Calilasseia wrote:You mean "designs" such as various Carabid beetles, which still possess fully functional wings under their elytra, but which are rendered utterly useless because the elytra are fused shut?

That's interesting. As an aside, has anyone prised open the elytra to see if the beetles still have a sense of flight?

Alan B wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:You mean "designs" such as various Carabid beetles, which still possess fully functional wings under their elytra, but which are rendered utterly useless because the elytra are fused shut?

That's interesting. As an aside, has anyone prised open the elytra to see if the beetles still have a sense of flight?

Bit difficult to figure out a way of achieving this. To test this, one would need to cut through the fusion point between the elytra, allowing them to separate as normal, without the cutting tool damaging the wings underneath. However, I suspect that once the experiment is suggested to an entomologist with the right tools and dexterity, conduct of the experiment will follow naturally.

There is an additional issue to overcome here, and that centres upon the fact that Carabids as a clade have gravitated toward ground dwelling niches for a long time. Consequently, even some of the species possessing flight capability prefer to run from enemies rather than fly from them. Others are more readily provoked into flight.

There's an additional problem to deal with, in that some species are even more troublesome from the standpoint of such an experiment, because the elytra are not only fused together, they're also fused to the mesonotum, or second thoracic body segment, which means that even if you separated the elytra successfully, those elytra would remain immobile.This therefore rules out the use of certain Scarites species for the experiment, because the additional mesonotum fusion in these species would render them useless for the experiment. A possible candidate, if it does not exhibit mesonotum fusion of the elytra in addition to centreline fusion, would be Holcaspis odeicnema, a species known to have large, potentially flight capable wings under its fused elytra. The morphology of those wings exhibits no detectable defects, when compared to those of flight-capable Carabids, and those wings match in all relevant respects the wings of flight-capable (and flight-utilising) Carabids.

Remember, the elytra of Coleoptera are themselves modifications of the first pair of wings, and in flight-capable beetles, are still attached to the mesonotum by flexible joints, even though some of the flight muscles, no longer used in this case, have atrophied with respect to the mechanics of flight. The muscles are still functional for the purpose of opening the elytra, and holding the elytra in a suitable position allowing the hindwings to operate. in some Coleoptera, the elytra may also provide an additional static aerodynamic surface to produce lift, although they are probably not the most efficient of aerofoils.

Consequently, when choosing a Carabid for this experiment, one needs to choose a species in which those joints, coupling the elytra to the mesonotum, are still functional.

I see no reason why this experiment, if the species and the procedures are chosen with care, would not yield a successful result. After all, earwigs (Order Dermaptera) are usually thought of as exclusively ground dwelling insects, yet they possess functional wings, and have been observed in flight, though not frequently. Indeed, I just found a video clip of an earwig deploying its wings for flight here.

Alan B wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Here's a link to a book that shows original Roman architectural drawings. I think we can accept that people erected structures with some sort of plan. They didn't just think "I think I'll put up a big forum building here" collect a bunch of rocks and put them on top of each other like Lego bricks.

My underline.
They did at Stonehenge - you can still see the Lego studs and holes they used.

My point isn't that they didn't build that way, but that there was a certain amount of planning into how they built. The Bible's story implies that given the measurements, a 600 year old man and his 500 year old triplets were able to put together without any pre-planning. Or maybe the details of how they acquired their materials and put them together wasn't as important as the details of how their deity simply drowned a world full of people because he was pissed with one settlement who were having too many parties.

virphen wrote:

Agrippina wrote:Here's a link to a book that shows original Roman architectural drawings. I think we can accept that people erected structures with some sort of plan. They didn't just think "I think I'll put up a big forum building here" collect a bunch of rocks and put them on top of each other like Lego bricks.

No, it's a book that includes drawings of the plans of Roman buildings made hundreds/thousands of years later, from the remains of the buildings themselves. No such thing as an "original Roman architectural drawing" survives.

OK, my mistake. I thought it was a reproduction of an original drawing inscription. I didn't read properly. Forget I said that.

Indeed, I just found a video clip of an earwig deploying its wings for flight here.

