Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Monkeys get to South America?
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 50 of 137 (499166)
02-17-2009 12:02 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Theodoric
02-16-2009 11:03 PM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
quote:
WOW. The utter ridiculousness of your reply leaves me unsure where to start.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want a photograph of someone that live 2000 years ago, then I should ask the same for monkeys going to south america.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boy I am not going to even touch that one it is so stupid.
ditto for you. You have two standards.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not to mention that monkeys are 40 million years later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are observable physical phenomena, that has shown that this could have happened. The positioning of the continents and probable currents also make it possible.
I'm sure you see it that way, but I don't think you use a fair standard. I'm sure you disagree. If human testimony is so unreliable, then why is it used in a court of law?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
likewise for monkeys on a flotilla.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still you use terms that you know are ridiculous and don't even represent the situation at all. Building strawmen is not very polite, but I guess when it is all you have.
strawmonkeys, sir Theodore, straw monkeys.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
that's why faith is the same, but science keeps changing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That science keeps changing is a good thing.
We call it moving the goal posts, and I don't think that's so good.
quote:
It means that all the time we learn more from observing, testing and falsifying.
I'd like to observe a good demonstration of abiogenisis sometime.
quote:
You obviously don't believe in the scientific method.
Actually I do, Tell ya what -- I'll give you a dead man with all his RNA and DNA perfectly in place and all you have to do is bring him back to life. That should be easy enough for a scientist with a plan, and I'm even conceding all the other points about putting the right chemicals together in the right place to make it easier for you.
quote:
Therefore, no matter what we say will not change your mo=ind at all. Your posts and arguments will just get more ridiculous and more sophomoric.
That's how you see it. As I said already some of your own peers are not totally in agreement with you. Perhaps I should bring their studies to your attention.
enuff mud-slinging ok??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Theodoric, posted 02-16-2009 11:03 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 12:31 AM Engineer has not replied
 Message 61 by Blue Jay, posted 02-17-2009 1:22 AM Engineer has not replied
 Message 62 by Dr Jack, posted 02-17-2009 6:02 AM Engineer has not replied
 Message 71 by JonF, posted 02-17-2009 4:04 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 53 of 137 (499169)
02-17-2009 12:10 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Coyote
02-17-2009 12:00 AM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
quote:
Science is becoming increasingly accurate. It discards old mistakes when new data show that its necessary. But when it does it becomes more accurate, and more reflective of the data--all the data.
I wouldn't have a job without science.
but 200 years from now, how much of the new stuff do you think will still be used?
We laugh at people for thinking the world was flat and that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, but this changes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Coyote, posted 02-17-2009 12:00 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Coyote, posted 02-17-2009 12:37 AM Engineer has not replied
 Message 60 by Nighttrain, posted 02-17-2009 12:51 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 54 of 137 (499170)
02-17-2009 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Dr Adequate
02-17-2009 12:08 AM


quote:
The point of your calculation is non-obvious.
So what do you think a reasonable distance is for raft travel -- 1700 miles, 1500 miles, 500 miles?
I would wonder if the modeling assumptions for south america were fudged to make the distance a whole lot closer 40 million years ago, as I hear in some of the explanations. The typical explanation says South America was closer 40 million years ago -- well how much closer?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-17-2009 12:08 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-17-2009 12:33 AM Engineer has not replied
 Message 84 by Meddle, posted 02-17-2009 10:59 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 74 of 137 (499253)
02-17-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by kuresu
02-17-2009 3:39 PM


