Mrs. Scholl is a sixth grade teacher at St. Ephrem School in Bensalem, PA. She teaches math, science, and social studies.
Monday, September 26, 2011
Continental Drift
Which Evidence for continental drift do you think is the most convincing? Explain your answer in a paragraph that is 5-7 sentences. Spelling and grammar counts!
I think geology was the most convincing evidence because of the rocks that made up the continents. Alfred Wegener said that the rock found in Brazil matched the rock found in Western Africa. He also showed limestone layers in the Appalachian Mountains that were just like the limestones that were in Scotland's highlands. Wegener said this was his most convincing evidence out of the three which are fossils, climate, and geology. I agree with Wegener and his hypothysis.
I think that the evidence for climate is the most convincing. I think this because there are fossils of tropical plants and palm trees in Greenland which is now one of the coldest places on Earth. Another reason is that South Africa, which now has a tropical climate, still has traces of ice sheets. That is why the evidence for climate is the most convincing.
i think fossils because how could a dinousaur that eats meat cross the ocean and could take a while without food.the dinsaurs could have did by crossing the ocean or they have been attack.That is what I think that could have happen.
The best piece of evidence is the limestone. It eliminates the theory of how animals swam or floated on drift wood. A piece of limestone didn't just swim or floated on drift wood. Also something isn't going to be found in two different climates or places. It's like you can't grow apples in Florida, but you can grow them in Maine
I agree with Alfred Wegener's evidence for the fossils. I agree because its almost impossible for certian tropical animals to have been in the Arctic, unless they were in one "supercontinent" around where the Equator is. Also palm trees from hot, tropicl places cannot grow in Greenland. It would be too cold and the plants would die. Alfred Wegener councluded that some fossils that were found in Africa were also found in South America. Also, he stated that plant fossils in the Arctic were matched with plant fossils in Africa. That is why I chose Alfred Wegener's fossil evidence.
I think geology is the most convincing because it seems to me that it is the most backed up. When you use this evidence you can’t say that the rock went on a land bridge an put itself into the ground or it found a piece of driftwood and floated to another continent on the other side of the ocean. I think Alfred Wegener’s evidence on geology was good because you couldn’t find an excuse like some scientist did on the fossils and plants. It was convincing to me because after I read the other two paragraphs, geology seemed to make sense more. Also I chose this fact because Alfred Wegener was most impressed by this piece of evidence.
I think the evidence that explains the continental drift theory the best is when Alfred Wegner talks about rocks in different locations. Other scientists thought it was possible for animals to float on drift-wood or swim to another continent. When he talks about the same rocks being in different continents there was no way to explain how they could possibly get to differnt continents other than them splitting apart. When Alfred Wegner believed all the continents were once one he called the major continent Panama. Scientists believe Panama was not the only super Continent.
The evidence that is most convincing for continental drift is that Pangaea split apart from earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. This evidence is most convincing because these type natural disasters still happen in the world today. It is also more convincing because the continents wouldn’t just float away for no apparent reason. There would have to be some kind of actual reason this would happen. That is the evidence that is most convincing for continental drift.
I think the best proof is about the rocks because how could the rocks move from Europe to North America. This means the continents had to be together. I can see why this was Alfred Wegners best evindence that the continents were together.
I think that geology is the most convincing evidence for continental drift because it would have been impossible for rocks to move across a land bridge. It also would not be possible for rocks to hop upon driftwood to float across the ocean. The rocks would have had to have been in the same area when the continental drift occurred. This could have helped prove Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis. I think this because if there was not physical movement of the rocks then there would not be some of the same rocks and minerals on multiple coasts and continents.
I think that climate was the most convincing evidence that there was once a super-continent called Pangea. This evidence proves that the continents were once connected because it explains that Greenland has probably been located somewhere near the equator. And that's why palm tree fossils have been found there even though it is now mostly covered in ice. That same evidence also tells you that South Africa was once closer to the South Pole. Although the weather in South Africa is warm, rocks were found that were scratched by ice sheets or glaciers that once covered the area.
I think geology was the best evidence. I think this because rocks could not drift across an ocean to meet another shore. They’re not hollow, so, they sink. There is only one possible solution: the continents were once joined together in the supercontinent we call, “Pangaea”. For example, Alfred Wegener found limestone in the Appalachian Mountains that was exactly alike limestone that was found in Scotland.
I think fossils are the most convincing. Fossils are most convincing because I do not see how a dinosaur could be in South America and also found in Africa. If the dinosaurs swam they would eventualy get tired and stop swimming and they could sink.If there was a type of bridge or mountian they could climb they could die if starvation. But a fossil does not just have to be about dinosaur bones it could also be rocks or plants that were once living. If a palm tree was found in Antarctica it is almost impossible because it is so cold there. I beleive all the continents were once one big "super continent".
All the evidence is convincing but rock formations. I think this because rocks would not be able to walk to the other continents. Or float on rafts of driftwood.
Geology because animals could walk across a land bridge and get to the other continents. Most of geology includes Alfred Wegener’s idea of Pangaea. The animals could somehow on the trip. Rocks and trees could float to different places. Last because that was Alfred Wegener’s strongest idea.
