso and legs to the lower body. If an oral tradition had wished to pass down a story about a pterosaur it could easily have referred to that ("a giant wyrm, but instead of its forelimbs were large dark wings, like that of the eagle, but far larger and more terrifying" would've done it) and then the attachments would have been correct. Tying the narrative down to the similar anatomy of birds would have ensured rough anatomical correctness, never mind mammalian snouts or ears.

But instead, we see wings and legs diametrically opposite each other. When you add in the fantastically flexible tails, it becomes quite obvious that the basic body plan is that of a snake with a torso chimerically "upgraded" to have legs, wings, and presumably larger internal organs. Which makes sense when you consider that the dragon is a symbol of evil in the West because it was first based off the tempter serpent figure in Genesis. In the Far East like China where there was no analogous tempter serpent figure (or serpents play more minor parts as evil creatures), dragons were not perceived as evil but indeed as symbols of prosperity and auspiciousness.

 

[gluadys]

My biggest gripe is that in almost all of these medieval pictures, the wings are attached dorsally opposite the legs. By this I mean that from the same segment of the torso, the wings are attached dorsally and the legs ventrally. It is as if an alien had decided to draw one of us Earthlings with our legs growing out of our chests instead of from our butts.

The reason I find that most challenging to the "pterosaur-dragon" idea is because if you look closely, the pterosaurs' wing attachment structure is similar to that of any bird: wings attached to the side of the upper torso and legs to the lower body. If an oral tradition had wished to pass down a story about a pterosaur it could easily have referred to that ("a giant wyrm, but instead of its forelimbs were large dark wings, like that of the eagle, but far larger and more terrifying" would've done it) and then the attachments would have been correct. Tying the narrative down to the similar anatomy of birds would have ensured rough anatomical correctness, never mind mammalian snouts or ears.

But instead, we see wings and legs diametrically opposite each other. When you add in the fantastically flexible tails, it becomes quite obvious that the basic body plan is that of a snake with a torso chimerically "upgraded" to have legs, wings, and presumably larger internal organs. Which makes sense when you consider that the dragon is a symbol of evil in the West because it was first based off the tempter serpent figure in Genesis. In the Far East like China where there was no analogous tempter serpent figure (or serpents play more minor parts as evil creatures), dragons were not perceived as evil but indeed as symbols of prosperity and auspiciousness.

And, IIRC, Chinese dragons don't have wings at all, but four legs. They fly by magic, not wing power.

 

[shernren]

And, IIRC, Chinese dragons don't have wings at all, but four legs. They fly by magic, not wing power.

That's right, and OTOH Chinese dragons follow the same basic idea: take a snake and add on parts. Western dragons began with the snake as a tempter figure, enlarged the torso and added wings and legs and a mammalian head, and ended up with a symbol of evil.

While Chinese dragons on the other hand have four legs, a mammalian-ish head, and what appear to be a dorsal-tail ridge of fins. And one gets a symbol for good (so much that the Chinese sound for "dragon" is identical to that of "ascendancy", long2). An alternative explanation is that the dragon was "amplified" from the snakehead fish or the arowana fish.

In either case, if dragons were really based on pterosaurs, it doesn't make sense to base their body plans on those of either snakes or fish. As mallon's skeletons show the wing attachment and overall body plan make far more sense when compared to birds'. So if dragons were really based off pterosaurs, it would make far more sense to start from a bird and then embellish instead of starting from some other creature. Incidentally the same logic applies to the "dragons <-> dinosaurs" argument: the closest modern analogue (if any) we have is probably the lizard, puny as it is, and so we should expect dragons to fundamentally be large lizards. Again, we do not see this except in modern depictions of dragons done by people who already know in background about dinosaurs.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

the closest modern analogue (if any) we have is probably the lizard, puny as it is, and so we should expect dragons to fundamentally be large lizards

nuh uh... birds are dinosaurs.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

 

[Wadsworth]

What absolutely amazing animals they must have been.. Wow.
The Pteranodon looks so much like what it should look like it is scary. God's natural design plays on my imagination. It's almost as if that beauty was engineered, not evolved.

Sometimes it is good to just take a step back from all of the who's right and who's smarter or more educated, and simply allow the bewilderment to sink in.

One thing is for sure, we all have something to learn.

 

[shernren]

nuh uh... birds are dinosaurs.

Anatomically, and cladistically, that's true enough.

But I'm thinking in terms of the "the dragons of lore were actually dinosaurs" idea and how one would actually describe a dinosaur if one saw it today. "A bird with no feathers and claws for wings" really wouldn't be the first thing that came to mind. More like "A giant lizard!". At least that's what I think.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Ah, well the thing to understand is that birds/therapods and other bipedal dinosaurs are quite different to their lizard hipped quadruped brethren

 

[Calminian]

Post didn't work.

 

[Calminian]

The problem is, early artists were creating pictures of creatures they had never seen. They were merely working off passed down stories. Imagine if an artist was given a written description of an elephant, but had never seen anything like it before. How many features do you think would have been a little off? The basic idea would be there, but he's going to come nowhere close to the guy who has a skeleton frame to work with. I've attached a depiction of an elephant from the 1200s. If evolutionists believed elephants and man never lived together, this would have been dismissed on the same grounds I'm hearing about dragons/dinosaurs. Look at this elephant. Do those look like elephant legs? Feet? Ears?

Taking that into account, the ancient depictions of flying dragons are amazingly accurate. They had two legs and two arms with wing membranes connected. They were reptilian and some had crests. Of course there are going to be artistic interpretations that are going to be off, such as the shape of the ears, etc., but that should be expected. The similarities are remarkable.