Continuing On the subject of South American and African continent seperation and new world monkey rafting travels during the Oglicene.(*1)
quote:
Of course, claiming 12mm is .12cm is really, really silly.
I made no such claim, only an honest error past my bedtime.
That's one reason I provided a sample calculation. A simple mistake -- yes, As for "really really silly" nahhh ... just human error. Get used to it, I have to all the time. The error doesn't do very much to help east west seperation however, which was the point I made.
Hence I need to correct the anwer by a factor of 10. The result is 300 miles almost due north. This does something for an east west separation but not much. The east-west separation is circumferential like when a balloon expands.
Here is the model I used:
UNAVCO
I have done quite a bit of research since the last post, and there is a way to figure out the chances of a raft endeavor from africa to south america. I postulate it now for those that want to take it on:
1) Provide the estimated distance beween the continents 40 million years ago, based purely on geology, and include no influencing factors from evolution theory that might bias the answer in some way:
UNAVCO
2) Use a navigation model to estimate ship drift. Figure how long it takes a ship to drifp across on ocean currents. This is the best model I could find and it isn't good enough:
Ocean Motion : Data Resources : Ocean Surface Current Visualizer
3) Tell us how long a monkey can go without fresh water, propose a way it could find water on a floating mass of vegetation. Also, propose a way to convert salt water to fresh water, or drink salt water exclusively and survive for any period of time. Perhaps the monkey was adapted to this -- provide evidence.
4) Most wood that floats is dead already. Green wood can sink rather easyly. Is there any evidence of a massive vegetation floatilla a thousand miles from any shoreline?
5) If the flotilla theory makes sense then there should be plenty of successful transatlantic crossings for many plant species, both to and from South America. A good tidal wave can wash the seeds quite far inland.
Here's an idea for verifying the result and make yourself famous at the same time, win chicks, academic accolades, and public speaking engagements worth a nice sum of money courtesy of an old world creationist that accepts robust species adaptation:
Drop bottles on the african coast and see how long they take to reach the south american coast:
http://www.csun.edu/.../EarthScience/OceanCurrentReading.pdf
from source:
quote:
Indeed, many theories of the colonization of the isolated Pacific islands such as Hawaii and Tahiti by humans and plant and animal life have been based upon the ability of winds, ocean waves and currents to transport them from one island to the next.
Lizards such as the crested iguana of Fiji likely traveled across many kilometers of ocean from South America clinging to drifting trees before landing on a life-saving beach.
these toys traveled 900 miles as the crow flies in about 10 months (unless I crapped on my calculator again):
quote:
Ebbesmeyer's next serendipitous study of the ocean currents in the North Pacific came in late 1992 when a large number of brightly colored bathtub toys were reported on the beaches near Sitka, Alaska. These toys had been part of a shipment of containers headed from Hong Kong to Tacoma, Washington. In January, 1992, the container ship carrying the toys among its cargo encountered severe storm conditions near the International Date Line (44.7N, 178.1E). Twelve containers went overboard as the ship rolled about 40
degrees in the heavy seas. One of these 20-meter containers held a shipment of 29,000 bathtub toys.
quote:
The first landfall of these toys was reported on November 16, 1992.
I calculate Sika Alaska to be 900 miles away using this calculator:
Calculate distance and bearing between two Latitude/Longitude points using haversine formula in JavaScript
more on the same:
Friendly Floatees spill - Wikipedia
I wish you every success. It's a daunting task. I've put enough time into this and I have 23 more posts in my mailbox. I'll have to forgo them. Feel priveleged, and good job checking the math for me!! ;-)
Edited by Engineer, : (*1) added RSS feed search engine key words at beginning of post for search engine magnets.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by kuresu, posted 02-17-2009 3:39 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 9:24 PM Engineer has replied
 Message 92 by kuresu, posted 02-18-2009 8:12 AM Engineer has not replied
 Message 93 by kuresu, posted 02-18-2009 8:47 AM Engineer has not replied
 Message 100 by Blue Jay, posted 02-18-2009 3:58 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 76 of 137 (499258)
02-17-2009 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Dr Adequate
02-17-2009 12:05 AM


quote:
I do. But a raft of vegetation more than a mile in extent is not going to be without sources of water unpolluted by salt.
I don't think it will stay afloat very long unless it's all dried out like drift wood. What's going to hold the raft together when the sea storms bring rain and the rough water that comes with it?
Green wood sinks rather easily too. In my experience freshly cut green trees make good cover on the bottom for fresh water fishing.
Even very dry wood gets waterlogged and sinks to the bottom. I've banged up a few boat propellers on submerged timber sneaking beneath the surface.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-17-2009 12:05 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 10:00 PM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 78 of 137 (499263)
02-17-2009 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Theodoric
02-17-2009 9:24 PM