I would say that none were convincing to me. I say this because all the evidence have logical explainations for themselves. For example, the evidence of fossils being found on the same continents are probably caused by land bridges that were made by maybe the water levels being lower than they are today or maybe the water erosion erased them so we cant see them. The climate evidence where different plants that couldn`t of grown in the weather of an area is just that plants floated across the ocean and settled into a different continents or the the land bridges carried the same amount of vegetation. Also, the evidence of rocks being found on different continents were the same is just thatmaybe the continents were connected on the same plate meaning they would be made of the same rock, but now the plates have split into smaller plates. I`m not saying that this theory isn`t possible i`m just saying that its not very likely in my opinion.
The evidence that I think that is most convincing for the continental drift is about fossils. I think the fossils because a fossil of a tropical plant was found in Greenland where there are below zero climates. Also I think this because it somewhat proves that all the continents could have been one huge super continent. Greenland today is in the artic circle and if it once were adjoined in one huge continent then it would have been close to the equator hence the tropical plant fossils being found. Because it is far too cold in any part of Greenland today to have tropical plants growing there. There also was a dinosaur fossil found in only two parts of the world: on the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa. Where the fossils were found you could adjoin the two continents and they would fit right together. I think this evidence on fossils is most convincing for the continental drift.
I think fossils, climate, and geology are equally important in the study of continental drift. Fossils are important because it shows you that dinosaurs could not have swum or floated on a piece of driftwood across the great distance of the ocean. One example is that the same fossils were found in Africa, Antarctica, and South America. Climate is important because it shows you that there were different climates on different continents before. One example is that palm tree fossils were found in Greenland and ice sheets were found in South Africa. Geology is important because it shows you that rocks could not have moved on their own. An example is that the limestone rocks found in the Appalachian Mountains were found in Scotland’s highlands.
In my opinion, the most convincing evidence for continental drift is fossils. Animals move from place to place, and when they die their offspring may travel to a different location. This chain of moving from place to place can go on for many years before the species becomes extinct and the chain ends. This most likely is what happened to the many prehistoric animals. This prediction is much easier to understand than the many other predictions made over the years. Predictions besides Alfred Wegener's prediction are about how an animal could float on a piece of drift wood or swim thousands of miles to get to a different location. I feel this is less likely than continental drift.
Although there is a lot of other evidence, I think that the climate change evidence was the most convincing. Alfred Wegener found that there were tropical plant fossils on areas that are covered in ice, such as Greenland. He also found that in warmer areas, such as Africa, some rocks were deeply scratched by ice sheets. The only logical way that this could be true is if all the continents were one (Pangea). Wegener believed that a long time ago Africa was near the poles and Greenland was near the equator.
Fossils because dinosaurs can't get across a 5,000 m. ocean on their own. They can't climb on driftwood and float across the ocean. Also, they can't swim across because they would die from being too exhausted. The same answer is for the big landbridge because of being too exhausted. And they would also die of starvation from no food.
I think Geology is the best evidence for the continental drift. I think this because Alfred Wegner found a type of rock found in western Africa. I think geology because, the limestone layers in the Appalachian Moutains of North America, were exactly like the limestone in Scotland's Highland. Also the fossil's could be another good piece of evidence. I think this because when the continents drifted apart the fossil's from the one part of the continent would match with the other continent.
Alfred Wegener thought that the continents were once together. He called it Pangaea. I think the best evidence for the continental drift is how fossils of the same animals were found in different places. Some scientist thought that the animals either swam or drifted there on driftwood. I think that the animals would have drowned or starved to death. I think the animals were separated when the continents drifted apart and then survived in their new enviroment.
I think that Alfred Wegener's theory was the most convincing. I think this because South America and Africa fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Also because he found out that the same fossil was in South America as in Africa. Most of the history books say that the continents were once connected so Alfred Wegener's theory is probably correct. This is why I think his theory is correct.
I think geology is Wegner's best piece of evidence because rocks don't move from a landmasss to a different landmass. It explains how rocks move from one place to another.It's more possible that there was a giant land bridge that animals could go across. Rocks can not cross a bridge. Animals can walk or swim across the ocean. When Wegner found the same rock in Africa and South America, it could have been an indication that the continents were once joined together.
I think the most convincing evidence for continental drift was geology. One reason for picking geology is that animals could have taken land bridges or swam to other continents but rocks, like the limestone in North America’s Appalachian Mts. and Scotland’s highlands, can’t move. In the “supercontinent,” Pangaea, they would have been joined together. Another reason is that the coastlines of some continents seem to have been fitted together. Then they moved to their present locations.
I think is most convincing is the climate because in Iceland scientist found fossils of palm trees under the ice caps. The reason being is because when Iceland wasn't fully settled in to what it looks like today it was closer to the Equator. Which means it use to have a tropical climate. Also in Africa they found evidence that there was an ice sheet covering Africa at one time, which means that Africa moved down to the equator as time went on.
