Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Continental Drift Hypothesis
In 1912 Alfred Wegener, proposed a hypothesis known as continental drift. Wegener gathered evidence to support his hypothesis from fossils, studies of ancient climate, and from the geology of continents. Which evidence for continental drift do you think is the most convincing? Explain your answer
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think the finding of the Mesosaurus is the most important piece of evidence because there wasn't any other way for the Mesosaurus to be in Africa and South America, except for continental drift
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence is the fossil evidence, because the animal was found on the border of two continents Wegener belived were once joined. The animal was not found any where else.
ReplyDeleteI think geology is most convincing because when mountains have the same type of rock as mountains from across the ocean that seems pretty convincing to me.
ReplyDeleteI think that the evidence of the fossils are the most conving. I think the fossils are most convinving because in Antartica they found a fossil of a plant. A plant cannot grow in Antartica's cold climat that it is in today.
ReplyDeleteFossils because there was a plant fond in Greenlandwhich is very cold that no plant can't survivethe harsh wheater and they found that this one fossil was found in South America,and Africa and no where else in the world so that means they were once formed together to make Pangaea.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convicing evidence is the Mesosarus fossil in the two continets Africa and South America where the fossils looked like they were wright on the costline of the two continets
ReplyDeleteI think that the rock evidence is the most convincing because there could be a lot of criticsim about the other two kinds of evidence, because there are are a lot of theories that could have other explanations. i think the rock one is probably the best, i don't see a lot of theories that could argue with that. Also, i think it is the most interesting, and provable.
ReplyDeleteI think fossil evidenceis the best beacuse it is immpossilbe for palm trees to grow in greenland and it would be immposilbe for a creature to swim the atlantic.i think that alfard wegner had really good evidencies and it was sad he died befor they accepted his theory:))))
ReplyDeleteI think the fossils are most convinceing because i doon't think that the dinosours could swim across the atlantic ocean. Another reason it because the sun could hav once been where Greenland is and the could have been palm trees which would explain the palm tree fossils.The final reason I think the most convinceing reason it the fossils is that the rocks could have just happened to be on the same continents.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence was the the fossils of the measosaurus.It realy grabbed my attention. The fossils were on Africa and South America.I thought this was an amazing experience by Alfred Wegner. This is the most convincing and i hope u learned maor about the fossils.
ReplyDeleteI think the the most convincing is the evidence from the mesosaurus and the evidence from the tropical plant in Greenland. the masosaurus was both found in the coastlines in western Africa and the eatern coastlines in South America. The tropical plant found in Greenland is too cold of an area for the plant to grow.
ReplyDeleteI think that the plant fossils found in Greenland is the most covincing because Greenland has a cold climate so the only way that plant could live there is if Greenland had a warm climate like in pangea Greenland is closer to the equater so Greenland would have a warm climate
ReplyDeleteI think the most important evidence is the fossils and how well the coastlines of Africa and South Americalook like they could fit together.I don't think its a quidence how well they look like they can fit together and the fossils could not have swim that far.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence is the fossils because tropical fossils would not be in Greenland unless it was once warm there.
ReplyDeleteI think the fossils found on the different continents was convincing because they were the exact same and the only way this could happen if the continents were formed together
ReplyDeleteI think that the evidence of climate change is most convincing because I cannot think of anything but continental drift to explain how fossils of tropical plants got onto Greenland.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence is the seed from Greenland that could only grow in a tropical climate.
ReplyDeleteRyan Ferris
I think the most convincing evidence is the Messusoruos fossil in West Africa and South America. I think this because I don't think that it is possible for the dinosaur to have swam that far.
ReplyDeleteI think finding the palm tree fossils in Greenland was most convincing because the only way tropical plants could grow in a place that cold is if Greenland was once closer to the equator than it is today.
ReplyDeleteI think that the most important evidence of a continental drift is the rock formations. For example the rocks found in Brazil match the rocks found in western Africa, and the limestone rock found in North America were exactly like the limestone rock found in Scotland's Highlands.
ReplyDeleteI think the matching fossils in South America and Africa is the most convincing because I don't think the dinosaurs could have swam across the vast oceans. That could have only happened if the continents were once joined together.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing theory is that the continent,South America and Africa coast lines look like they would fit together. Also, that the palm tree fossils in Greenland would be impossible to grow in that type of climate; and that they found the identical fossils of a dinosaur on Africa and South America. I think a dinosaur could not of swam that far across the Atlantic Ocean. :]
ReplyDeleteThe most convincing piece of evidence to me, was the fossils found on two different continents. I think this is more convincing than the other pieces because these animals could not have swam to the other continents, and it is highly unlikely that the animals floated on other things like driftwood. If the animals were fossilized when this happened there would be no way for the wind or anything else to have brought the fossil across an ocean.
ReplyDeleteI think fossils are the most convincing because were they found the fossils on three different continents. The continents were South America and Africa. The only way there could be the same fossils on 2 different continents is that if they were joined at on time. On the coastlines of South America and Africa they look as if they could fit together like a puzzle.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fossil evidence is the most convincing because there is only one
ReplyDeleteway for the fossil to be in south america and africa and that way is continental drift.
I think the plant fossils were the most convincing, because a plant that could only grow in warm climate could not be found at a place so cold like Greenland. If a plant like that could be there, then continental drift would be the answer.
