What is the major difference between the continental drift hypothesis and the theory of plate tectonics?
109251
plate tectonics provides an explanation for the continental drift hypothesis.
98865
It was once thought that land on earth is stationary and that the continents had always been their current shape, even though they may have been covered by more water.\n\nMore recently however, it has been discovered that the continents were actually all one mass of land and at one point separated, floating apart on sheets of plate tectonics.  \n\nProof came quickly.  It is now easy to see the east coast of South America fitting into west Africa for instance.  Bones of related land-dwelling creatures were also found on the coastlines of the two distant continents.
660487
The answer is definitely B.\n\nWegener used that along w/ the fact that certain rock types found in Africa also matched rocks in South America. Also he used the fact that the continents looked as though they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle.\n\nWhile Wegener proposed the hypothesis of continental drift he did not actually prove it.\n\nActually, it wasn't until the late 60's that the theory of plate tectonics actually proved Wegener's hypothesis & it became widely accepted.
537912
The crust but more specifically the lithospheric plates.\n\nThe lithosphere is divided into 7 major plates and about 7 minor ones. The major ones contain the continents.\n\nThese plates move in response to the convection of molten material in the mantle. As the molten rock circulates, it pulls lithospheric plates along like they were on a conveyor belt.\n\nThe crust floats atop the molten rock below b/c it is less dense.
455117
Sea floor spreading is the driving force behind continental drift as it forces the crust apart.  The hot mantle rises to the surface weakening the crust until it splits and moves apart to allow the new material to form.  This rifting creates new oceanic basaltic crust rather than granitic continental crust so the continents stay roughly the same. \n\nHowever, rifting does occur within continents and eventually will split a continent, as is happening in the Red Sea today, the East African Rift being a failed offshoot of that rift system.\n\nAll this happens slowly at a rate of about 11cm a centuary and if you want to see an active spreading ridge take a trip to Iceland where the Mid Atlantic ridge is on surface.  Don't worry it is perfectly safe and you won't end up on the wrong side.
396884
continental drift explained why similar plants and animals were found on opposite on the ocean, similarly why similar fossil assemblages and rock types were found on opposite sides of the ocean, for example in Europe and North America , and Africa and South America. Continental drift explained these occurrances by suggesting that the landmasses had previously been joined but had split, and the new continents drifted apart, taking animals plants rocks, fossils with them.\n\nIt also explained why marine fossils were found on top of mountains, as the theory of continental drift suggested that just as continents drifted apart, they could also collide, and the collision would raise the landmass up.\n\nIt also explained why volcanic activity occurs in certain places in the world, ie along the edges of moving plates.
326981
Describes the way that the Earths tectonic plates were positioned at the time of the Cenazoic Era.  \n\n the Cenozoic Era is when continents moved into their current positions. South america drifted away from Africa, the Atlantic Ocean widened and, late in the era, South America became attached to North America.
82845
Wegener's main opponent was an astronomer and geophysicist named Harold Jeffreys. Sir Jeffreys argued correctly that there was no way for a continent to plow through the ocean floor without breaking it and leaving some evidence of that process behind. Jeffreys continued his opposition to plate tectonics as well, maintaining skepticism about the possibility of convection currents. He passed away in 1989.\n\nAnother reason that Wegener was opposed is that he was not a geologist, but was a meteorologist. He was outside of the bounds of his field and at that time is was not customary or accepted to step into other scientific realms. \n\nAt the time there was a school of thought that believed the earth was cooling and contracting, and that oceanic basins were simply sunken continents. This made it easy to discount Wegener's fossil evidence because the animals could have simply crossed over land at one time, according to this idea. The cooling and contracting seemed to account for mountain ranges as well, although one of the flaws of this was that it was already known that mountains varied considerably in age.  \n\nIn 1908 another scientist Frank Taylor presented a paper to the Geological Society of America that suggested that continents were moving away from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and suggested the ridge was stationary. His ideas were generally ignored or opposed, and only 18 months later Wegener proposed a very similar hypothesis.  \n\n\nMax Planck, (who was not involved in the debate over continental drift as far as I know) said this about the way scientific paradigms change:\n\n"An important scientific innovation rarely makes its way by gradually winning over and converting its opponents [...] What does happen is that its opponents gradually die out, and that the growing generation is familiarised with the idea from the beginning."
1025704
Plate tectonics (from the Greek word for "one who constructs and destroys", τεκτων, tektōn) is a theory of geology developed to explain the phenomenon of continental drift and is currently the theory accepted by the vast majority of scientists working in this area. In the theory of plate tectonics the outermost part of the Earth's interior is made up of two layers: the lithosphere comprising the crust and the solidified uppermost part of the mantle. Below the lithosphere lies the asthenosphere which comprises the inner viscous part of the mantle. The mantle behaves like a superheated and extremely viscous liquid.