I believe geology is the most convincing to me. The reason why I think that is because climate could vary on the position of the Earth. Also, fossils because in fossils the said about a land bridge and that could also be true. In Geology the mountains in Scotland match up to the mountain in Pennsylvania, with the same stone. Geology is very convincing because not many people could say they found Lime Stone in Scotland and Pennsylvania. This is why I believe geology is the most convincing theory.
I think climate is the most convincing. I thought this because our book tells us that scientist found tropical fruit rut fossils in Iceland. How could this happen, from the continental drift. And that is why I think climate is the most convincing.
I think that fossils are the most convincing evidence of continentel drift because the mesasaurus fossils were found both in Africa and South America. These two places are separated by the Atlantic now. People said that the dinosaur could have floated on pieces of logs, but the chances of the mesasaurus living that long, long trip was very small.
I think that continental drift is the most convincing because you can put all the continents together like a puzzle. South America can connect right to Africa, as can Europe connect to North America. It is also convincing because the continents still continue to move today. Earthquakes are why the continents are still moving because with every earthquake they move a little farther apart. Other scientists believe that animals swam or floated across on drift wood.
I think the fossils are the best convincing, because it is interesting about how the reptile mesosaurus was seen on the coast of Africa and South America. I would not think the reptile would swim or travel on a log, if there was a land bridge I think the reptile would die somehow it is a very long journey between the Americas and Africa. Geology was not the best evidence because lime stone can match up anywhere. Climate does make sense but the fossils are the best evidence to me. And on the map the countries do look like jigsaw puzzles.
I think the most convincing evidence for continental drift is fossils. Because identical fossils are very rare. So for that to happen they could have been born by the same mother at the same time. So for identical fossils to be on two different continents the continents probably split. Or by a small chance swam or floated on a raft over the oceans.
I think the most convincing evidence is geology because the same kind of rocks were found in places that could connect like puzzle pieces. The rock found in Brazil matched the rock found in Western Africa. Also, limestone layers make up Scotland's Highlands and the Appalachian Mountains in North America. Alfred Wegener believed this was his most convincing so he saved it for last, but they still didn't believe him. Sadly, he died before his evidence about Pangea was found to be true.
I think fossils is the most convincing because they said they have never found a mesosauras in another place. If a mesosauras was to swim I think he wouldn't make it and if he drifted on driftwood I think he would have been good food to a shark bird another animal. But I also think goelogy because it would seem wierd if the Appalachin Mts. and the Scotland Highlands have the same limestone. If I had to pick one though I would pick fossils.
I think the evidence for fossils is the most convincing. I think fossils are the most convincing because the fossils line up where the borders would connect. The Mesosaurus fossil was found along the coast of South America and Africa. These fossils were found nowhere else in the world. Even if the Mesosaurus' traveled over the land bridge they would have died along the way. This is why I thought fossils were the most convincing piece of evidence.
I think the fossil evidence is the most convincing. This theory was the most convincing because it’s not really possible for a dinosaur or an animal to float across the sea and still live. They wouldn’t stay alive because they won’t have enough food to eat which will cause them to starve to death. They may also die from the object their floating on sinking and they drown. If two of the same fossils in two different continents there is only one explanation and that is that the continent were once combined. This theory is called the continental drift.
I think the evidence of fossils is the most convincing. I think this because how would an animal(which was a reptile that couldn't swim far distances) get across the ocean. The Mesosaurus fossils were only found in South America and western Africa. For humans today to get from here to there we would have to take a plane which wouldn't take that long or a but which would take us a few months.
I think the same fossils in South America and Africa is convincing. I think no animal would have swum that far just to get there. I don’t know why he was rejected because it was real. The name of this reptile is the Mesosaurus it is a big reptile. The only reason he was reject is because they did not see them move around ,but one day they said he was right but he was dead by the time they found that out.
The convincing piece of evidence for the continental draft in my opinion is Geology. I think this because it was Wegener's best evidence, and the same kinds of rock from West Africa was the same type in Brazil, South America. The limestone rocks found in the Scotland highlands was also found in the Appalachian Mountains. These two sources tell me that the countries and continents were close together and the continents had the same type of rocks and fossils.
I think the most convincing was geology because the rock, limestone in the Appalachian Mountains matched the rock in Scotland's highlands. The rock can't move. And also the "supercontinent" because if you look closely at the continents on a map you would see that all continents fit together in a way, shape, and form. Now, they are in their present location. This is also well explained!
I think the most convincing was the fossils. I think the fossils because I don't think animals could swim a far distance. The animals would be looking for food to eat. The animals would starve to death. They could also drown and die too.
I think that the fosslis of the animals are very convincing. I think this because most animals can not be found in the same place. There is many reasons why that could be. But I think the reason is because climates. The two same plants also convince me. I think this reason is the climate again.
I choose fossils because it was the most convincing one to me. That’s why I agree that the world was once together. Why I say that is because an animal would not be to swim from South America to Africa . An animal would not be able swim for long periods of time with out eating or sleeping. That’s why I agree with Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis that the world was once a big super continent .