Re: again what is your alternative theory
quote:
You can bring up all the possible difficulties in the theory, but still you offer nothing as an alternative.
All you are doing is following in the steps of classic theistic "science"
I'm offering you a chance to be famous, and outlined the scientific method you can use to prove your point. Just go back a few posts.
quote:
-preferring supernatural explanations, even actively filtering out natural explanations or declaring them impossible
-willingness to import theistic ideas into science, placing more importance on revelation than empirical evidence
huh what?? me thinks you are in the wrong thread. We are trying to solve the rafting puzzle.
quote:
or the classic IDer
I think evolution is pretty intelligent design myself. If I was the big guy, I wouldn't want to micromanage everything.
quote:
-claim that issues are too complex to understand scientifically and resort to supernatural explanations
such as???
quote:
Your arguments are week and lazy. Just a version of the fallacy of negative proof.
I gave you the computer models already. The burden of proof is on you to prove that monkeys crossed on a raft, or have you stopped making that claim?
quote:
There is no conclusive proof that this is what happened so therefore it must not have.
We have seen your fallacies before from many IDers and YEC's. Present an alternate theory as to how monkeys got to the New World or move on.
gripe gripe gripe
quote:
Science knows the New World monkeys are genetically related to the Old World monkeys. The split occurred after continental drift. Therefore, they must have crossed the ocean. Floating on rafts of vegetation is a very plausible hypothesis.
The only trouble is that green wood sinks. Dried out wood with no water in it floats rather well for a short time, then it sinks.
quote:
Now it is up to you to present an alternate hypothesis, because the scientific hypothesis conforms to the facts and data.
The burden of proof is on he that claims a hypothesis. I have none, but you do so get busy.
quote:
I am done with this thread. You are a disingenuous IDer or YEC that can only present fallacies and debunked and discredited ID and YEC arguments.
aww come on dude. I asked how monkeys got across and you get all fussy. There are ways to prove it and I've already given you the tools myself. I spent about 3 hours on the research in post 74, and let's see your calculations now.
You can be rich and famous. You should be thanking me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 9:24 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 11:43 PM Engineer has replied
 Message 99 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 11:20 AM Engineer has seen this message but not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 79 of 137 (499264)
02-17-2009 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Theodoric
02-17-2009 10:00 PM


Re: I can't resist
quote:
Well what do you know. They still float log rafts in the Northwest.
So are you proposing the monkeys on the ss africa used chain saws to cut off the leaves and branches so the flotilla wouldn't sink? Or maybe they used roaps to hold their flaotilla together like the picture:
How far out does a flotilla go into the ocean before it dismembers or sinks?
Edited by Engineer, : picture added for reference

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 10:00 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 10:12 PM Engineer has replied
 Message 81 by lyx2no, posted 02-17-2009 10:24 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 82 of 137 (499269)
02-17-2009 10:47 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Theodoric
02-17-2009 10:12 PM


Re: I can't resist
ok I'll give you one Theodore -- sorry for the hard time. Wood can float for quite a long time depending on the SG which can be as low as .5. Tree leaves, on the otherhand pose a different problem, and their bouyancy is unstable:
http://www2.hendrix.edu/...Web/labmanual/Photosynthesis.html
When I was a kid I remember breaking off a rather large red oak limb while swinging out over a lake on a rope ( while I was still evolving through my tree climbing stage). Red oak is pretty dense, and it floated, but barely. It was in good daylight.
After a couple of hours I pushed it under water and it sank to the bottom. I think the leaves took in water, but can't prove it. It went from floater to sinker in about 2 hours. It was right at dusk.
I concluded that a tree with leaves is more likely to float during the day than during the night. Does that make sense?
A floatilla of debris is going to break apart in the kind of strong ocean currents that are needed for transporation, but that's my opinion.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.
Edited by Engineer, : added time of day information regrding photosynthesis.
Edited by Engineer, : dumb typo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 10:12 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 11:16 PM Engineer has replied
 Message 87 by lyx2no, posted 02-17-2009 11:32 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 85 of 137 (499272)
02-17-2009 11:02 PM


In summary, if a monkey made it across from africa to south america I think the real problem was finding drinking water. After a week or so, surely a large island of floating debris in ocean waves and swirling currents would of scattered apart. I'm going to look at how the igauna got from south america to Fiji.

