How did Monkeys get to South America?

How did new world monkeys get to South America?I ask this question for both evolutionists and creationists.Creationists get a little help from God, how about evolutionists?Addendum 1Let me please explain the dilemma. South America and Africa separated around 160 million years ago. The first mammals did not show up until 66 million years ago. The Oglicene period (about 45 million years ago) is when monkeys first appeared in South America.To explain this, evolutionists propose that monkeys, frogs, and some reptiles rafted to South America from Africa about 45 million or less years ago when the continents were supposedly closer together than the current distance of 1700 miles, though the journey for south america was already about 3/4 of the way done chronologically:Frogs rafted, too - john hawks weblogfrom source:

quote:

---

There is one inescapable conclusion: Thirty-five million years ago, a bunch of ancient monkeys got on a raft and sailed to South America. That's the date that comes from molecular comparisons (e.g., Schrago and Russo 2003). The earliest fossil monkeys in South America are of Late Oligocene age (Branisella boliviana), but they anatomically resemble Late Eocene monkeys from Africa (Takai et al. 2000), suggesting an earlier arrival.

---

Whoaaa and that comes from a scientist on the paleoanthropology payroll...Imagine monkeys having to cross the atlantic on a matt of moss and tree debris! They just drift listlessly at sea with no water for weeks, and perhaps months.How about this "raft story" that went 40 days and 40 nights: So how did the world's animals get back to their former environments from Ararat? They just rafted..... Wow that made it a lot simpler!Edited by Engineer, : added addendum 1Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

See Message 67

Primitive primates were present in the part of Gondwana Land that we now call South America, before continental drift caused the greatest case of speciation the world has ever seen.

---

Always wanting to hear other peoples opinions about God and evolution. Email me.

So you are not proposing a continental bridge across Antarctica, travel through North America, or a separate evolution for south american monkeys.What would cause a mega-continent to hold together for so long and then suddenly (relatively speaking) drift thousands of miles apart? Also, such an explosive speciation timewise among all animals in South America including boas?Are there any species in South America that match species in Africa with the exception of humans and other plants and animals that could have "grown their way" or migrated across the Bering Straits?Edited by Engineer, : No reason given.

No, he's not. South America and Africa were once joined, with neither of them being in their current location. The causes driving tectonic activity are not entirely understood. That continents are moving is well documented by direct observation, and there is plentiful evidence from numerous sources that South America and Africa were once joined - from the brute matching of their coastlines, to the continuity of geological strata across where they once joined and the correlation of paleomagnetic records to the matching of fauna.This breakup began some 170Ma ago, and the atlantic opened up around 110Ma ago so there has been plenty of time for dramatic speciation. Which is just what we see in the very different new and old world monkeys. Other breakups such as Australia and South America from Antarctica, India from Africa and Madagascar from India occurred later and leave their own marks in the bio-geographic record. We see numerous examples of species ranges spread across the previous continents in both plants and animals, yes. The spread of marsupials is one of the most striking examples.

I think this is a bit dodgy. Why would God put closely related creatures on continents that were once one large land mass? Why are there few mammals and large animals on the large Pacific islands? Why would God place the species in the places that would appear to be natural migrations -- especially the ones that make sense if one assumes an old earth and common descent?

---

Speaking personally, I find few things more awesome than contemplating this vast and majestic process of evolution, the ebb and flow of successive biotas through geological time. Creationists and others who cannot for ideological or religious reasons accept the fact of evolution miss out a great deal, and are left with a claustrophobic little universe in which nothing happens and nothing changes.
-- M. Alan Kazlev

It happens a lot - every half-billion years or so. Rodinia, Pangaea, Godwanaland.... Remember, our continental plates are just the traces of slag left over from when this place was a molten ball. They are incidental to the big convective patterns that drive the "continental drift" that we see on the surface.

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.

Engineer, what is your view as to the age of the earth?That might help in framing answers to your questions.

---

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

Hi, Engineer. South American rodents are thought to have come across this way, because they arrived in South America before the Americas were connected.I'm not sure, but I think procyonids (raccoons and their relatives) might have also come to South America from Africa.As Mr Jack said, marsupials predate the break-up of Gondwana, and, today, are present on both Australia and South America (former Gondwana). There is a fossil platypus found in South America, and a single species of marsupial in South America (the "monito del monte") is more closely related to Australian marsupials than South American marsupials.The ratites (large, flightless birds) are also distributed across the southern hemisphere (former Gondwana), but there is still debate as whether they constitute a single lineage.Finally, though there isn't a great deal of literature on it, insects show the Gondwana/Laurasia split very well. The families of stoneflies in the southern hemisphere (former Gondwana), for example, are quite different from the families found in the northern hemisphere (former Laurasia).

---

-Bluejay/Mantis/ThylacosmilusDarwin loves you.

This thread is about Monkeys. It is not about continental drift. That would have to be discussed in the geology forum.Thank you.

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.

Continental drift and the timing of the separation of Africa, South America and possibly Antartica have to come into it. The probable reason for the question is that the timing of separation is considered to be before the date of ~ 40,000,000 yrs that genetics gives to the divergence of New World Monkeys from the rest of us. So, rafting across a much narrower South Atlantic is often suggested, and animals are known to raft in other cases (studies of newly formed volcanic islands).It's rare in mammals, but rodents do it, usually inadvertently hitch-hiking on our boats!

your answer is the closest to current evolutionary views. I will restate the OP, becasue so many people are confusing the issues.