I think the most convincing evidence was geology because the rock in Brazil was the same one as the one in Western Africa. I also think this because Alfred Wegener said that the rocks made up the continents. He also said that the limestone layers in the Appalachian Mountains were the same in the Scotland Islands. He even though geology was his most convincing evidence. It also would have been impossible for rocks to cross a land bridge.
I think the most convincing evidence of the continental drift is fossils,because if any fossils of the same animal are in different places,that means that the dinosaurs must have traveled there. Some scientists in Alfred Wegner's time thought that the animals got on driftwood and floated across the ocean, but if the continents were one huge landmass,like Alfred said,dinosaurs could have walked easily across the surface, resulting in the location of the fossils today.
The theory that continents 'drift' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and was fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. However, it was not until the development of the theory of the plate tectonics in the 1960’s. Continental Drift was when the Earth’s continents move away from each other by tectonic plates. The proof is that if you look at all of the continents they will all fit like a jumbo jigsaw puzzle. Evidence was that small crocodile fossil was found in both Brazil and South America. Last a discovery of fossils of the land reptile Lystrosaurus form rocks of the same age form locations in South America, Africa, and Antarctica.
The evidence that is the most convincing is the fossils. I choose the fossils because when the fossils were animals the animals can't swim across the ocean and if there use to be a land bridge the animals can still fall. So when the land was moving the animals would just stay then die and leaving the remains of their fossils.
The most convincibg evidence was the geology reports because of the rock in Brazil and Africa.The rock in the Limestone in the Applachin Mountains matched the Mts. in Scoland Highlands. I also think the Supercontinent was great proof also. When you look closely you are able to see that all the continents fit togather like a jigsaw puzzle.
I think the most convincing evindence for the Continental Drift is Wegener's theory of Fossils. I think fossils is the most convincing theory because of how Wegener found the same fossils of the same dinosaur, Mesosaurus in West Africa and South America.
I think the best evidence to support the continental drift is geology. I believe this because Alfred Wegener said that there was the same kind of rock found in two locations that were connected before the continental drift happened. He found limestone layers in the Appalachian Mountains, that were also found in Scotland's highlands. Alfred Wegener discovered the continental drift, the limestone layer found in the Appalachian mountains and Scotland’s highlands. This one type of rock was found in two locations. This is proof that the continental drift happened. I think Alfred thought the best evidences were fossils, climate and geology.
I think the best evidence to support the continental drift was the fossils. The fossils found were a tropical plant leaf was found in two different continents South America and Africa. Also the the reptile found in South America, Western Africa, and the teeth where found in Antarctica.
The evidence I that think was most convincing is climat. I think it is climate because of what they found in Greenland. In Greenland they found fossils of tropical plants, such as palm trees. Today Greenland is above the acrtic circle and is covered in ice. For this to be true I think the continents had to once be in a differnt location in where they are today.
I think that the most convincing to support Alfred Wegener's theory is the climate. I think this because of tropical plant fossils found on Greenland. This is unusual because Greenland, despite its name, has a cold climate and is covered with snow. Also these plants were found on Antartica. Antartica is one of the coldest places on the planet. Climate is one of the stangest, yet most convincing piece of evidence.
I say climate because Wegner found topical plant fossils when it is freezing there.Most scientists did not belive Wegener at the time so his theory of continential drift was ignored. We think about the continents and how they got to the places they are today. Wegner also found that glaciers could have been on Africa when they have a hot climate.
I think geology was the most convincing because what Albert Wegner said about a super continent was 100% true. When I look at a map I can see how the continents coast lines could connect into one.The evidence he caught was also very convincing because he found out that the layer of rock in South America matched the layer of rock in Africa.Now just look at a map and think is it possible for the continents to be a super continent?
The fossils are the most convincing piece of evidence to me because the Mesosaurus was found in Africa and South America right where they seem to fit together. Some scientists had doubt on Wegener's therory. One reason was because the Mesosaurus could've climbed on to a piece of drift wood and floated there. Another reason was because the Mesosaurus could have swam there. I doubt both of these therorys because if the Mesosaurus swam it would get tired and drown, if it climbed on to drift wood it would have starved or slipped or fell off.
I think that fossil evidence is the most convincing. Ithink this because Mesosaurus fossils were found in South America and western Africa. The fossils were found nowhere else. Rock formation is convincing too because rock from Brazil matched rock from western Africa. Also limestone from North America matched limestone from Scotland's Highlands.
The most convincing peice of edvindence that Wegner collected is his edvindence for fossils. The fossils for the Mesosaurus have been found in South America and Western Africa. These fossils have not been found anywhere else in the world.
I think the most convincing evidence was the the fossile Meadoasauras.I think this because the fossile Meadoasauras was found in South America and Africa.Another evidence was the limestone in the Appalachian Mountains was the same in Scotland's Highlands.
I think geology was the most convincing evidence because of the rocks that made up the continents. Alfred Wegener said that the rock found in Brazil matched the rock found in Western Africa. He also showed limestone layers in the Appalachian Mountains that were just like the limestones that were in Scotland's highlands. Wegener said this was his most convincing evidence out of the three which are fossils, climate, and geology. I agree with Wegener and his hypothysis.
