[Fishteacher73]

I was reading yesterday about the current state of plate tectonic and the theories of continental drift. I had not realized that there as many holes and problems with the theory. One problem is that the fiossil evidence is contadictory. In some areas we have fossil evidence that draws a very good picture of what things may have looked like in the past (Such as correlating fossil beds on Africa and South America). But in other place we are finding fossil;s that should not be there as well as not finding fossils in places they should be. Are there other compelling theories of the progression of the contenental land masses other than : Pangea; Laurasia and Gondwanaland, into the basic continents we have today(Although located in different ares)?

Thanks..

[Tormod]

I guess to calculate how the plates have moved over the millions of years is bound to be error-prone.

[Turtle]

Even today coconuts are migratory as they float across oceans & come ashore to sprout.
I would explain the discontinuitys in the plate tectonic model you mentioned as artifacts of punctuated geologic equilibrium.
What is punctuating you ask? Asteroid/comet strikes, earthquakes, supervolcanoes, Missoula floods & their ilk, ice ages, etc. These are not included as parameters in the tectonic models specifically.
The model is error prone I beleive only inasmuch as it lacks data points; the idea is after all relatively new, originating in the 1960's.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Turtle

The model is error prone I beleive only inasmuch as it lacks data points; the idea is after all relatively new, originating in the 1960's.

Very true. Good post!

[Turtle]

It is interesting that the Theory of Plate Tectonics and my belief in it, was the chink in the armor of the Urantia Book I needed. If you know the Urantia, you know what I mean. It's very slippery; an extremely craftily written hoax that is difficult to expose. Nonetheless, in the section describing Earth's early development, there is no hint, no whisper, no angels breath speaks of plates. How could these hoaxers anticipate in the 1930's the Theory of Plate Tectonics thirty years hence.
Still, all in all, the Urantia Book has to rate as one of the great works of science fiction.

[Fishteacher73]

I am back and again, forgot the book that brought this initial post to light, so I do not have the specific fossils to refer to, but there were a number of species that the fossil beds had discontinuity. I.E., that certain fossils ar found on two sides of Pangea, but not on the areas that theoretically connected them. Could some of the "discontinuity" acctually be acounted for by interpretining such discontunities as actual ancient biome variences...Such as a tropical species on the coasts of Africa would not be found in the Sahara Desert, or were the biomes developed at this time, was it too wet and too warm for the variation of biomes that we have today. Was there just water and land, all essentailly homologous with exception of the polar areas?