Well, I never knew earwigs could fly! You learn something new everyday. Perhaps the ones I've seen (they didn't elaborate pincers) were of the non-flying variety.

On the non-flying beetles, it would only need someone with the right skills to read your post to give it a try...

lucek wrote:

CharlieM wrote:If you think that there was the same analytical thinking going on in ancient times as there is today show me evidence such as the plans they drew up, the instruction manuals they composed, and we can discuss such evidence of that type of thinking. From the birth of writing ancient cultures have spread their mythical stories in written form, if their so called analytical thinking had as much prominence where is the written evidence for this?

Chuck how about we don't move the goalpost and instead look at what they did and how their skills still are still done today? People are people. Do we need to prove that the inhabitants of Easter Island understood what they were doing. We don't have written records we can just see how they were made. So was it just guesswork.

No it wasn't just gueswork. We look at the pyramids, Easter Island statues, stone circles and the like, and we can only surmise that in ancient times there were cultures which in many ways were superior to those of our own time. You don't get accuracy of alignment, transportation and assembly of huge stone structures by using guesswork.

Watch a pair of house martins building a nest. They build a cone of mud, usually attached to a vertical surface in a sheltered position, capable of supporting themselves and their brood throughout the breeding season. They choose nesting materials that are perfect for the job; they design, locate and position the nest and the timing of construction in the same way that we, with our analytical scientific thinking, would go about the job. Do you think that they possess the same analytical scientific minds as we humans do? A creature does not necessarily have to possess an analytical scientific mind in order to build a wonderful structure such as a house martin's nest.

I'll repeat a piece of the Barfield quote I gave earlier, "History of thought is illusory just because we tend to think back in this way in our own terms, to project into the minds of our ancestors a kind of thinking which was only made possible by the subsequent events of that very history."

He was a philologist, he studied language, and studying ancient languages gives us an inkling of the thought processes of people in times gone by. we can see abstractions entering language by looking at the progression of the alphabet. Individual sounds were originally given names which connected them with physical entities, for exaple the Hebrew "Aleph" and "Beth", the Greek "Alpha" and "Beta". And then comes Latin where the names have been replaced with the symbols "A" and "B". A move from things experienced to things abstract. We see the same thing in mathematics.

Humans have progressed from geometry, literally measuring the earth, to algebra which is far more abstract. And with regards to chemistry, earth, air, fire and water are things that can be directly experienced by the senses whereas modern chemistry deals with abstract symbols and equations. Direct experience gives way to abstractions and this goes hand in hand with our ways of thinking.

I am not giving these examples as a criticism, these are necessary stages in our evolution of consciousness. I am illustrating that the thinking of an ancient preliterate human in the forest track were nothing like the thinking of todays man or woman in the street. When stories such as Noah's ark were passed down in those times, those who received these tales did not analyse them and attempt to figure out if they were feasable or not. The stories affected their feelings more than their thoughts in the same way that a piece of music or poetry might affect us today or the way that a fairy story affected me as child. At that stage of my life I did not question how on earth anyone could be eaten by a wolf and then reappear alive and well. I did not care how realistic the story was in its details and rationalising it would have spoilt it for me.

We are at home with abstract, rationalist thoughts, ancient humans were not.

Alan B wrote:

CharlieM wrote:If you think that there was the same analytical thinking going on in ancient times as there is today show me evidence such as the plans they drew up, the instruction manuals they composed, and we can discuss such evidence of that type of thinking. From the birth of writing ancient cultures have spread their mythical stories in written form, if their so called analytical thinking had as much prominence where is the written evidence for this?

Of course there was analytical thinking going on in olden times to the same level as today - they just didn't have the modern tools and knowledge and because they didn't have today's modern tools and knowledge does not mean that their brains were inferior so that they were incapable of analytical thought comparable to today's thinkers.

Their thinking was nothing like our thinking of today, but this has nothing to do with inferiority or superiority.

Alan B wrote:And as for 'drawings and plans' do you really think that Iron and Bronze Age craftsmen drew detailed plans before they constructed their wonderful works of art? The brain's thought pathways were the same then as they are today.