ReplyDeleteI think that the evidence for climate is the most convincing. I think this because there are fossils of tropical plants and palm trees in Greenland which is now one of the coldest places on Earth. Another reason is that South Africa, which now has a tropical climate, still has traces of ice sheets. That is why the evidence for climate is the most convincing.
ReplyDeletei think fossils because how could a dinousaur that eats meat cross the ocean and could take a while without food.the dinsaurs could have did by crossing the ocean or they have been attack.That is what I think that could have happen.
ReplyDeleteThe best piece of evidence is the limestone. It eliminates the theory of how animals swam or floated on drift wood. A piece of limestone didn't just swim or floated on drift wood. Also something isn't going to be found in two different climates or places. It's like you can't grow apples in Florida, but you can grow them in Maine
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alfred Wegener's evidence for the fossils. I agree because its almost impossible for certian tropical animals to have been in the Arctic, unless they were in one "supercontinent" around where the Equator is. Also palm trees from hot, tropicl places cannot grow in Greenland. It would be too cold and the plants would die. Alfred Wegener councluded that some fossils that were found in Africa were also found in South America. Also, he stated that plant fossils in the Arctic were matched with plant fossils in Africa. That is why I chose Alfred Wegener's fossil evidence.
ReplyDeleteI think geology is the most convincing because it seems to me that it is the most backed up. When you use this evidence you can’t say that the rock went on a land bridge an put itself into the ground or it found a piece of driftwood and floated to another continent on the other side of the ocean. I think Alfred Wegener’s evidence on geology was good because you couldn’t find an excuse like some scientist did on the fossils and plants. It was convincing to me because after I read the other two paragraphs, geology seemed to make sense more. Also I chose this fact because Alfred Wegener was most impressed by this piece of evidence.
ReplyDeleteI think the evidence that explains the continental drift theory the best is when Alfred Wegner talks about rocks in different locations. Other scientists thought it was possible for animals to float on drift-wood or swim to another continent. When he talks about the same rocks being in different continents there was no way to explain how they could possibly get to differnt continents other than them splitting apart. When Alfred Wegner believed all the continents were once one he called the major continent Panama. Scientists believe Panama was not the only super Continent.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that is most convincing for continental drift is that Pangaea split apart from earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. This evidence is most convincing because these type natural disasters still happen in the world today. It is also more convincing because the continents wouldn’t just float away for no apparent reason. There would have to be some kind of actual reason this would happen. That is the evidence that is most convincing for continental drift.
ReplyDeleteI think the best proof is about the rocks because how could the rocks move from Europe to North America. This means the continents had to be together. I can see why this was Alfred Wegners best evindence that the continents were together.
ReplyDeleteI think that geology is the most convincing evidence for continental drift because it would have been impossible for rocks to move across a land bridge. It also would not be possible for rocks to hop upon driftwood to float across the ocean. The rocks would have had to have been in the same area when the continental drift occurred. This could have helped prove Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis. I think this because if there was not physical movement of the rocks then there would not be some of the same rocks and minerals on multiple coasts and continents.
ReplyDeleteI think that climate was the most convincing evidence that there was once a super-continent called Pangea. This evidence proves that the continents were once connected because it explains that Greenland has probably been located somewhere near the equator. And that's why palm tree fossils have been found there even though it is now mostly covered in ice. That same evidence also tells you that South Africa was once closer to the South Pole. Although the weather in South Africa is warm, rocks were found that were scratched by ice sheets or glaciers that once covered the area.
ReplyDeleteI think geology was the best evidence. I think this because rocks could not drift across an ocean to meet another shore. They’re not hollow, so, they sink. There is only one possible solution: the continents were once joined together in the supercontinent we call, “Pangaea”. For example, Alfred Wegener found limestone in the Appalachian Mountains that was exactly alike limestone that was found in Scotland.
ReplyDeleteI think fossils are the most convincing. Fossils are most convincing because I do not see how a dinosaur could be in South America and also found in Africa. If the dinosaurs swam they would eventualy get tired and stop swimming and they could sink.If there was a type of bridge or mountian they could climb they could die if starvation. But a fossil does not just have to be about dinosaur bones it could also be rocks or plants that were once living. If a palm tree was found in Antarctica it is almost impossible because it is so cold there. I beleive all the continents were once one big "super continent".
ReplyDeleteAll the evidence is convincing but rock formations. I think this because rocks would not be able to walk to the other continents. Or float on rafts of driftwood.
ReplyDeleteGeology because animals could walk across a land bridge and get to the other continents. Most of geology includes Alfred Wegener’s idea of Pangaea. The animals could somehow on the trip. Rocks and trees could float to different places. Last because that was Alfred Wegener’s strongest idea.
