Is there any consensus regarding the myth, possibility, or factuality of Pangaea
Favorites|Homepage
Subscriptions | sitemap
HOME > Earth Sciences & Geology > Is there any consensus regarding the myth, possibility, or factuality of Pangaea

Is there any consensus regarding the myth, possibility, or factuality of Pangaea

[From: ] [author: ] [Date: 11-09-11] [Hit: ]
that require lots of equatorial and tropical sunlight. So if theres coal on Antarctica, Antarctica must have been somewhere else in the past.By 180 million years ago, Pangaea was beginning to split, as we believe from the evidence.......
(4) Coal. It exists beneath the Antarctic ice sheet, but it only forms in the presence of abundant decaying plant life getting pressed by heat and pressure. Jungles, basically, that require lots of equatorial and tropical sunlight. So if there's coal on Antarctica, Antarctica must have been somewhere else in the past.

By 180 million years ago, Pangaea was beginning to split, as we believe from the evidence. By 135 million years ago (abbreviated Mya), Pangaea was gone, and all of the continents that we know today were into their basic units (India would hit Asia a few million years later).

The very earlier hominid, the first branch of the tree off of the "missing link" between Man and apes evolved somewhere between 5 - 8 million years ago. These would be creatures we might never even think of as human without being experts in the field.

However, the distribution of hominid fossils does not actually prove or even suggest any evidence that Pangaea existed. Evolution as we best understand it today takes place where conditions are right. As you can see above, the four lines of evidence are things that we can point to and correlate as, "Yes, these are the same, and this makes sense, let's talk about it." You cannot point to an *absence* of something (no fossils in the Western Hemisphere) and use that as proof of anything. In this particular case of Pangaea with the logic of absence, you could also say that South America and Africa were never a similar continent, because there are no elephants in South America. That's not evidence. All that means is that *when* they evolved, the two continents were separate. It does not prove that they were never attached. This same argument applies to hominids.

So this is an interesting question. The evidence as we know them (fit, fossils, strata, coal) clearly indicates to everyone that Pangaea existed. But if you are *only* going off of hominid distribution, then the answer is... unavailable. It doesn't tell you if it's true, and it doesn't tell you if it's just a "fun idea, but not true." It only tells you... this is where hominids evolved.

-
There is no way to prove to everyone that Pangaea actually existed. (Not everyone believes in science these days.) Just like there is no universal truth to religion, politics, etc., historical concepts will always have doubters and conspiracy theorists. So no, there is no consensus regarding the myth of Pangaea, and there probably never will be.

-
Pangea is about 100% documented! There is no controversy amongst Earth Scientists, only with people who do not understand anything about Earth Sciences. Yes Hominids evolved long after Pangea broke apart!

Not all Islands and smaller landforms ever belonged to Pangea.
12
keywords: Is,myth,of,Pangaea,or,possibility,there,regarding,consensus,any,factuality,the,Is there any consensus regarding the myth, possibility, or factuality of Pangaea
New
Hot
© 2008-2010 http://www.science-mathematics.com . Program by zplan cms. Theme by wukong .