 

[shernren]

The problem is, early artists were creating pictures of creatures they had never seen. They were merely working off passed down stories. Imagine if an artist was given a written description of an elephant, but had never seen anything like it before. How many features do you think would have been a little off? The basic idea would be there, but he's going to come nowhere close to the guy who has a skeleton frame to work with. I've attached a depiction of an elephant from the 1200s. If evolutionists believed elephants and man never lived together, this would have been dismissed on the same grounds I'm hearing about dragons/dinosaurs. Look at this elephant. Do those look like elephant legs? Feet? Ears?

Taking that into account, the ancient depictions of flying dragons are amazingly accurate. They had two legs and two arms with wing membranes connected. They were reptilian and some had crests. Of course there are going to be artistic interpretations that are going to be off, such as the shape of the ears, etc., but that should be expected. The similarities are remarkable.

Per the elephant, all the basic appendages are in the correct positions. The dragon needs to have its legs moved back relative to its wings, and it needs to lose the prehensile tail before it stops looking like an augmented snake.

As I (and others) have pointed out, "two legs and two arms with wing membranes connected" do not a pterosaur, or dinosaur, make. Mere components do not make a whole. Given the obvious structural differences (again, they have been forementioned in this thread), it does not make sense for dragons to be pictorial representations of oral legends of dinosaurs. An oral description of a dinosaur would refer to it as a giant lizard or (to appease EnemyPartyII ) a scary giant featherless scaly clawed chicken. An oral description of a dinosaur would reference the anatomy of a bird, which is extremely similar in terms of wing and leg attachments. It would not describe it as a modified snake, which is exactly what we see in these pictures, and which fits with the traditional symbol of evil being the tempter snake of Genesis.

And I would say the same even if I was a diehard fullblown YECist and believed that man and dinosaurs had lived together. Even if dinosaurs have lived with men, dragons simply are not dinosaurs (especially Eastern ones). It has nothing to do with evolution and everything to do with simple anatomy (unless, of course, you disbelieve evolutionists so much that you won't even take them at their word that dinosaurs existed at all).

If I drew a skateboard and tried to pass it off as a car, would "It has four wheels and two axles. Isn't it remarkably accurate" cut it with you?

 

[Calminian]

You are giving the elephant a pass while it has the very same defects the flying dragons have. The ears are wrong, the legs are wrong. But somehow this doesn't matter. Why to the pterasaurs have to be so perfect?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Per the elephant, all the basic appendages are in the correct positions. The dragon needs to have its legs moved back relative to its wings, and it needs to lose the prehensile tail before it stops looking like an augmented snake.

I dunno... check your heraldry... there are about a hundred different recognised species and sub species ofEuropean dragon from the dark and Middle Ages... ones with wings, ones without, ones with 0, 2, or 4 legs, water breathers, fire breathers, venomous wyrms, lion headed chimeras, flaming salamanders... and just about every conceivable permutation there of. So I have to question you on precisely which "version" of dragon you are talking about

 

[Mallon]

You are giving the elephant a pass while it has the very same defects the flying dragons have. The ears are wrong, the legs are wrong. But somehow this doesn't matter. Why to the pterasaurs have to be so perfect?

The pterOsaurs don't have to be perfect; they just have to look like pterosaurs. As shernren and I have explained to you, there's really nothing 'pterosaur' about the pictures you posted. The head is much more dog-like than reptilian, the tail is quite obviously not that of a giant pterosaur, and even the wings are fabricated after those of birds and bats. The chimaeric nature of the dragon is painfully obvious, yet you don't seem to want to admit that.

Again, there is nothing uniquely pterosaurian about the dragon illustrations you posted.

There is something uniquely elephant about those ugly elephant illustrations you linked to, however: namely, the trunk. You can't say the same for the supposed pterosaur-dragons.

In any case, I'm repeating myself, here. I've also addressed your "but the drawings were based on stories passed down!" apologetic in another thread. But I'll repeat it here. It amazes me that in the whole of human history, we've been able to portray with some accuracy those everyday animals we see, including bison, giraffes, rhinos, etc. Even the earliest cave paintings depict recognizable creatures. Why, then, could no one capture even remotely the form of a pterosaur? Why were depictions of dragons passed down only orally, whereas illustrations of every other beast we've come into contact with were executed accurately? It's because nobody's ever seen a real, live pterosaur. Dragons are myth. They're myth like the Mokele Mbembe, like the Loch Ness Monster, and like unicorns. Why should anyone believe in the existence of dragons any more than the existence of unicorns when both have the exact same lack of evidence and abundance of folklore going for them?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

There is evdence of unicorns.

They have a unicorn horn in Buck house.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

It's because nobody's ever seen a real, live pterosaur

What, you didn't see my civil war pterosaur photo???

 

[Mallon]

What, you didn't see my civil war pterosaur photo???

You weren't being serious, were you? That photo's been debunked 100 times over. It's a promotional photo for Haxan Productions fictional TV show "Freaky Links." It was taken circa 2000, not 1860s.

 

[shernren]

You are giving the elephant a pass while it has the very same defects the flying dragons have. The ears are wrong, the legs are wrong. But somehow this doesn't matter. Why to the pterasaurs have to be so perfect?

Well, not this particular dragon. This particular dragon has correct limb attachments. But seriously. Does something like that look like it can fly? I bet even medieval artists knew that creatures with bulky torsos normally don't fly on their own.

Look at the elephants. Do all four of their legs grow out of their chests? Well, that's how wrong your other flying dragons look like. And that's without touching Eastern dragons at all, as if only Anglo-Saxons have seen dinosaurs before and not Chinese.