Evolution Intelligent Design

Putting all those monkeys on a raft once again…

Spread the love

Because there must be some way they got to the New World:

Darwin knew that the fossil record did not support his theory of gradual increase in complexity through time but hoped that new fossil discoveries would fill in the narrative. 170 years of collecting has not helped. The Cambrian explosion is perhaps the best-known mismatch, but there are others. Adding to the difficulty, different dating methods often conflict with each other.

Monkeying with the Data

It would have been convenient for evolutionists if Africa and South America had split after monkeys had evolved, but they didn’t. This left them with klutzy explanations of how Old World monkeys evolved in Africa after the split, and then got to South America to become New World monkeys. The common story now is that they rafted over on vegetation across the Atlantic — a curious speculation, considering that sea captains these days never witness monkey families rafting out in the mid-Atlantic without fresh water or food.

In PNAS, Campbell et al. manage to pull widely different dates for two sites in eastern Peru closer together. They had to struggle, though, with disagreements between different dating methods for nearby sites. In any case, their work did not help get the monkeys across the ocean. Peru is very far inland from Brazil where a raft might have washed ashore, so time for migration must be factored in. Watching the evolutionists monkeying with the data and hiding their difficulties with euphemisms (“trans-Atlantic dispersal”) is entertaining if not pitiful.

Evolution News, “Fossil Follies from Around the Science Literature” at Evolution News and Science Today (November 3, 2021)

Reading this stuff helps us sympathize with King Kong. When he finally does get to New York…

Note: We got an Access Denied message when trying to scout out the Campbell et al. paper so it doesn’t sound like it’s open access.

15 Replies to “Putting all those monkeys on a raft once again…

  1. 1
    zweston says:

    Rafting monkeys is one of my favorite things to bring up to evolutionists to show them how far you have to go in order to make their theory even remotely plausible. They usually deny or hand wave it off because they can’t come to rational grips with it.

  2. 2
    chuckdarwin says:

    I thought the monkey’s got to the New World on Noah’s ark, just like all the other animals…..

  3. 3
    martin_r says:

    Chuck, seriously…. do you BELIEVE that monkeys rafted across the ocean?

    PS: i bet you never heard of rafting monkey theory… i bet you never heard of old and new world monkeys….

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Is that the one that ran aground in Kentucky?

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    I think that is the prevailing theory…..

  6. 6
    martin_r says:

    Chuck, that is not what i have asked

    So once again, if you can….

    Do YOU believe that monkey rafted across the ocean?

  7. 7
    zweston says:

    My point has been proven.

  8. 8
    polistra says:

    This mixes in with Dawkins and his typing monkeys.

    A raft without sails or oars basically doesn’t go anywhere. It just rocks back and forth. You’d need a million Ape Arks, all equipped with kegs of fresh water and dried fruit, to get the chance that one of the Arks might catch just the right combination of wind and waves to get across.

  9. 9
    Seversky says:

    All that is being suggested is that, millions of years ago when the Atlantic Ocean was much narrower than it is now, it is possible that Old World monkeys drifted across on mats of vegetation.

    Maybe monkeys are much older than we think and were on both what became Africa and South America as they drifted apart. We just haven’t found the fossils yet.

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Seversky imagines that the continents were close enough 35 million years ago to make the ‘rafting monkey’ journey feasible, yet the separation of the continents 35 million years ago was still very substantial and thus does not alleviate the problem for Darwinists.

    Placement of continents 35 million years ago

    Seversky also appeals to that old Darwinian saw, “We just haven’t found the fossils yet.”

    And so it goes, no matter how badly the fossil record actually is for Darwinian presuppositions, Darwinists simply refuse to ever accept that the fossil record looks nothing like what Charles Darwin predicted.

    “He [Darwin] prophesied that future generations of paleontologists would fill in these gaps by diligent search. … One hundred and twenty years of paleontological research later, it has become abundantly clear that the fossil record will not confirm this part of Darwin’s predictions. Nor is the problem a miserably poor record. The fossil record simply shows that this prediction was wrong.”
    – NILES ELDREDGE, Columbia Univ., American Museum of Nat. Hist., – The Myths of Human Evolution, p.45-46

    “There is no need to apologize any longer for the poverty of the fossil record. In some ways, it has become almost unmanageably rich and discovery is outpacing integration. The fossil record nevertheless continues to be composed mainly of gaps.”
    T. Neville George – Professor of paleontology – Glasgow University,

    “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
    David Kitts – Paleontologist – D.B. Kitts, Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory (1974), p. 467.

    “The long-term stasis, following a geologically abrupt origin, of most fossil morphospecies, has always been recognized by professional paleontologists” –
    Stephen Jay Gould – Harvard

    Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013
    Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
    Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
    ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,,
    Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
    Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,”

    Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design – 2018
    The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative.

    “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.”
    – Henry Gee – Return to the planet of the apes – 2001

    We still have not found the missing link between us and apes. – 18 May 2017
    Excerpt: Scientists have been on the trail of the LCA (Last Common Ancestor) for decades, and they still have not found it,,,
    ,,,it is clear that there is not yet universal agreement on the LCA.
    It is true that, today, some researchers have a well-thought-through idea of what the LCA looked like and how it behaved. The trouble is that other researchers have equally well-reasoned models that suggest an LCA that looked and behaved in a completely different way. And that puts the research community in a bit of a quandary.
    In principle, fossilised remains of the LCA might come to light any time. They might even be discovered this very year. But because there is so little agreement on what the LCA should look like, researchers will interpret the fossils differently.
    “It’s a problem that we might encounter,” says Almécija. “Are we going to be able to recognise the LCA when we find it?”

