Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How did Monkeys get to South America?
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 46 of 137 (499155)
02-16-2009 10:56 PM


More ocean travellers
Another good read is 'A Fragile Paradise' by Andrew Mitchell, a naturalist, who shows how distinct species might have reached far-flung Pacific Islands.

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 47 of 137 (499156)
02-16-2009 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by Engineer
02-16-2009 10:51 PM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
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.
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.
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.
quote:
that's why faith is the same, but science keeps changing.
That science keeps changing is a good thing. It means that all the time we learn more from observing, testing and falsifying. You obviously don't believe in the scientific method. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 10:51 PM Engineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:02 AM Theodoric has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5517 days)
Posts: 65
From: KY, USA
Joined: 02-13-2009


Message 48 of 137 (499161)
02-16-2009 11:41 PM


ok folks, I'm using this tectonic model to caluate the speed of Brasilia, Brazil relative to Brazzaville, Congo:
UNAVCO
I get 12 mm/yr north.
In 40 million years that would be a linear travel of:
.12 cm/yr / [2.54 cm/in] / [12 in/ft] / [5250/ft/mile] * 40 x 10^6 years = 300 miles in 40 million years due north at linear speed. (*1)
That doesn't do much for an east-west separation. I did not include any rotational components.
Africa and South America are separated by at least 1700 miles.
(*1) Math error is noted by Kuresu and corrected. 11:45 pm is past my bed time y'all. ;-)
Edited by Engineer, : 12 mm is corrected to 1.2 cm

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-17-2009 12:08 AM Engineer has replied
 Message 67 by kuresu, posted 02-17-2009 12:52 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 49 of 137 (499165)
02-17-2009 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by Engineer
02-16-2009 10:51 PM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
that's why faith is the same, but science keeps changing.
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.
Creationism can't change because it is based on revelation of some kind, not data. In fact, it has to ignore any data that disagrees with that revelation. In doing so it is the exact opposite of science.
That's why you have problems with monkeys getting to South America; you are looking for some way to ignore scientific evidence and stick to your religious belief. You are most likely trying fit the spread of New World monkeys from the Old World into the post-flood period, which occurred some 4,350 years ago according to biblical scholars. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for that either.
Believe what you want, but don't try to pretend its science. It is not.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 10:51 PM Engineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:10 AM Coyote has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5517 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 51 of 137 (499167)
02-17-2009 12:05 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Engineer
02-16-2009 9:33 PM


Salt water is no good to drink. I think you know this already.
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 assumed a sail boat is faster than rafting. How fast do you think an ocean current moves?
What figures did you use for distance?
A quick google around shows that the fastest surface ocean currents in the Atlantic would carry a raft ~ 110 miles/day. I don't have figures for the late Eocene. Given the Eocene distances and the possibility of island-hopping, I think that you're overestimating the time at sea.
The evolution approach only requires monkeys and rodents on board.
And fewer of them, traveling shorter distances, with millions more years for this rare event to happen.
So who even needs an ark anymore?
People arguing for the inerrancy of Genesis. Not that the Ark as described in Genesis would have been up to the job ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 9:33 PM Engineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 9:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 52 of 137 (499168)
02-17-2009 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Engineer
02-16-2009 11:41 PM


ok folks, I'm using this tectonic model to caluate the speed of Brasilia, Brazil relative to Brazzaville, Congo:
UNAVCO
I get 12 mm/yr north.
In 40 million years that would be a linear travel of:
.12 cm/yr / [2.54 cm/in] / [12 in/ft] / [5250/ft/mile] * 40 x 10^6 years = 30 miles in 40 million years due north at linear speed.
That doesn't do much for an east-west separation. I did not include any rotational components.
Africa and South America are separated by at least 1700 miles.
The point of your calculation is non-obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 11:41 PM Engineer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:14 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Engineer
Member (Idle past 5517 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 5517 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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 137 (499172)
02-17-2009 12:22 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Engineer
02-16-2009 10:44 PM