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2009 9:53 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 91 of 137 (499292)
02-18-2009 7:19 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Theodoric
02-17-2009 11:16 PM


Re: I can't resist
quote:
I don't think you can make that conclusion at all. A childhood experience is no substitute for verifiable evidence. Pine trees and other trees float quite well. Limbs on or not.
It makes sense to me that a tree with leaves on it, floating on a body of water, is heavier at night than at day because of photosynthesis. Can we not agree on this?
I supplied a laboratory experiment link that explains bouancy relative to photosynthesis. I asked if you can agree on its conclusion. If we can't agree on a standard and repeatable biology experiment performed by competent scientists in a laboratory, I don't think we are going to get anywhere.
As for pine trees, do you agree that their specific gravity is relatively low? The childhood experience I presented was red oak. Do you agree that red oak is more dense than pine? If we can not agree on hydrostatics we also have an issue.
quote:
Yes that is all it is opinion. We are not discussing opinion here. We are discussing evidence.
Could you kindly provide some links to your evidence like I've done with the scientific computer models for ocean currents, plate tectonics, and such?
quote:
You discount all evidence presented to you and then you say in your opinion something can't be possible.
You aren't prenting any that helps solve the problem with rigor. That's the problem that I see here, not that monkeys rafted, but that you accept it without better evidence as people accepted a flat earth using occum's razor. Others have presented links and I appreciate their effort.
quote:
Here you present another fallacy in reasoning, I'm entitled to my opinion (what is this your fifth or sixth fallacy in just this thread alone)
As one lab manager told me, a good data set is worth a thousand expert opinions. Without good data we start with an opinion, and state it as such as I have clearly done -- opinion is not dogma as you imply it to be. An opinion is a good logical starting point for problem-solving. I see no point in debating this and all the scientific results this method has produced.
I am entitled to my opinion as you are to yours. Everyone's opinion counts equally in the world of problem solving, and mutual respect produces an answer we can all accept. Admittedly, I could have treated you better and I apologize. Could you do likewise?
quote:
You really should study up on logical fallacies.
Good. Provide your best link to show you are more than just talk.
Here's mine:
Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
While you are at it, supply evidence that a mile long clump of debris has ever been spotted far from a shoreline. This would be a considerable navigation concern for anyone in the shipping trade.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 11:16 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 8:51 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 103 of 137 (499472)
02-18-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Theodoric
02-17-2009 11:43 PM


Re: again what is your alternative theory
quote:
The burden of proof is not on me. Your OP expressed that you did not believe that monkeys could have rafted across the ocean, even the people you quote in the OP agree that that was how it happened. The hypothesis has been presented to you many times. You are the one that disagrees with the hypothesis and presents logical fallacy after logical fallacy.
I think you're the one logically out of whack.
I don't believe monkeys rafted across 40 million years ago and survived, though it's astronomically improbable.
You don't believe a religious teacher named Jesus ever existed 2000 years ago.
I can't prove that monkeys didn't raft across and survive 40 million years ago.
You can't prove that a teacher named Jesus never existed 2000 years ago, though it was reported by several different people, and it remains in jewish tradition today.
You say the burden of proof is on me regarding monkey rafting.
Shouldn't the burden of proof be likewise on you to prove Jesus never existed?
Yet if we were debating bible history, the burden of proof would once again be placed on me. This seems to be a double standard.
quote:
If you do not agree with the hypothesis then show an alternative.
ok I changed my avatar just for you. I thought you'd like my hypothesis. ;-)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Theodoric, posted 02-17-2009 11:43 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 7:38 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 107 of 137 (499480)
02-18-2009 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Dr Adequate
02-18-2009 8:50 AM