ReplyDeleteI would say that none were convincing to me. I say this because all the evidence have logical explainations for themselves. For example, the evidence of fossils being found on the same continents are probably caused by land bridges that were made by maybe the water levels being lower than they are today or maybe the water erosion erased them so we cant see them. The climate evidence where different plants that couldn`t of grown in the weather of an area is just that plants floated across the ocean and settled into a different continents or the the land bridges carried the same amount of vegetation. Also, the evidence of rocks being found on different continents were the same is just thatmaybe the continents were connected on the same plate meaning they would be made of the same rock, but now the plates have split into smaller plates. I`m not saying that this theory isn`t possible i`m just saying that its not very likely in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that I think that is most convincing for the continental drift is about fossils. I think the fossils because a fossil of a tropical plant was found in Greenland where there are below zero climates. Also I think this because it somewhat proves that all the continents could have been one huge super continent. Greenland today is in the artic circle and if it once were adjoined in one huge continent then it would have been close to the equator hence the tropical plant fossils being found. Because it is far too cold in any part of Greenland today to have tropical plants growing there. There also was a dinosaur fossil found in only two parts of the world: on the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa. Where the fossils were found you could adjoin the two continents and they would fit right together. I think this evidence on fossils is most convincing for the continental drift.
ReplyDeleteI think fossils, climate, and geology are equally important in the study of continental drift. Fossils are important because it shows you that dinosaurs could not have swum or floated on a piece of driftwood across the great distance of the ocean. One example is that the same fossils were found in Africa, Antarctica, and South America. Climate is important because it shows you that there were different climates on different continents before. One example is that palm tree fossils were found in Greenland and ice sheets were found in South Africa. Geology is important because it shows you that rocks could not have moved on their own. An example is that the limestone rocks found in the Appalachian Mountains were found in Scotland’s highlands.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the most convincing evidence for continental drift is fossils. Animals move from place to place, and when they die their offspring may travel to a different location. This chain of moving from place to place can go on for many years before the species becomes extinct and the chain ends. This most likely is what happened to the many prehistoric animals. This prediction is much easier to understand than the many other predictions made over the years. Predictions besides Alfred Wegener's prediction are about how an animal could float on a piece of drift wood or swim thousands of miles to get to a different location. I feel this is less likely than continental drift.
ReplyDeleteAlthough there is a lot of other evidence, I think that the climate change evidence was the most convincing. Alfred Wegener found that there were tropical plant fossils on areas that are covered in ice, such as Greenland. He also found that in warmer areas, such as Africa, some rocks were deeply scratched by ice sheets. The only logical way that this could be true is if all the continents were one (Pangea). Wegener believed that a long time ago Africa was near the poles and Greenland was near the equator.
ReplyDeleteFossils because dinosaurs can't get across a 5,000 m. ocean on their own. They can't climb on driftwood and float across the ocean. Also, they can't swim across because they would die from being too exhausted. The same answer is for the big landbridge because of being too exhausted. And they would also die of starvation from no food.
ReplyDeleteI think Geology is the best evidence for the continental drift. I think this because Alfred Wegner found a type of rock found in western Africa. I think geology because, the limestone layers in the Appalachian Moutains of North America, were exactly like the limestone in Scotland's Highland. Also the fossil's could be another good piece of evidence. I think this because when the continents drifted apart the fossil's from the one part of the continent would match with the other continent.
ReplyDeleteAlfred Wegener thought that the continents were once together. He called it Pangaea. I think the best evidence for the continental drift is how fossils of the same animals were found in different places. Some scientist thought that the animals either swam or drifted there on driftwood. I think that the animals would have drowned or starved to death. I think the animals were separated when the continents drifted apart and then survived in their new enviroment.
ReplyDeleteI think that Alfred Wegener's theory was the most convincing. I think this because South America and Africa fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Also because he found out that the same fossil was in South America as in Africa. Most of the history books say that the continents were once connected so Alfred Wegener's theory is probably correct. This is why I think his theory is correct.
ReplyDeleteI think geology is Wegner's best piece of evidence because rocks don't move from a landmasss to a different landmass. It explains how rocks move from one place to another.It's more possible that there was a giant land bridge that animals could go across. Rocks can not cross a bridge. Animals can walk or swim across the ocean. When Wegner found the same rock in Africa and South America, it could have been an indication that the continents were once joined together.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence for continental drift was geology. One reason for picking geology is that animals could have taken land bridges or swam to other continents but rocks, like the limestone in North America’s Appalachian Mts. and Scotland’s highlands, can’t move. In the “supercontinent,” Pangaea, they would have been joined together. Another reason is that the coastlines of some continents seem to have been fitted together. Then they moved to their present locations.
ReplyDeleteI think is most convincing is the climate because in Iceland scientist found fossils of palm trees under the ice caps. The reason being is because when Iceland wasn't fully settled in to what it looks like today it was closer to the Equator. Which means it use to have a tropical climate. Also in Africa they found evidence that there was an ice sheet covering Africa at one time, which means that Africa moved down to the equator as time went on.
ReplyDeleteI believe geology is the most convincing to me. The reason why I think that is because climate could vary on the position of the Earth. Also, fossils because in fossils the said about a land bridge and that could also be true. In Geology the mountains in Scotland match up to the mountain in Pennsylvania, with the same stone. Geology is very convincing because not many people could say they found Lime Stone in Scotland and Pennsylvania. This is why I believe geology is the most convincing theory.
