Disclaimer: I do not believe that Bigfoot exists and would require extraordinary proof that they do to change my opinion.
That being said, I have a prediction to make:
If (biiiiig if) a sasquatch is ever killed or captured it will turn out to be Homo Sapiens. Further, it will be shown that it is closely related to a Native American tribe of that region and will have one of those mutant genes that result in extreme hirsuteness. Its physical dimensions will not be far outside of human norms.
Some scientist will theorize that their progenitors were abandoned in the woods by the tribe because of their deformity and some survived long enough to meet and breed despite having gone feral.
I further predict that I will not be given any credit for this prediction.
Rich Mann, you have my word that, if it ever goes down like you describe, I will not hesitate to tell others that I heard it first from you on the SDMB.
Short answer to the OP – there’s no noteworthy evidence, and a logical examination of what we do know makes the proposition unlikely; that’s why you don’t have a bunch of Bigfoot-believers here. How long have you been reading this board?
No, “dragons” have not shown up in multiple, unconnected cultures. Rather, a number of cultures have had tales of some sort of serpentine beasts to which westerners have applied the word “dragon” despite widely (and wildly) dissimilar descriptions.
The dragon, (from the Greek drakôn, or serpent), included a variety of beasts in Middle Eastern mythology that might be sea creatures, flying creatures, or undergound dwellers. The intelligence of dragons (or serpents) varied with the tale being told, as did the malice or benevolence of the creature in question (although benevolent ones tended to be little more than simple snakes as are found on the caduceus or on the rod of Asclepius). (Several were pure ground dwellers, although later ones were found with wings and a capacity to fly.)
As Christianity moved into Northern Europe, the Teutonic/Scandinavian wurm that had no power of flight and was of limited intelligence although it was malicious and could spit venom had the label “dragon” applied to it since it was serpentine.
Later, Europeans applied the word “dragon” to the Chinese tales of great, wise, flying, serpentine shaped creatures, even though there the Chinese creatures do not appear to have serpent scales, or breathe fire or spit venom and they fly without the need for wings.
Later, still, Europeans applied the word to Quetzlcoatl and some of his relatives because they were serpentine in shape (still lacking wings), even though they were feathered, not scaly, did not spit venom or fire, were individual beings rarther than a classor species, and were acftually associated with the creator god.
The idea that the wise, ethereal, wingless flying “dragons” of China are, in some way, connected to the malicious, scaly, earth-bound “dragons” of the Norse beyond a vague reference to a serpentine shape needs a lot more evidence before we assert that as a fact.
I have less of a problem thinking there may be a large, endangered primate species we haven’t encountered in a very remote area. Highly unlikely, but not completely implausible for a yeti. I would be more believable if it was a smaller primate though (like a funky new gibbon), rather than something that is supposed to be 8 feet tall.
But I do have problems with the idea of a North American bigfoot. Even extremely remote areas of forest in the U.S. and Canada would have human encroachment like crazy and by now we would have more credible signs of some primate in the bush.
It is very true that if we return to the original Greek and simply say "many cultures have legends or myths that include a serpent-like (drakôn) creature or character, we are probably on solid ground. (Note, however, that not all such beasts were large.) However, the original statement was that “dragons” (which, in English, conveys the image of a large, scaly, winged, usually fire breathing monster) are common to many (perhaps most) cultures, despite the fact that those cultures have had no contact.
The idea conveyed in that statement is misleading. It would be similar to claiming that nearly all cultures have legends of moose or elephants because so many include stories of large, four-legged, herbivores.
But this argument appears to run counter to your original nitpick. If Europeans felt comfortable applying the term “dragon” to such a diverse assortment of mythical creatures, then surely it has never been as specific as you are suggesting. English mythology may associate a specific default image with the term at present, but most English speakers don’t have difficulty accomodating the notion of a “Chinese dragon.”
You objected earlier to the term “dragon” being applied to the creator god Quetzalcoatl. But surely the same objection must be made for the term “god?” Doesn’t the English term “god” convey the image of a bearded white man in a robe? How can the term “god” meaningfully apply to the Hebrew patron deity, a South American feathered serpent, the cat-headed Egyptian pantheon, an historic 1st century preacher, and whatever it is that the Unitarians worship?
Or, you know, if we can find a new species of snake in the Congo, why can’t it be possible that 50 foot lizards who breath fire could live in Tokyo? Or if we can put a man on the moon, why can’t it be possible that aliens have taken over all the major world governments and are waiting to eat us all? Or if cats can fall and land on their feet, why can’t witches fly around on brooms?
The existence of a single thing in no way lends support to the existence of all other things.
You’re kidding, right? People apply words they know even if they aren’t accurate because they are intellectually lazy, not because the word means that.
Of course. But in those cases, the word WAS accurate. Dragon = great big mythical beast with serpentine characteristics.
That was kind of my point, though. Like “dragon,” the word “god” has different specific connotations in different cultures and religions. For some, to be a god is to be all-powerful; For others, the concept of “god” has fairly limited scope. A god may be tied to a specific place, or be immanent throughout the cosmos; a god may be physically embodied in an historic personage, or be the representation of an abstract philosophical concept. As a religion changes over time, the concept of their god may likewise change. Very few specific traits are common to all “gods.” But, somewhat like the term “dragon,” there is a general shared commonality to this mythic archetype across many cultures.
A few other examples: “Vampire.” “Ghost.” “Witch.” “Werewolf.” Some variation on these myths can be found in many, probably most cultures. Even though another culture’s specific notion of a “vampire” is likely to bear little resemblance to the English version with the opera cape and fangs (at least before the influence of TV and movies), there is still an recognizable common theme of “malevolent spirit that drains your life away.”
OK, first, it’s not merely serpentine characteristics that makes something a dragon, both by modern definitions and the original. But even if that were the proper definition, there are all sorts of creatures that do not fit that description that have been called dragons as part of the claim that belief in dragons existed worldwide. Dragons are not known world wide, and great big mythical beasts with serpentine characteristics aren’t either.
As far as your point about ghosts, vampires, werewolves, etc. goes, it’s the same thing. If you stretch a definition past what it’s supposed to be then the definition is no longer valid. Vampires are not merely some creature that’s draining in some way. That’s like deciding that water is anything that’s a liquid and saying that water has been found in a desert when it’s really oil.
Words mean things. Ignoring what they mean and making up new personal meanings so that you can argue a point is just nonsense.