Language tells me that thinking was different then. I'm not sure what you mean by "the brain's thought pathways", brains don't have thoughts, individuals do. How much thinking do you think that a brain in a jar would do? What evidence do you have that their thought pathways were the same?

Alan B wrote:But, suppose they did have detailed drawings and plans. Their artistry is comparable to any of today's artists who might choose to deny modern techniques.

I do not deny their superb artistry.

Alan B wrote:

CharlieM wrote:So the story of Noah's ark is an imaginative picture given to the people from without, suitable for their time and place.

No, it wasn't given to the people from without; it was an elaborative evolving from within from simple beginnings, perhaps a farmer and his coracle, and about an event without any supernatural intervention.

What I mean by "given from without" is that the masses, the majority of the people would have received these stories because they would have been handed down to them from their elders. For example I cannot claim authorship of "Little red Riding Hood", I received it from outwith my own mind.

Chuck did you just compare building the pyramids (something I didn't bring up because it went against your condition given we do have the written records for it) to a birds nest?

theropod wrote:Yep, Charlie, move the goal posts after the ball is in flight. That's pure intellectual honesty right there. Actually there are two examples but I did mention that the INVENTION of the bow, not the diversification, was not the point here, but you seemed to have ignored that with a bird wing image that's supposed to mean something.

What? You were not discussing the first appearance(s) of the bow and arrow, so I an not allowed to discuss it? You did not mention the harp either, am I barred from discussing this too?

theropod wrote:
Oh, that's it, the invention of the bow derived from ANALYZING nature. Thanks for kicking that one into your own net.

They didn't so much as analyse nature but experience it.

theropod wrote:
I already mentioned instrumentation and storage of knowledge as the main things that sets us apart from ancient man, but unless I write down my plans for the consistent arrows I need I'm not using analytical processes? Got it. I can't spend 20 years explaining it to my kids and their buddies, with hands on training, unless I carve it into a rock. I can't pass on what my father, and uncles, showed me about their bows and construct those to fit ME because I don't use analytical thinking to figure out my bow needs a shorter draw because my arms are shorter? My friends and I can't sit around on a winter day and talk about why my arrows seem to track to the right on launch? Do you actually think you have a position on this issue that is still defensible?

What I do find distracting is when people jump on individual words I have used and concentrate on them without showing any signs of trying to understand the wider point I am trying to make.

theropod wrote:
Small boat shaped obsidian points from the dry lakes of eastern Oregon and northern California were designed to skip across the surface of now absent water and were the points of unflecthed arrows fired into great flocks of waterfowl. Long thin hard stone arrow points employed by the plains peoples (before the arrival of horses) were launched from distance into the vast herds of bison in an attempt to inflict a deep wound on dangerous and robust prey. Without some form of analytical thinking these task specific designs would not have arisen. You were fucking wrong Charlie. Own it, or not.

Analytical scientific thinking defines modern minds, it does not define the minds of ancient preliterate people.

theropod wrote:
Yes, human consciousness has increased over time, but not to the point WITHIN the extant period of Homo sapiens that you assert. Show me a skull of a paleolithic Homo sapiens and one of a modern Homo sapiens and point out why their exact same brain was somehow inferior. You'll have to provide something of substance to support this, and since no such differences exist your assertion that consciousness is evolving independent of physicality is also a pile of shit.

Why do you assume that the because I say that ancient people thought in a different way to us that, somehow, their brain's were inferior?

theropod wrote:
Fuck your sources and quote peer reviewed material, for once.

I prefer to judge my sources on whether they are convincing to me and not just because they have been deemed as suitable by some members of an establishment that I am not part of.

theropod wrote:
Yep, the story of Noah was given from without alright, by a people that fabricated it 1,000 years before the ignorant Hebrew nomads stole it and changed the lead to the name of Noah, and surely is a product of a wild imagination.

Why do you say they stole the story? Have we stolen the Iliad or the Odyssey from the ancient Greeks? If an American operatic society performs "The Magic Flute", does this mean they have stolen it from the Austrians.

theropod wrote:
Are you seriously saying that by just thinking we can (or already have) evolve(d) into a new species?