Re: A Monkey On A Raft
quote:
The first google hit I got on rafts of vegetation was Charles Sutherland Elton's "The Ecology of Invasions by Animals and Plants", which states that "a green monkey was noticed on floating timber near Java in 1883".
Please provide your link, It doesn't come up at all on my search engine.
That's pretty unusual. A 3 foot alligator was spotted in the mountains of North Carolina. Either way of getting there is totally ridiculous. Somebody put it there obviously:
http://www2.brevard.edu/reynoljh/fbgator.htm
Also dead shark was found in Lake Michigan:
MSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest Videos
quote:
Where do green monkeys come from? Sub-Saharan Africa. And Java, of course, is in Indonesia.
It probably was from africa, but wouldn't last more than about 10 days without fresh water.
quote:
I think an actual observation trumps an argument from incredulity.
It would take several monkeys without any competitors to establish a new population. This would take several trans-atlantic rafting expeditions before one of them finally succeeded in establishing a population.
I think the most likely way of crossing and surviving would be on a tossock floating island:
Floating island - Wikipedia
It would take a big rain storm or a tidal wave to remove one of these from a swamp. Either could potentially tear it apart.
Edited by Engineer, : requested link on green monkey

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2009 8:50 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Engineer, posted 02-18-2009 8:09 PM Engineer has not replied
 Message 109 by bluegenes, posted 02-18-2009 8:12 PM Engineer has not replied
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 8:41 PM Engineer has replied
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2009 8:41 PM Engineer has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 108 of 137 (499484)
02-18-2009 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Engineer
02-18-2009 7:54 PM


Re: A Monkey On A Raft
ok I found the link about Charles Sutherland Elton after a google search. The same link says the monkeys got to South America probably by island hopping.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Engineer, posted 02-18-2009 7:54 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 115 of 137 (499507)
02-18-2009 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by Dr Adequate
02-18-2009 8:41 PM


Re: A Monkey On A Raft
quote:
But there are millions of years for this to happen again and again, and the monkeys only have to be lucky once.
Other sources say it takes more than once because there were natural competitors in south america at the time. The time period surmised is about 35 million years ago.
There are other threads on the internet that have already covered this debate. At 35 million years the separation between continents was about 1400 km.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-18-2009 8:41 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:36 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5516 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 116 of 137 (499509)
02-18-2009 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Theodoric
02-18-2009 8:41 PM


Re: A Monkey On A Raft
quote:
They are in South America, so it happened.
As has been stated in previous posts we will never know exactly how, but that they are there is evidence it happened. Your incredulity does not make it not a fact.
Some evolution experts think the raft from africa borders on ridiculous. The so-called "millions of years of rafting opportunity" never existed unless monkeys found a time machine. I like my flying monkey idea better than that. Perhaps you should be debating your views on this evolution forum:
Cryptozoology.com
Here's an opening post from someone considerably more expert than you are:
quote:
The ancestry of New World monkeys is uncertain due to a low abundance of fossil material, as well as limitations based continental drift.
South America broke off of the African mainland, and over the course of millions of years, migrated to its present position. This separation between South America and Africa occurred over 100 million years ago. This is much earlier than the first primate fossils currently known on either continent.
Thus, there are several possible scenarios for the ancestry of New World primates -- based on our current knowledge:
a) African anthropoids found some way to cross the Atlantic, and radiated into new habitats upon reaching South America. (The anatomical differences and difficulty in accomplishing the crossing make this scenerio unlikely).
b) African anthropoids emerged earlier than fossils suggest, and rafted across the Atlantic when the distance between continents was much less. (Much more likely than the above, but the fossil records doesn't support this theory at present).
c) Asian Species crossed into North American over the Bering Land Bridge as did hominins. (Possible, but the time frame here doesn't support the diversity of traits and species nor does it explain why some monkey species didn't adapt and survive into modern times on the North America continent -- other than in Central America).
d) North American primate forms originated here gave rise to the current New World species. (As I said before, many scientists have EXPECTED to eventually find evidence of early primates here. This is why Dr. Bloch's discovery is likely to make many waves in primatology when his findings are revealed to the scientific literature).
e) Early primates existed on both the African and South American continents (when they were conjoined) and the continental drift that separated the species also resulted in divergent evolution on both continents. (This theory is not very likely -- since it would nearly double the current primate emergence date of 54 million years ago -- but fossils yet to be found could prove me, and a lot of others, wrong).
f) primates also evolved independently on the South American Continent. I've not heard this proposed in the scientific community, but if it happened on the North American continent -- why not there as well? (Of course, the fossil record at this point doesn't support this notion at present).
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.
Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.
Edited by Engineer, : added additional hypotheses

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 8:41 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 10:07 PM Engineer has replied
 Message 122 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2009 1:47 AM Engineer has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024