Re: Age of the earth
I said I don't know the age of the earth. I wasn't there.
The scientific age of the earth has changed a lot in my short lifetime, or I'm a half billon years older now.
The approximation has become more precise, yes. This is what we find with science: it gets better and better the more research you do.
"Taking the mean of this and the upper limit found above from the ratio of uranium to lead, we obtain 4 x 10^9 years as a rough approximation to the age of the Earth's crust." --- Russell, H.N., 1921. A superior limit to the age of the Earth's crust in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, series A, vol. 99, pp. 84-86.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 10:44 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 56 of 137 (499173)
02-17-2009 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Engineer
02-17-2009 12:02 AM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
As i said more and more sophomoric.
quote:
You have two standards.
Please explain what you mean by this.
quote:
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?
You continue to conflate issues. Human testimony is used in a court of law when it is first hand and eyewitness. Hearsay is not allowed in court. The issues are not at all similar no matter what you say.
quote:
strawmonkeys, sir Theodore, straw monkeys.
do you even know what a strawman is?
quote:
We call it moving the goal posts, and I don't think that's so good.
yes fundie creationists do say that alot. But if science didn't change is views, we would still be living in huts dying of diseases we learned to control a long time ago. Where do you think you would be if science didn't move "the goal posts"
quote:
I'd like to observe a good demonstration of abiogenisis sometime.
Another old fundie creationist canard. What it has to do with the OP or anything we are discussing I haven't a clue, but then again you are just using the posts to get in all the fundie arguments you can.
quote:
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.
Proving you have no idea what science or the scientific method is and I have no idea what the point you are trying to make is.
quote:
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.
Please do. And it is nice to know you finally admit you are creationist(since my peers are evolutionists) and the whole premise of your OP was to push creationist arguments and not what the OP said.
Are you ever going to present an alternative hypothesis to how monkeys got to South America? Or are you just going to bring up refuted creationist arguments?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:02 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 57 of 137 (499174)
02-17-2009 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by Engineer
02-17-2009 12:14 AM


So what do you think a reasonable distance is for raft travel -- 1700 miles, 1500 miles, 500 miles?
I'd need more data about things like Eocene currents, these rafts mentioned in your link, and monkeys.
I would wonder if the modeling assumptions for south america were fudged to make the distance a whole lot closer 40 million years ago.
Let me set your mind at rest. No, they weren't.
---
You still haven't explained the point of your calculation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:14 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2107 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 58 of 137 (499175)
02-17-2009 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Engineer
02-17-2009 12:10 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.
Because science is becoming increasingly accurate, and changing in the process, you prefer to stick to 3,000 year old myths just because they don't change?
Fine, but don't mistake what you are doing for science. It is the exact opposite of science.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:10 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2698 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 59 of 137 (499177)
02-17-2009 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by Engineer
02-16-2009 10:07 PM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
Hi, Engineer.
Engineer writes:
I think it is humorous for evolutionists to defend a bunch of mindless monkeys on some freedom flotila bound for South America.
I'm not sure I understand what your problem with the idea is.
Science has dates, science has fossil records, and science has no evidence of a way between Africa and South America by conventional means.
  1. Do you think this is a reason to doubt the veracity of our current picture of Earth's natural history?
  2. Or do you simply think we need to come up with a better way to explain monkeys in South America?
The trouble is that we've tried all the "better" ways, and the "freedom flotilla" hypothesis is the only idea left that's consistent with the evidence.
The Ark hypothesis suffers from chronology issues and the complete lack of evidence for a global Flood, so it seems (at least at the moment) a highly untenable alternative. Continental drift explanations also suffer from chronology issues, and land-bridge explanations suffer from their own non-existence in the region in question.
Meanwhile, the rafting hypothesis suffers only from your doubts that there would be enough food and water to survive a trip of uncertain duration.
Clearly, one of these hypotheses has the least against it, and we are obliged to tentatively accept that explanation until it is no longer the least contested (Occam's razor).
Scientists would love to believe that there is a convenient land-bridge theory to explain the controversy away, but intellectual honesty forbids us from asserting that without evidence of a land bridge. Thus, we are forced to conclude that something unusual happened. I'm sorry that this disturbs you so much, but, unless you have a better explanation, you'll just have to accept that nature is under no obligation to minimize our psychological distress.

-Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Engineer, posted 02-16-2009 10:07 PM Engineer has not replied

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 3994 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 60 of 137 (499178)
02-17-2009 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Engineer
02-17-2009 12:10 AM


Re: Again I ask what is your alternative
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Irrelevant snide remark "hidden".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Engineer, posted 02-17-2009 12:10 AM Engineer has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024