Humans have surpassed the concept of species, every individual is the equivalent of a separate species.

theropod wrote:

Tell me how imagining a picture, or mental movie, of a 10 ton rock rolling off a hill and killing my kids is any better than calculating the angle, mass and all the other variables and writing those down? My paleo-analytics might even guide me to go up and deal with the rock while the modern analytic, according to you, would need to have everything stored in the cloud before coming to a solution. Superior? Really?

Again you bring up the concepts of superiority and inferiority. This has come from your thoughts, not mine.

theropod wrote:The real world, Charlie, tells us your assertions are shit.

We all know how useful shit is in producing growth.

CharlieM wrote:What? You were not discussing the first appearance(s) of the bow and arrow, so I an not allowed to discuss it? You did not mention the harp either, am I barred from discussing this too?

theropod wrote:
Oh, that's it, the invention of the bow derived from ANALYZING nature. Thanks for kicking that one into your own net.

They didn't so much as analyse nature but experience it.

Well, they all experienced it. Some started thinking, though. Some got ideas, like how to make weapons for hunting. Others tried to understand the world. While they could make pretty good bows and Arrows, their scientific understanding wasn't that advanced, and that's why we are still stuck with fairytales about the origins of our World.

Fenrir wrote:Yep, it's truly odd that numerous civilisations developed near water, on river valleys and coastlines, where there are more resources and as a consequence were affected by floods. An regular yet unpredictable occurrence which was devastating to their lives and civilisations. It's totally unfathomable that they could develop myths and traditions around these events. Totally unfathomable that myths and traditions built on the racial memory of similar events might have similar features. FFS Charlie.

Of course it isn't odd that people developed myths around their known world. Obviously the tale of Little Red Riding Hood was brought about by people who had experience of forests, wolves and such like.

Onyx8 wrote:These myths are startlingly absent from desert tribes and people who lived in high mountains. They had other myths of destruction and salvation that didn't rely on flooding which coincidentally was something they had never had experience with. Earthquakes, landslides, dust storms though.

That's understandable. Can you give us links to instances of these myths?

Onyx8 wrote:The problem being that the interpretation of these writings gives people the rationale for treating others abominably so often.

We humans have been treating each other abominably since as long as we have been on the planet with or without the need for myths.

People will use any justification they can think of for acting selfishly.

CharlieM wrote:

Onyx8 wrote:The problem being that the interpretation of these writings gives people the rationale for treating others abominably so often.

We humans have been treating each other abominably since as long as we have been on the planet with or without the need for myths.

People will use any justification they can think of for acting selfishly.

Is that what you call it? Acting selfishly? Killing off everyone on earth except for an old fart and his family with disregard for all the innocent people involved, is just acting selfishly. There is no excuse for worshipping the mass-murdering child and woman hating god of the Bible.

CharlieM wrote:

theropod wrote:Yep, Charlie, move the goal posts after the ball is in flight. That's pure intellectual honesty right there. Actually there are two examples but I did mention that the INVENTION of the bow, not the diversification, was not the point here, but you seemed to have ignored that with a bird wing image that's supposed to mean something.

What? You were not discussing the first appearance(s) of the bow and arrow, so I an not allowed to discuss it? You did not mention the harp either, am I barred from discussing this too?

Not the goal post I'm talking about here and you fucking know it. Invention is not the point. YOU are attempting to divert the attention away from how much you shifted your assertion AFTER I addressed said assertion. THAT is the goal post shifting YOU have done in order to make your shit stink a little less, but it isn't working. Talk about what the fuck ever you like Charlie, but it quite obvious you DO NOT want to address the diversification of the bow because that REQUIRED analytical thinking YOU claimed those people did not possess. Remember? Now fucking stop evading the issue or own it. I DO NOT GIVE A FUCK!

theropod wrote:
Oh, that's it, the invention of the bow derived from ANALYZING nature. Thanks for kicking that one into your own net.

They didn't so much as analyse [sic] nature but experience it.