ReplyDeleteI think climate is the most convincing. I thought this because our book tells us that scientist found tropical fruit rut fossils in Iceland. How could this happen, from the continental drift. And that is why I think climate is the most convincing.
ReplyDeleteI think that fossils are the most convincing evidence of continentel drift because the mesasaurus fossils were found both in Africa and South America. These two places are separated by the Atlantic now. People said that the dinosaur could have floated on pieces of logs, but the chances of the mesasaurus living that long, long trip was very small.
ReplyDeleteI think that continental drift is the most convincing because you can put all the continents together like a puzzle. South America can connect right to Africa, as can Europe connect to North America. It is also convincing because the continents still continue to move today. Earthquakes are why the continents are still moving because with every earthquake they move a little farther apart. Other scientists believe that animals swam or floated across on drift wood.
ReplyDeleteI think the fossils are the best convincing, because it is interesting about how the reptile mesosaurus was seen on the coast of Africa and South America. I would not think the reptile would swim or travel on a log, if there was a land bridge I think the reptile would die somehow it is a very long journey between the Americas and Africa. Geology was not the best evidence because lime stone can match up anywhere. Climate does make sense but the fossils are the best evidence to me. And on the map the countries do look like jigsaw puzzles.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence for continental drift is fossils. Because identical fossils are very rare. So for that to happen they could have been born by the same mother at the same time. So for identical fossils to be on two different continents the continents probably split. Or by a small chance swam or floated on a raft over the oceans.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence is geology because the same kind of rocks were found in places that could connect like puzzle pieces. The rock found in Brazil matched the rock found in Western Africa. Also, limestone layers make up Scotland's Highlands and the Appalachian Mountains in North America. Alfred Wegener believed this was his most convincing so he saved it for last, but they still didn't believe him. Sadly, he died before his evidence about Pangea was found to be true.
ReplyDeleteI think fossils is the most convincing because they said they have never found a mesosauras in another place. If a mesosauras was to swim I think he wouldn't make it and if he drifted on driftwood I think he would have been good food to a shark bird another animal. But I also think goelogy because it would seem wierd if the Appalachin Mts. and the Scotland Highlands have the same limestone. If I had to pick one though I would pick fossils.
ReplyDeleteI think the evidence for fossils is the most convincing. I think fossils are the most convincing because the fossils line up where the borders would connect. The Mesosaurus fossil was found along the coast of South America and Africa. These fossils were found nowhere else in the world. Even if the Mesosaurus' traveled over the land bridge they would have died along the way. This is why I thought fossils were the most convincing piece of evidence.
ReplyDeleteI think the fossil evidence is the most convincing. This theory was the most convincing because it’s not really possible for a dinosaur or an animal to float across the sea and still live. They wouldn’t stay alive because they won’t have enough food to eat which will cause them to starve to death. They may also die from the object their floating on sinking and they drown. If two of the same fossils in two different continents there is only one explanation and that is that the continent were once combined. This theory is called the continental drift.
ReplyDeleteI think the evidence of fossils is the most convincing. I think this because how would an animal(which was a reptile that couldn't swim far distances) get across the ocean. The Mesosaurus fossils were only found in South America and western Africa. For humans today to get from here to there we would have to take a plane which wouldn't take that long or a but which would take us a few months.
ReplyDeleteI think the same fossils in South America and Africa is convincing. I think no animal would have swum that far just to get there. I don’t know why he was rejected because it was real. The name of this reptile is the Mesosaurus it is a big reptile. The only reason he was reject is because they did not see them move around ,but one day they said he was right but he was dead by the time they found that out.
ReplyDeleteThe convincing piece of evidence for the continental draft in my opinion is Geology. I think this because it was Wegener's best evidence, and the same kinds of rock from West Africa was the same type in Brazil, South America. The limestone rocks found in the Scotland highlands was also found in the Appalachian Mountains. These two sources tell me that the countries and continents were close together and the continents had the same type of rocks and fossils.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing was geology because the rock, limestone in the Appalachian Mountains matched the rock in Scotland's highlands. The rock can't move. And also the "supercontinent" because if you look closely at the continents on a map you would see that all continents fit together in a way, shape, and form. Now, they are in their present location. This is also well explained!
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing was the fossils. I think the fossils because I don't think animals could swim a far distance. The animals would be looking for food to eat. The animals would starve to death. They could also drown and die too.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fosslis of the animals are very convincing. I think this because most animals can not be found in the same place. There is many reasons why that could be. But I think the reason is because climates. The two same plants also convince me. I think this reason is the climate again.
ReplyDeleteI choose fossils because it was the most convincing one to me. That’s why I agree
ReplyDeletethat the world was once together. Why I say that is because an animal would not be to swim from South America to Africa . An animal would not be able swim for long periods of time with out eating or sleeping. That’s why I agree with Alfred Wegener’s hypothesis that the world was once a big super continent .
