[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
I don't know if this is the best forum for this, but I do know that
these are the best people to ask.
I have always had a problem with the concept of Pangaea. (is that
spelled right?) I didn't want to through this out without some
careful forethought, so here it is after several days of revising.
1) The concept of making "puzzle pieces" out of today's continents
and fitting them into a picture of the original continent seems,
well, childish. Considering what I have heard about all of the
other significant changes in the earth over the millions of years
that scientists have, as yet, figured out, it seems inconceivable
for the above-sea-level land masses to remain largely unchanged.
( This is the most insupportable of my objections to the theory of
Pangaea. I do understand that supporting the theory is a lot of
research showing similarities between coastal areas of different
2) The "continental drift" as it applies to the theory of Pangaea.
I am not a geologist or whatever "-ist" deals with the movement of
the earth's plates. I only understand that there is a certain
amount of "drift" of the plates that moves them potentially apart
from each other. ( I can't remember if this is why California is
sliding into the ocean or not. Maybe just a modern myth. ) Is
it really feasible for the plates containing the major land
masses to move as dramatically as they have? How big are the
plates? How many plates made up Pangaea?
3) What is the theory for the creation of Pangaea? What would
cause a planet to form with all its higher land mass to form on
one side? Was it on the side or was it formed at one of the poles?
Is a planet stable with this deformity? Is that the reasoning
for the breakup of Pangaea? These are questions I have never
seen discussed when I have read about Pangaea.
4) About the breakup, this has been blamed/credited for dividing
the dinosaur families according to the area of Pangaea. Is this
an over-generalization? Now that dinosaurs are being found in
areas thought to be out of reach due to the breakup, suddenly
we have a "land-bridge". Forgive me for being sacrilegious, but
this *sounds* like someone's pet theory was being disproved and
everyone rushed to save it. It seems that only the surface of
dinosaur fossils has been touched. What will happen if more
out-of-bounds dinosaurs are found? Will Pangaea start to look
like a quilt with "land-bridges" and other patches criss-
crossing the dinosaur map? ( This is the list's area of
expertise. Feel free to be offended and refute my assertions. )
5) On more earth-formation issue: I recall reading that the
surface of the earth is constantly rising and falling. Land
masses pop up in the middle of the ocean causing islands to
form. I also remember reading of how the highest mountains
were once thriving forests and plains. ( This was in a story
about amber and why it is found in the mountains. ) It seems
that if the earth's surface is going up and down on a steady
basis ( we won't talk about Atlantis 8-D ) then what are the
continents now weren't necessarily continents then. Was
Pangaea pieced together using the plates or the above-sea-level
continents? Using the plates would easily defeat this question.
Using the continents would not.
OK, I'm done using up your bandwidth. I just had to get this
out in order to fully understand some of the discussions going
Joe Average :-> firstname.lastname@example.org
Amateur Astrologist (Hey! It was a long time ago!)
Amateur Chemist (Former. Just a small building. Never miss it.)
( No ASCII-Dinosaur. Amateur artist is not on the list. )