Nice little subtle change of tone there Charlie, but the fact remains that your claim of the origin of the bow involved ANALYZING what they saw in nature. Now it's an experience. Is it really so hard to defend your assertions that you must resort to these (failed) low tactics?

theropod wrote:
I already mentioned instrumentation and storage of knowledge as the main things that sets us apart from ancient man, but unless I write down my plans for the consistent arrows I need I'm not using analytical processes? Got it. I can't spend 20 years explaining it to my kids and their buddies, with hands on training, unless I carve it into a rock. I can't pass on what my father, and uncles, showed me about their bows and construct those to fit ME because I don't use analytical thinking to figure out my bow needs a shorter draw because my arms are shorter? My friends and I can't sit around on a winter day and talk about why my arrows seem to track to the right on launch? Do you actually think you have a position on this issue that is still defensible?

What I do find distracting is when people jump on individual words I have used and concentrate on them without showing any signs of trying to understand the wider point I am trying to make.

You're not attempting to do anything but make a series of unsupported assertions, and when examples are provided that show off the stinkiness of your notions you go with this bullshit. Nice. There is no wider point. Now, are you going to address the fact that writing is not a limiting factor to analytical thinking, or are you going to continue with the sickly intellectual dishonesty?

theropod wrote:
Small boat shaped obsidian points from the dry lakes of eastern Oregon and northern California were designed to skip across the surface of now absent water and were the points of unflecthed arrows fired into great flocks of waterfowl. Long thin hard stone arrow points employed by the plains peoples (before the arrival of horses) were launched from distance into the vast herds of bison in an attempt to inflict a deep wound on dangerous and robust prey. Without some form of analytical thinking these task specific designs would not have arisen. You were fucking wrong Charlie. Own it, or not.

Analytical scientific thinking defines modern minds, it does not define the minds of ancient preliterate people.

Oh, so mere assertion makes you right, eh? How has that worked so far? Not too well from the cheap seats. I note that instead of addressing these clear examples of ancient analytical thinking you said didn't exist you formulate another empty assertion. Fucking awesome work Charlie! Are you even bothering to read this before clicking submit?

theropod wrote:
Yes, human consciousness has increased over time, but not to the point WITHIN the extant period of Homo sapiens that you assert. Show me a skull of a paleolithic Homo sapiens and one of a modern Homo sapiens and point out why their exact same brain was somehow inferior. You'll have to provide something of substance to support this, and since no such differences exist your assertion that consciousness is evolving independent of physicality is also a pile of shit.

Why do you assume that the because I say that ancient people thought in a different way to us that, somehow, their brain's were inferior?

Did you even bother to read the bold bit above?

Assume? Me? No, that's all your work Charlie since YOU are the one claiming that ancient Homo sapiens lacked the ability to think analytically. A lack of ability is, by fucking definition, inferior to those with said ability. You STILL haven't supported your assertions on this subject, and you won't. All you have is your bullshit fabrications and empty assertions. Explain to us again how an exact same brain as the one in your fucking head is less capable than yours. I can't wait. Actually I'm getting tired of reading endless streams of empty rhetorical tripe based on absolutely nothing but your ignorant opinions.

theropod wrote:
Fuck your sources and quote peer reviewed material, for once.

I prefer to judge my sources on whether they are convincing to me and not just because they have been deemed as suitable by some members of an establishment that I am not part of.

Paraphrase:
I don't have any peer reviewed material to back up my worthless tripe so I'm gonna pretend it isn't important, and since I don't have any formal training on the subject it wouldn't do me any good to even attempt to look at what such material might have to say on the subject. I've made up my mind and my sources agree with my preconceptions, so I'm not about to change my opinion no matter what.

theropod wrote:
Yep, the story of Noah was given from without alright, by a people that fabricated it 1,000 years before the ignorant Hebrew nomads stole it and changed the lead to the name of Noah, and surely is a product of a wild imagination.

Why do you say they stole the story? Have we stolen the Iliad or the Odyssey from the ancient Greeks? If an American operatic society performs "The Magic Flute", does this mean they have stolen it from the Austrians.

Because the story is not inspired from any god and it was not their intellectual work so the story was fucking stolen to support a fucking lie. When we read the Odyssey we don't say it is the work of Earnest Hemingway either. It's stolen because no credit is given to the original work of others. Got it? Stolen, taking without permission, and in literary work to do so without giving credit is plagiarism (another form of theft).

theropod wrote:
Are you seriously saying that by just thinking we can (or already have) evolve(d) into a new species?

