Like so many other things, we can thank Christianity for that. Also the vilification of many animals such as wolves, ravens and dogs - animals that were sacred to heathen Romans, Germanic and Slavic peoples. Dragons are considered demonic devil-spawn by the bible, so they're by definition evil; it was apparently different in pre-Christian times (whales and hippos weren't vilified as much, though, curiously). And Christianity never really gained hold in Asia.

I like the old Roman legend of the Mud Dragon.

Outside of a prominent Roman city, a dragon made its lair in the mud pits. For centuries, the dragon protected the city, destroying any enemy that attacked. The dragon demanded a high price to act as the city’s guardian. Every month the city had to perform a ritual that ended with a virgin bringing a basket of food to the dragon in his mud cave. The girl had to hand feed the dragon and if her purity flagged while feeding him, he ate her. If she did not flinch, the dragon would return her to the city unharmed.

Now I was always curious by the comment if her purity flagged during the feeding, which made me wonder was the dragon that good looking or kept some beefcake male servants around?

The dragon really did not like scalies.

On the West half of the continent. There were also Frenchies who came over to the East Coast of the US during the same ice age.

Happy trees, you're referring to the "Solutrean hypothesis", a revamped version of "white" European settlement theories of the Americas. I heard of other migration theories on Australoids could been in the Americas first.

This only came about after the rise of Christianity. The reason for this, presumably, was the devil being described in Revelation as a "great red dragon". Prior to that, dragons were neutral creatures, but also smaller than Asian varieties of dragon.

I don't consider genetic evidence to be mere hypothesis.

Is this your card?

2 years of thread-o-mancy.

2 years of thread-o-mancy.

Threadomancy? Appears that you prefer Cloning, Neraph...

Hey, when you have it done perfectly you may as well duplicate the results.

In Sumerian myths wasn't Tiamat a dragon who when killed by ther god Marduk, her body became the world?

That's a theorized myth. Part of it comes from the tale of Gilgamesh from what I remember, and not much is really KNOWN about Sumerian culture, it's all more or less theory and conjecture.

As for the gene testing for the eastcoast, there is 5 main genetic sequences they have matched to Native American populations that are seen outside of the Americas. 3/5 come from asiatic cultures an are still shared by most cultures in th artic regions (Eskimo, Inuit, Aluet, Yupik, some Sami etc). 1/5 comes from more southern Asian populations (primarily Korean and Nipponese Japanese) and is primarily located around different areas of the peublo regions especially in New Mexico and is thought to be from Buddhist missionaries (also helps explain why certain languages and cultural/religious rights show signs of early Japanese ones). Te other 1/5 is a genetic sequence found throughout France, south east Europe and in late concentrations near te Gobi desert. This one till hasn't been explained but the main hypothesis is that during the ice age the plates were closer and the populations from a certain region spread out and settles in SE europe, France and NA.

Though the métis connection muddies this a bit as early census never differentiated between Metis or Aboriginal in many areas, and it is quite possible that many natives in those regions carry métis an therefore French genetics from that rather than an late homo migration

If you lower the ocean levels a bit the Continental Shelf becomes dry land. All the continents would be connected. Further, if you look at many of the seas and gulfs, the erosion patterns seem to be backspilled, as if the water levels rose and washed out a lower-lying area.

So, at some point in the past, the ocean levels were lower. All the landmasses were connected and we didn't have many of the seas in Europe and the Gulf of Mexico. As the water levels rose it started cutting off those landmasses (by flooding the Continental Shelf), then backfilled the Gulf of Mexico and other areas, further reducing the ability of living creatures to migrate. Ocean levels are rising every year, which means they used to be lower. Subtract also water levels for more ice formations and whatnot and you get a connected landmass relatively recently (I don't feel like looking up the math for it, but it's there).

Theoretically this explains a lot of things better than (or at least the same as) a Pangaea model. As a plus, you don't need land-bridges or vegetative rafts to bring certain animals across continents. It also helps solve some of the human migratory issues, as they literally just walked away.

What you are describing is essentially te newest version of the Pangea thery. That there was one elevated landmass that both split and was seperated by water.

Though this would have happened long befor the rise of any f the four primary homo groups as well as Neanderthals by most estimates, which brings up a whole new bag of worms for migration. Though the land masses would be a hell of a lot closer, making both bridges and water travel possible as opposed to theoretical

As for the water levels, while there is a ridiculous amount of evidence it is still theoretical, though it is quite possible (pretty much fact) that during the ice ages the polar regions would have grown exponentially, causing a freezing ofa higher quantity if water and therefor a higher concentration of water in the polar regions as opposed to the rest of the world.

I'm not advocating a Pangaea supercontinent with continental drift driving them apart (there are problems with that model - big ones. Like the size of Africa and the absence of Central America and the fact that some continents were rotated one way and others were rotated differently). I'm saying that if we were to drop ocean levels a bit right now they would be connected right now. If, at some point in the last tens of thousands of years, we had the lowered ocean levels we'd have hominids being able to walk anywhere in the world. That's what I was getting at.

Ahh k, my mistake.

And while the Pangea theory has a whole lot of holes, te supercontinent theory and tectonic plate shift theories are both pretty sound. And how low of a sea level are we talking about? The lowest discovered was about 18k years ago and was roughly 110-130 meters lower

The only land connection they have been able to prove was the BLB between Eastern Asia and Alaska that I know of, with a hypothetical LB from Europe to UK&Iceland to Greenland to Canada being so far unproven?

Drain the Oceans, part I
Drain the Oceans, part II

It shows how the earth would be if the sea level dropped at various levels...
Fun reading too

Personally I'm a fan of Warm Netherlands.

Hahaha now that was a fun read. I wonder what a combined scsndinavia/Netherlands/Canada federation would look like?

And land sharks.