That's a bit hard to understand, honestly..and I'm at least somewhat familiar with the things you're referencing.
We do try to keep our analysis somewhat grounded in what we can know, especially at the beginning when things are more new and intense.
Some points of contention:
I'm unsure whether parallels can be drawn between Tiamat's children and the Nephilim.. Even if the cultures they came from arose in the same region, the similarity seems pretty tenuous.
(2025-01-17 16:27)Nyqeth Wrote: The spiritual stories tie to psychological influences of therianthropy as a symbolic practice for proper survival states of mind (etc), these psychological versions are facts, the spiritual versions haven't been proven yet.
I will note that the idea of therianthropy being "a symbolic practice for proper survival states of mind" isn't actually considered a fact. The idea has been suggested in the past, and I believe it was discussed here on the forum some time ago as one possible explanation for the expression of animal behavior and instincts in therians, but it is far from proven. Generally speaking, there has been relatively little academic research published thus far about therianthropy, and even less settled theories for psychological origination....though many of us have ideas (One prevalent view in academia is to view it as neurodiversity; Clegg and Gerbasi's research groups concluded that, but I don't believe they gave specifics on why it would develop). We just don't know much about the phenomena with any real certainty.
If you take a look around our forum you'll find a lot of interesting debates over ideas from our older members further back.
For the things about common ancestry and heredity (at least, from what I remember learning years ago..):
The survival behaviors and features most animals display were developed and/or specialized by those species(within their local branches) in response to prolonged environmental pressures that promoted the genetic expression of most-beneficial (or least-hindering) traits. Lineages with those specific traits were more likely to survive, reproduce successfully, and outcompete other lineages. The traits that we often attribute to specific species weren't all just primordially-extant traits inherited from a single common ancestor..The further you branch away from that ancestor the less of their original traits are retained..or at the very least, the less recognizable they are to their original form.
Because of this dynamic adaptation and distancing over time, all of the species are individully specialized to survive in their (and often only their) specific environment...that's why giant pandas became endangered instead of just switching to another food source when their environment was disrupted. There are exceptions of course...coyotes and foxes are extremely adaptable across environment types and temperatures.
So, following this..while humans might share a lot of their genetic code with wolves, they diverged so far back from a common ancestor with what evolved into Canidae that they wouldn't share many traits and the way they have specialized into their environment is completely different from the path primates took to survive. Same with fish, avians, insects, etc. An alternative view of this could be that, for the aspects humans do share with wolves, both developed those independently because they were the most-likely endpoint in the development of cognitive features in many animals (i.e. why the ability to experience depression is often observed in many animals and why play behavior appears to be wide-spread across numerous species).