How did Monkeys get to South America?

If so I think we have bigger issues than just monkeys. I guess if we want to discuss that a new topic should be started, but then again from reading your posts I see you probably would try to dispute continental drift, no matter what the evidence.

Continental drift has to be discussed in order to reply to the OP. Continental drift is one of the possible, and the most likely, explanations for monkeys in South America.If the original poster is a yec and does not believe in continental drift, than the whole thread is useless because he will counter our arguments with some bizarre yec bs.It is important to know if he is a yec and/or does not believe in the facts of continental drift in order to decide whether discussion with him is worth the effort.

It seems a rather accepted idea is that they may have rafted from Africa to South America.’ ’

quote:

---

There is much evidence that would show an African origin of the platyrrhine monkeys of South America. First the ocean currents of that time would have facilitated a crossing from Africa to South America and not from North America (Tarling, 1982; cited in Fleagle, 1988). During the middle Oligocene there was a large drop in sea level that may have allowed rafting to be more permissible (Fleagle, 1988).

---

Also, from the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution June 27, 2003
Carlos G. Schrago and Claudia A. M. Russo
Laboratorio Biodiversidade Molecular, Departamento de Gentica, Instituto de Biologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

quote:

---

Our estimate for the origin of New World monkeys is in agreement with the hypothesis of a transatlantic journey from Africa to South America, as suggested by the fossil record.

---

So that is what the peer reviewed research is showing. Is it definitive? No, but that is how science works.

Yes it seems they rafted. How do you think they did it? Did Noah make a few stops?I don't see or understand the alternate theory you have. Or do you not have one but feel you need to not believe something that has been researched and been presented as a viable theory.If you are going to say something is not a viable theory you need to present something in opposition to that theory. What is your opposing explanation. To attack something as untrue and to not have an alternative is not just bad form, but lazy and stupid.

Again you seem to be changing the OP. I see you are nothing but a troll and if you dont stop changing the topic I will stop feeding you.This thread is about how did monkeys get to South America. It is not about speciation after the ark. If that is want you want to discuss start another thread.Your ark does not explain how monkeys got to South America. Yes you are. You are trying to attack and belittle the theory. All without proposing an alternative. You know you can't use the ark as an explanation, but you have nothing else. Then you make the ludicrous claim that evolutionists are doing the work for creationists? Somehow, that animals rafted on oceans is evidence for the ark and creationism. Oh please i would love to see the logical hoops you jump through to get that idea to work.I have stopped count of all the fallacies you have presented on all the threads.Here is a list maybe you can add some more to your arguments
Fallacies - Nizkor

You want to dispute this theory. People have given you the particulars of the theory and you continue to imply that you think it is stupid. Just because you don't agree with a scientific theory doesn't make it wrong.You have no alternatives. So how can you continue to question it.As for

quote:

---

When Christopher Columbus sailed to America in a sea-worthy sailing vessel using a compass against the trade winds it took about a month. How well would a monkey-manned raft fare out on the big blue while crossing probably several hundred miles (or more) on sea currents which often follow coastlines, with no water to drink, while fighting off sea predators out there in the hot sun?

---

this has been addressed in a previous post, but you seem to be too obtuse to understand, or are just providing more evidence that you are a troll with an agenda that refuses to consider anything other than your preconceived ideas.As Sherlock Holmes said "Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains - no matter how implausible - must be the truth."

quote:

---

I think it is humorous for evolutionists to defend a bunch of mindless monkeys on some freedom flotila bound for South America. The ocean is a harsh environment for seafarers. People don't survive very long on life rafts. Maybe monkeys can do better though.

---

Just because you can not wrap your mind around it does not make it impossible. We are talking of a period of millions of years(at least we are, are you). TO state that it couldn't happen because you don't think so is extremely arrogant and not at all scientific.As for Jesus mythers I would love for you to start a thread so I can hear your evidence for a historical jesus. Because there isn't any that is contemporary to the time he was suppsed to have lived. If you have some it would be earth shattering and would completely change biblical scholarship. So I think no.
What is this the third topc you have brought up in this thread. Stick to the OP and open up new threads if you want a reaction on other subjects.

quote:

---

Sorry, my in box is full. I don't mean to put you off. I'll have to discuss dogs with you someday, and why they can still breed with the australian dingo -- another topic.

---

Funny how you could answer every other post. And another creationist fundie topic joins the thread. Can't win the argument so you figure if yu keep throwing crap on the wall something might stick?

quote:

---

I don't know the age of the earth whether it's ten thousand or 10 billion. I suspect it's a lot older than 10 thousand years though, unless the creator wants to deliberately trick people into thinking it's older. I don't think He's a trickster.

---

Means you are a yec. Because only yec would question the scientific dating of the earth.Seems this whole thread is just an attempt to get your yec ideas out, because you refuse to accept plausibility of the scenarios presented kand continue to bring up other fundie and yec talking points.

Yup I sure do.Because for the one there is scientific theory and observable evidence to show that it could happen.The other there are stories that were written at least 40 years after his supposed death. Nothing mentioned at the time of his supposed life. Nothing at all in the contemporary historical record.You see that is the difference between science and faith. Science has observable quantifiable evidence, faith has, well, faith has faith.

quote:

---

But 40 million years ago some monkeys got on a raft and sailed off to south america.

---

Does writing it in unrealistic terms make you think your disbelief has much more credence? Monkeys did not get on a raft. They did not sail. But you refuse to accept any evidence contrary to your preconceived ideas.I suggest that this thread just be closed, because no matter what evidence you are presented with you will refuse to give it any thought or credibility.

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.

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?

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" or the classic IDer Your arguments are week and lazy. Just a version of the fallacy of negative proof. 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.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.Now it is up to you to present an alternate hypothesis, because the scientific hypothesis conforms to the facts and data.Is your hypothesis Noah? Aliens? God creating genetically similar but geographically separated populations? Flying Spaghetti Monster?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.Edited by Theodoric, : Spelling, FSM

You seem to think just because you cannot conceive of something then it can not be true or could not have happened.
Trees and logs can float. Up here near the Great Lakes we know all about logs floating. If you walk the shores of Lake Superior you will see massive trees washed up.Also, do you have an idea how they got the logs to the mills in the 19th and early 20th century. They floated them across Lake Superior.
http://www.mnhs.org/...egister/shipwrecks/niagara/nialr.html
Things float easier in salt water than they do in fresh.Well what do you know. They still float log rafts in the Northwest. So how about that for some real evidence instead of just making unsubstantiated assumptions.

Only an idiot or someone trying to build a strawman would take that away from my post.I won't lower myself to respond to the strawman.

Looks like you hit on a very viable and plausible answer.From NASA
Also
Some were reportedly 30 kilometers wide.There seems to be a book that is a bibliography on the subject. Can't find the text online but here it is.
Shop BTPS
It does have a chapter called "Floating Islands and the Dispersal of Animals"So seems there have been studies on the subject. I will continue to look for more.Engineer,
Maybe you should us "the google" before you discount things.