I think the most convincing evidence was geology because the rock in Brazil was the same one as the one in Western Africa. I also think this because Alfred Wegener said that the rocks made up the continents. He also said that the limestone layers in the Appalachian Mountains were the same in the Scotland Islands. He even though geology was his most convincing evidence. It also would have been impossible for rocks to cross a land bridge.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence of the continental drift is fossils,because if any fossils of the same animal are in different places,that means that the dinosaurs must have traveled there. Some scientists in Alfred Wegner's time thought that the animals got on driftwood and floated across the ocean, but if the continents were one huge landmass,like Alfred said,dinosaurs could have walked easily across the surface, resulting in the location of the fossils today.
ReplyDeleteThe theory that continents 'drift' was first put forward by Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and was fully developed by Alfred Wegener in 1912. However, it was not until the development of the theory of the plate tectonics in the 1960’s. Continental Drift was when the Earth’s continents move away from each other by tectonic plates. The proof is that if you look at all of the continents they will all fit like a jumbo jigsaw puzzle. Evidence was that small crocodile fossil was found in both Brazil and South America. Last a discovery of fossils of the land reptile Lystrosaurus form rocks of the same age form locations in South America, Africa, and Antarctica.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence that is the most convincing is the fossils. I choose the fossils because when the fossils were animals the animals can't swim across the ocean and if there use to be a land bridge the animals can still fall. So when the land was moving the animals would just stay then die and leaving the remains of their fossils.
ReplyDeleteThe most convincibg evidence was the geology reports because of the rock in Brazil and Africa.The rock in the Limestone in the Applachin Mountains matched the Mts. in Scoland Highlands. I also think the Supercontinent was great proof also. When you look closely you are able to see that all the continents fit togather like a jigsaw puzzle.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evindence for the Continental Drift is Wegener's theory of Fossils. I think fossils is the most convincing theory because of how Wegener found the same fossils of the same dinosaur, Mesosaurus in West Africa and South America.
ReplyDeleteI think the best evidence to support the continental drift is geology. I believe this because Alfred Wegener said that there was the same kind of rock found in two locations that were connected before the continental drift happened. He found limestone layers in the Appalachian Mountains, that were also found in Scotland's highlands. Alfred Wegener discovered the continental drift, the limestone layer found in the Appalachian mountains and Scotland’s highlands. This one type of rock was found in two locations. This is proof that the continental drift happened. I think Alfred thought the best evidences were fossils, climate and geology.
ReplyDeleteI think the best evidence to support the continental drift was the fossils. The fossils found were a tropical plant leaf was found in two different continents South America and Africa. Also the the reptile found in South America, Western Africa, and the teeth where found in Antarctica.
ReplyDeleteThe evidence I that think was most convincing is climat. I think it is climate because of what they found in Greenland. In Greenland they found fossils of tropical plants, such as palm trees. Today Greenland is above the acrtic circle and is covered in ice. For this to be true I think the continents had to once be in a differnt location in where they are today.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most convincing to support Alfred Wegener's theory is the climate. I think this because of tropical plant fossils found on Greenland. This is unusual because Greenland, despite its name, has a cold climate and is covered with snow. Also these plants were found on Antartica. Antartica is one of the coldest places on the planet. Climate is one of the stangest, yet most convincing piece of evidence.
ReplyDeleteI say climate because Wegner found topical plant fossils when it is freezing there.Most scientists did not belive Wegener at the time so his theory of continential drift was ignored. We think about the continents and how they got to the places they are today. Wegner also found that glaciers could have been on Africa when they have a hot climate.
ReplyDeleteI think geology was the most convincing because what Albert Wegner said about a super continent was 100% true. When I look at a map I can see how the continents coast lines could connect into one.The evidence he caught was also very convincing because he found out that the layer of rock in South America matched the layer of rock in Africa.Now just look at a map and think is it possible for the continents to be a super continent?
ReplyDeleteThe fossils are the most convincing piece of evidence to me because the Mesosaurus was found in Africa and South America right where they seem to fit together. Some scientists had doubt on Wegener's therory. One reason was because the Mesosaurus could've climbed on to a piece of drift wood and floated there. Another reason was because the Mesosaurus could have swam there. I doubt both of these therorys because if the Mesosaurus swam it would get tired and drown, if it climbed on to drift wood it would have starved or slipped or fell off.
ReplyDeleteI think that fossil evidence is the most convincing. Ithink this because Mesosaurus fossils were found in South America and western Africa. The fossils were found nowhere else. Rock formation is convincing too because rock from Brazil matched rock from western Africa. Also limestone from North America matched limestone from Scotland's Highlands.
ReplyDeleteThe most convincing peice of edvindence that Wegner collected is his edvindence for fossils. The fossils for the Mesosaurus have been found in South America and Western Africa. These fossils have not been found anywhere else in the world.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence was the the fossile Meadoasauras.I think this because the fossile Meadoasauras was found in South America and Africa.Another evidence was the limestone in the Appalachian Mountains was the same in Scotland's Highlands.
ReplyDelete