Hi, Engineer.
Engineer writes:
Why is a parallel evolution of monkeys from creatures of similar origin so unacceptable in two different locations?
If monkeys can live quite well in both South America and Africa even today, then they should be able to evolve as such from a common ancestor.
It's really quite simple.
Ever since the break-up of Gondwana, South America was not connected to
any other continent (not even North America) until about 3 million years ago. When the two Americas finally connected, it resulted in what is known as the
Great American Interchange (Wiki link).
By the time of the Great American Interchange, all of North America's primates had apparently gone extinct, so that none were left to colonize South America 3 million years ago. Furthermore, when there
were primates in North America (millions of years earlier), they were an outgroup to all modern primates. This means that lemurs are more closely related to South American monkeys than these extinct North American primates were, so proposing these North American primates as the ancestors of South America's primates is like proposing that tigers evolved from hyenas while the rest of the cats evolved from bears.
Fossil monkeys have been found in South America dating to much earlier than the Great American Interchange, which means that, either two very different groups of animals evolved to become more similar to one another genetically than either was to their respective closest relatives, or some monkeys crossed the ocean.
Basically, the options are like this:
- A Ukrainian couple gave birth to an Aztec baby.
- Some Aztecs migrated to Ukraine.
Both sound very bizarre, but one of them is actually marginally possible, while the other is not.
-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.