Humans have surpassed the concept of species, every individual is the equivalent of a separate species.

Bullshit woo thinking is bullshit woo thinking. Breed with yourself and produce a baby. Yep clone yourself and we'll talk. It must be fun to make up these little stories like this. You do know the word species has a set definition, and your assertions doesn't match. Of course you haven't shown a working understanding of theft so...

theropod wrote:

Tell me how imagining a picture, or mental movie, of a 10 ton rock rolling off a hill and killing my kids is any better than calculating the angle, mass and all the other variables and writing those down? My paleo-analytics might even guide me to go up and deal with the rock while the modern analytic, according to you, would need to have everything stored in the cloud before coming to a solution. Superior? Really?

Again you bring up the concepts of superiority and inferiority. This has come from your thoughts, not mine.

Nope, your assertions demand this difference, but keep on pretending you didn't mean what you wrote. A species without critical analytical abilities is inferior to one that has said abilities, intellectually. What I am doing is showing you that your assertions do not match reality, and if we have surpassed the species level (as you claim) we have advanced and are superior. I am actively arguing AGAINST that position, Charlie, in case you missed it.

theropod wrote:The real world, Charlie, tells us your assertions are shit.

We all know how useful shit is in producing growth.

The kind of shit produced here kills on contact.

RS

theropod wrote:

CharlieM wrote:
These examples just remind me of how vastly inferior modern human design is to the designs of nature.

Yet those inferior human designs have enabled us to reach another world. That's something no natural flying system can match. Oh, just how much faster than sound is the fastest natural flyer? Tell us again how the first true birds were such superb flyers that no further modifications were needed, or seen, in the fossil record. Do you ever tire of posting such utter shit? I sure tire of reading it.

RS

Your argument reminds me of "My is bigger and stronger than your father"

I'm sure that if there was a need for an organism to travel faster than sound or to go to the moon it would have happened.

Need? WTF? Who or what would 'need' such a thing?

Oldskeptic wrote:

CharlieM wrote:

quas wrote:Say it's a vision, can anyone explain to me what purpose it serves to understand this "vision"?

Stories like these lived as pictures in the consciousness of these ancient people. They did not have analytical scientific minds as we do today. Stories which were handed down and existed in the imagination and feelings of those who heard them were to provide an understanding of existence. Not an understanding by measure, number and weight, as suitable for our minds these days, but an understanding suitable for the consciousness of those times.

Noah's Ark is a symbol for the human being which was thought of as a compendium for all the animal forms. The human is the microcosm which mirrors the macrocosm spread out before it. The macrocosm is depicted as the zodiac, the great animal ring, surrounding us. The completion of the animal natures concentrated in a single being is manifest in the human being. Noah's Ark is a symbol of the human being in which all the animals of the earth are gathered together within one vessel.

The only thing that anyone can say with certainty concerning the Noah myth is that it didn't happen the way it is portrayed in the Bible. Any other speculation is just that; speculation.

Obviously it is not a historically accurate account and it was never intended to be a historical record.

CharlieM wrote:

theropod wrote:

CharlieM wrote:
These examples just remind me of how vastly inferior modern human design is to the designs of nature.

Yet those inferior human designs have enabled us to reach another world. That's something no natural flying system can match. Oh, just how much faster than sound is the fastest natural flyer? Tell us again how the first true birds were such superb flyers that no further modifications were needed, or seen, in the fossil record. Do you ever tire of posting such utter shit? I sure tire of reading it.

RS

Your argument reminds me of "My is bigger and stronger than your father"

I'm sure that if there was a need for an organism to travel faster than sound or to go to the moon it would have happened.

My what is bigger and stronger? If you meant my father I'm not so sure since he's been dead for some time now, but thanks for the completely unnecessary personalization that reminds me of my loss. You've bested me there.

I'm glad you're sure about it. That settles the matter.