    The Human-Ape Missing Link — Still Missing – July 18, 2017
    Excerpt: Here is a long, substantive, and interesting article from the BBC — “We still have not found the missing link between us and apes.” It is interesting for two reasons.
    – 1. It admits that we haven’t found anything that resembles the last common ancestor (LCA) between humans and apes, what author Colin Barras calls the “missing link.”
    – 2. It admits that it’s hard to even agree on what the LCA might have looked like. —
    What it doesn’t do is admit the even bigger problem: that we don’t even have transitional forms between Australopithecus and Homo. This is a major omission.,,,,

  11. 11
    Belfast says:

    The Seversky Defence – “We just haven’t found the fossils yet.”
    Translated: “The fossils will be found, tomorrow; it doesn’t matter which one of the million fossil trails is being referred to.”

    The Chuck Darwin Defence, – “Let’s talk about something else.”
    If substantial shortcomings in a hypothesis are exposed it is no defence to raise a childish bleat, “Well, you think of a better one”; the shortcoming of the hypothesis always remains to be dealt with.

  12. 12
    BobRyan says:


    35,000,000 years ago there was no ice in Antarctica. Antarctica had a tropical rain-forest. The water level, due to lack of ice, was considerably higher than it is today. There would have been more water to cross and less land above the water than today.

    The chances of floating debris carrying monkeys would have been less likely to occur.


    When the Great Ice Age started, the water turned to ice and the level dropped significantly over time. Zealandia, the 8th continent, was mostly above the water. That is when the crossing most likely took place.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    The timeline does not work out:

    The history of ice on Earth
    Snowball Earth
    2.4 to 2.1 billion years ago,,,
    Deep freeze
    850 to 630 million years ago,,,
    Mass extinction
    460 to 430 million years ago,,,
    Plants invade the land
    360 to 260 million years ago,,,
    Antarctica freezes over
    14 million years ago,,,
    Latest advance of the ice
    2.58 million years ago,,,
    Our ice age
    110,000 to 12,000 years ago,,,

    Of related note:

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video (2014)

    Ice Age is Ideal for Humanity

    At about the 35 minute mark of the preceding video Dr. Ross speaks of repeated glaciation events from the past 450,000 years with the climate then (uncharacteristically) stabilizing for the last 9000 years or so. These repeated glaciation events were necessary to produce the nutrient rich soils of the plains of the world that could support the large population of humans that we now have.

    Soil wealth | Why North America Feeds the World
    Central North America, eastern Europe, northern China and the Argentine Pampas are the backbone of the world’s agricultural production. In all of these areas, loess from a few feet to hundreds of feet thick blankets continental bedrock. With a high proportion of finely ground, fresh mineral grains, soils developed on loess are renowned for their fertility. Loess is so fertile that it can be farmed productively even after the topsoil is eroded off. The same can’t be said for soils in most of the world, where rock lies just one to several feet below ground. North America’s tremendous agricultural productivity reflects a disproportionate share of the world’s loess.
    But American agriculture’s foundation did not originate in place. Loess blew in on the wind. If you fly over northern Canada on a clear day you can see vast areas of naked rock, the geological scar of where it all came from. Over the past several million years, glaciers repeatedly overran most of modern Canada. As they grew and pushed south, the great ice sheets scraped off weak layers of soil and fractured, weathered rock, stripping the land down to fresh, hard rock. Bulldozed up by the ice, Canadian soils were carted to the melting front of the ice sheet and deposited as broad outwash plains built by rivers of meltwater. Strong winds then spread this fertile blanket of fine, glacier-ground silt across the American Midwest.,,,
    thick loess soils can maintain agricultural productivity for longer than can thin soils developed in place from rock weathering. In all likelihood, North America will be feeding the world for the foreseeable future because of its natural endowment of loess.,,,
    With a limited – and shrinking – global amount of highly productive cropland, the future of humanity hinges on whether we take care of the world’s best soils.,,,

  14. 14
    bornagain77 says:

    Seems Dr. Hugh Ross’s video link that I cited is dead.

    So here is another talk he gave on the same subject, around the 13 minute mark, of repeated glaciation events from the past 450,000 years with the climate then (uncharacteristically) stabilizing for the last 9000 years or so. These repeated glaciation events were necessary to produce the nutrient rich soils of the plains of the world that could support the large population of humans that we now have.

    Dr. Hugh Ross, Ph.D. Presents The Improbable Planet: How Earth Became Humanity’s Home

  15. 15
    heaths1 says:

    So if rafting is supposed to be a realistic option for this trans-Atlantic exchange, wouldn’t you expect to see it more between closer locales? Don’t you think you’d see lemur populations on the African continent, and non-lemur primates in Madagascar? The two landmasses are what, 350-400 miles apart? I would think you’d see more exchange, at least in one direction, if not both. Or am I missing something here?

Leave a Reply