On a forum like this one, ostensibly "scientific" and in practice often a fair go at that, one common reason for not responding to some content in a post is that it seems to have settled some matter. I often read in the math and physics forum, for example, and occasionally contribute from my little corner of experience, but almost never respond to rpenner's posting. Posters unfamiliar with this aspect of things here may interpret an absence of a chorus of "likes", or whatever they are used to, for unpopularity, and unpopularity for negative assessment of content - that is not safe. Basically, the original question derives from an overlooked aspect of human civilization (we live next to large bodies of water, in valleys and basins, etc), a gap in imagination (what almost always happens next to large bodies of water, for one reason or another, over timescales of thousands of years), a purposeful misrepresentation of anthropological fact (Flood stories do not resemble each other all that much, and the reason for claiming they do is pretty obvious), and so forth. The specific Flood myth of Judeo=Christian tradition is a traced example, in which the specific original or motivating event seems to be identifiable, possibly, as well as the immediately progenitive source of mythical content. That's because it was written down. So what is the problem with tracing it, taking advantage of the unusual literacy of those particular civilizations?