Oh, in case you hadn't noticed, a species did have a need and said species worked out a solution via design. These designs are vastly superior to anything nature has produced to date, so you are wrong in this assertion too. Maybe you should just stop now because you are only digging yourself deeper with every new tangent. Of course you can't do that. I understand.

RS

Alan B wrote:

CharlieM wrote:talk Origins has a pretty comprehensive list of flood myths. Here are some extracts:

Greek - "Onto a great ark he loaded his wives and children and all animals".
Sumerian - "He was instructed to build a great ship and carry beasts and birds upon it."
Assyrian - "He then loaded it with his family, the craftsmen, and "the seed of all living creatures.""
Chaldean - "told him to build and provision a vessel (5 stadia by 2 stadia) for himself, his friends and relations, and all kinds of animals."
Masai - "God commanded Tumbainot to build an ark of wood and enter it with his two wives, six sons and their wives, and some of animals of every sort"
Southwest Tanzania - "God told two men to go into a ship, taking with them all sorts of seed and animals."
Altaic (central Asia) - "Nama entered the ark with his family and the various animals and birds which had been driven there by the rising waters."
Buryat (eastern Siberia) - With the help of Burkhan, the man gathered specimens of all animals except Argalan-Zan, the Prince of animals (some say it was a mammoth), which considered itself too large to drown.
Sagaiye (eastern Siberia) - "God was forced to send down an iron vessel in which Noj, his wife and family, and all kinds of animals were saved."
Hindu - "He was told to take aboard the miraculous vessel all kinds of medicinal herbs, food esculant grains, the seven Nishis and their wives, and pairs of brute animals."
Bahnar (Cochin China) - "The only survivors were a brother and sister who took a pair of all kinds of animals with them in a huge chest."
Dyak (Borneo) - "He took with him his wife, a dog, pig, cat, fowl, and other animals, and rode out the flood"
Valman (northern New Guinea) - "When the good man saw that, he hastily drove a pair of all kinds of animals into trees and climbed into a coconut tree with his family."
Hareskin (Alaska) - "As he floated, he gathered pairs of all animals and birds he met with."
Sarcee (Alberta) - "The world was flooded, and one man and one woman survived on a raft on which they collected all kinds of animals and birds."
Skagit (Washington) - "When the people saw the flood coming, they made a giant canoe and filled it with five people and a male and female of all plants and animals."
Cree (Canada) - "Wissaketchak, though, built a great raft and gathered on it pairs of all animals and birds."
Chippewa (Ojibway) (Ontario, Minnesota, Wisconsin) - "He put pairs of all kinds of animals on the raft and floated about"
Caddo (Oklahoma, Arkansas) - "The voice directed the man and his wife to go naked into the reed, taking pairs of good animals"
Michoacan (Mexico) - "When the flood waters began to rise, a man named Tezpi entered into a great vessel, taking with him his wife and children and diverse seeds and animals"
Tepecano (southeast of Huichols) - "The old man told him not to work anymore because a flood was coming, and instead to build an ark and take on it pairs of all animals, corn, and water."
Zapotec (Oaxaca, southern Mexico) - "He built an ark and took pairs of all animals."

A myth so popular that people from all round the globe have used it.

'It' was not a single myth which peoples around the world 'copied' nor was it a common theme generated by a single 'world-wide' event. There were many, many locals floods after the ending of the last Ice Age stretching over periods of hundreds of years. Each of these myths are remnants of memories of what the local peoples did when their land - their 'world' - began to flood: they built rafts, boats, coracles - whatever - and took their belongings - 'all' the animals - with them.

You are entitled to your speculations and I'm sure there are many flood stories that originated in just the way you say. But I don't think that applies to them all.

Alan B wrote: And as Onyx8 pointed out:

These myths are startlingly absent from desert tribes and people who lived in high mountains. They had other myths of destruction and salvation that didn't rely on flooding which coincidentally was something they had never had experience with. Earthquakes, landslides, dust storms though.which, of course, gives the lie to the ludicrous crap of the 'Flood waters covered the mountain tops' bullshit.
You can't have it both ways, CharlieM.

Where did you see me write that I necessarily believe flood waters covered the mountain tops?