PT119 · S4 · Q11 According to the theory of

"Many" isn't a precise quantifier, but as soon as you have a handful of things, you have "many". So this answer could be saying that "at least 5 people living in Brazil are genetically quite similar to at least 5 people living in western Africa". There are people living in the United States right now (Japanese Americans) that are genetically quite similar to many people who live in Japan. That's not strong evidence that the U.S. and Japan were once attached land masses. The idea of "genetically quite similar" is also a pretty weak concept. Humans are genetically quite similar to chimpanzees (98.7% of our genes are the same), so it's unsurprising that a human on any continent would be genetically quite similar to a human on some other continent. Also, the continents are thought to have broken apart tens of millions of years ago, and humans in their present form have only existed for about 100,000 years. So we wouldn't expect that there were any humans alive when the continents were together.

There are a lot of copy-cat climates throughout the world. Anything lying at a common latitude is likely to have fairly similar climates (unless the jet stream passes through and alters the climate). For example, London and San Francisco have climates that resemble each other, but that's not strong evidence that they were ever attached to each other.

This just says that there's at least one tribe in eastern South America whose language is linguistically similar to some language in western Africa. That could be because "most languages are linguistically similar, no matter where humans live". That could be because people traveled by boat from South America to western Africa, or vice versa. We don't actually think that humans were alive when the continents were one big landmass, so we're not thinking that when the continents split apart, it took a human civilization and split it into being half South American / half African.

The fact that there are a few species of plants found in both places is very weak evidence. Corn, for example, is a plant species that may have originated in Nebraska. But humans can then take those seeds and grow corn in any similar climate anywhere in the world. If a human takes Nebraskan corn seeds and then grows corn in China, that doesn't give us strong evidence that Nebraska and China were attached land masses. If we were told that these plants were wild, uncultivated plants, that would make it a stronger answer.