ReplyDeleteThe most convincing evidenceis climate because they found fossils of tropical plants on Greenland which is covered in ice
ReplyDeleteI think the fossils are pretty convincing because I don't think the mesosaurus can swim that far and I don't think they would be smart enough to climb on something and float there. The continents do look like they fit together so I do think they were one big continent at one time or another.
ReplyDeleteFor me the most convincing evidence is that there is were fossils of a mesosaurus found in western Africa and in South America.
ReplyDeleteSome scientists such as Alfred Wegner think that all the continents were connected as one super-continent. the super-continent was called Pangea.
I think the rock evidence was the most convincing of all because rock from the Appalachian Mountains matched rock from the Scotland Highlands. Also, rock from South America's eastern coastline matched rock found in Africa's western coastline. This evidence points to the conclusion that the continents had to be joined at one time.
ReplyDeletei think the fossils are the best piece of evidence. I think the fossils are the best evidence because they were on different continents and think the only way that could happen is if a one point the continents were once joined. Plus now the weather in some continents are two cold for animals to live. :)
ReplyDeleteThe continents are alike because they are like a puzzle, they fit pretty good together. There once was a time when people thought the continents moved and there still are people who think they did and I am one of them. People found the same type of fossils on different continents.I am convinced that the fossils were all on one continent.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence is the fossils because the mesosaurus. Wegener once belived that they were once joined together. They were found in Aficica and South Americia but they wouldn't be found if it wasn't for the continental drift.
ReplyDeleteI think the evidence of the limestone in the appalachian mountains and in the scottish highlands being the exact same is the most convincing explanation to continental drift to me.
ReplyDeleteI think the fossil evidence is most convincing because the fossil of the animal Lystrosaurus. Scientists found these fossils in Africa, South America, and Antarctica. They say that this animal could not of swam the vast oceans today so the continental drift theory must be true.
ReplyDeleteI think the fossils because there was the same type of dinosaur bones found in Africa and South America.There is no way the two bones could have been on diffrent continents unless the continents were joined at one point in time.
ReplyDeleteI Think The Most Convincing Evidence Was The Fossils Because The Fossil Was Found On Two Continents.It Was Not Found Any Where Else. Wegener Believed The Continents Were Once Joined together.Almost like a Jigsaw Puzzle.
ReplyDeleteI think finding the fossils was most convincing thing because there is now way that the Mesosaurus could of swam from South America to Africa there is no way
ReplyDeletei think the fossil evidence is most convining because the dinosaur couldn't of swam across the ocean it would have drowned
ReplyDeleteI think fossils evidence because the animals that are fossilized could not have traveled the distance
ReplyDeletebetween the continents.
I think that the fossils were the best because how it shows that they were in North America and Africa and the identical fossils.That shows that the continents most have been joined.
ReplyDeleteI think fossils are most convincing, since they exist in two different contents separated by an ocean.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fossil evidence is the best proof because the Mesosaurus fossil was found on South America and western Africa.
ReplyDeletei think the most convincing evidence for continential drift is the fact that the coastlines almost fit together for south america and africa and that there has been fossils foind on distant continents that are the same animal
ReplyDeleteI thinks the rock evidence was the most convincing because there was matching rock found in North America's Appalachian mountains also found in Scotland. There was also rock found in western part of Africa and in Brazil. That shows that the continents must have been joined
ReplyDeleteI think the fossil evidence is the most convincng because Wegener found the fossil of the Lystrosaurus in South America and Africa.The most convincing part of the fossil evidence is that scientist said that this animal could not have been able to swim that big of a distance from Africa to South America so the continent drift theory must be true.
ReplyDeleteThe fossils were the best out of all because they were found on two different continents. The animal could not have swam that long of an distance so the continents had to be joined at some point in time.:-)
ReplyDeleteI think that it was the fossils because they were only found on two continents and those two continents were next to eachother in pangea. The only way to prove this is continental drift.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fossils are the most convincing because the continents must have been joined at one period of time because the Mesosaurous is not found anywhere else on Earth.
ReplyDeletei think i would have to say i would choose the fossils because i think no animal can swim that far unless you are an sea animale and wth the evadince wegner has, i think he was right. and if a that animal could have swam that far it must have floated or sat onsomthing and i dont think that it would be that smart to do that.
ReplyDeleteI think the rock evidence was the most convincing because of the limestone found in Scotland’s Highlands was also found in the Appellation Mountains of North America, and also the rock found in Brazil and Africa.
ReplyDeleteI think the most convincing evidence is the matching dinosaur fossils because there is no way Mesosaurus could have swam or flew to these continents.
ReplyDeleteI think the climate is the most convincing because I don't think plants can grow there without the climate changing.
ReplyDeleteThe most convincing piece pf evidence is the fossils because they were not found anywhere else on Earth and the coastlines of Africa and South America look like they could fit together perfectly
ReplyDeleteI think the fossil of the Mesosaurus is the most convincing because it couldnt have swam from both continent. Continental drift is the only possible way.
ReplyDeleteThe most convincing evidence to me is fossils. I think it makes the most sense and the way the theory is written it makes it's very believable that the two dinosaur species were on the same place where wegener said Africa and south America must have been joined together for this to occur.
ReplyDeleteIthink that the fossils were the most convincing because no animal can swim that far.:)
ReplyDeleteI think the fossils found on both Africa and South America is most convincing because it supports Alfred Wegner's theories.
ReplyDeleteI think that the fossils found on different continents is more convincing because it doesn't make any sense. Why would two of the same fossils would be found in two different continents?
ReplyDelete