122544
a traducir esta respuesta al español vaya a:\nhttp://babelfish.altavista.com/\n\nContinental drift is now referred to as Plate Tectonics. It is a well proven theory with multiple sets of observations that demonstrate that it is taking place today as you read this. The recent tsunami in Indonesia was an indirect result of plate tectonic movement that is taking place on the earth continuously. The Pacific Ocean is currently spreading by about 4 centimeters each year (about 2 inches). \n\nIf you examine the outline of many continents you will be able to see similarities in the shape, much like jigsaw puzzle parts that are not connected. South American and Africa are a good example of this. One interesting form of proof of the spreading that split South American away from Africa are oil reservoirs in West Africa and Brazil that have oil that is chemically and biologically identical. (All petroleum can be identified using special biomarkers and analyses as unique to its own source)  Since there is no way they could have migrated through the earth to these widespread locations, that oil must have been formed while Africa and South America were still connected. There are many more examples of biological organisms that are found on widely separated continents that are related. Another great example of this is that fossils found on Antarctica that come from tropical plants and wood show that that continent was once near the equator. Similar things can be found in northern Siberia, and northern Canada and Alaska. \n\nOther examples of this process and the jig-saw puzzle like pieces that have come together are many mountain ranges. In the high Sierra Mountains, above 10,000 ft elevations are deposits of marine limestone (now marble) that were once reefs on islands in the ocean we now call the Pacific Ocean. \n\nOver the past 250 million years a supercontinent called Pangaea has spread apart to the continents we know today. You can see a good illustration of this at \nhttp://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Pangea/Pangea4.html\nThat site has some good diagrams of Pangaea and how it has broken up and the plates have moved. It also explains the mechanism. \nHere is an animated version that shows the breakup:\nhttp://www.scotese.com/sfsanim.htm\n\nPrior to Pangaea, there was another supercontinent called Gondwana and another supercontinent called Laurasia combined with Gondwana to form Pangaea. Prior to the consolidation of Gondwana was another supercontinent called Rodinia. This supercontinent formation is apparently and hypothetically a cycle that the planet completes every few hundred million years, moving continents, building mountain ranges, and rifting other continents apart creating new oceans. \nOne of the best web sites on the internet that shows the various stages of the planet's plate tectonics is the Paleomap Project here:\nhttp://www.scotese.com/earth.htm\n Here is an illustration of Rodinia\nhttp://www.scotese.com/earth.htm\n Here is an illustration of Rodinia\nhttp://www.scotese.com/Rodinia3.htm\n\nSource(s):\n\nI'm a geologist.
724538
Oceanic crust is fundamentaly different from Continental because of its origin.  Oceanic crust is formed as the continents move apart and new 'material' is forced between the plates.  You may have seen the video of lava being extruded at the bottom of the ocean 'toothpaste style'.  This forms round lumps of 'pillow lava' which have no crystals (because it cooled very quickly the crystals don't have time to form).  Below this you'll see the same material (chemically) but which forms columns of basalt (like Giant's causeway in Ireland) as it cooled slower.  Below this is the layered basalts which will form a much more massive block of basalt.  Below this is peridotite.\nChemically speaking oceanic material is basaltic whereas continental is granitic.\nContinental volcanic rocks are a lot less systematic in structure as they just intrude through thick layers of other material although they'll generally have larger crystals and will be lighter in colour.  \nBecause of their increased silica content they're more explosive and so this will be seen by the steeper sides of the volcanoes, pumice (solidified ash), etc.
446224
The basic idea is that the earth's land mass was unified hundreds of millions of years ago, but has been gradually pulling apart since then.\nAnd large land masses are resting on huge plates. The plates bump against each other, and when one of them shifts,\nyou have an earthquake.\nThink of it like a jigsaw puzzle, but with continent-sized pieces.\n\nFor lots of pictures of plates, and faults, visit here:\nhttp://www.seismo.unr.edu/ftp/pub/louie/class/100/plate-tectonics.html
640818
Pangaea is the theorized supercontinent that existed eons ago when the earth was much newer. Pangaea broke apart, and over the eons, continental drift due to tectonic plate activity has resulted in the current alignment of the continents.\n\nBut if you piece together the current continents, kind of like a jigsaw puzzle, you can get an idea of what Pangaea may have looked like.
313051
Early speculation proposed that the Moon broke off from the Earth's crust due to centrifugal force, leaving an ocean basin (presumed to be the Pacific) behind as a scar. This concept requires too great an initial spin of the Earth and the presumption of a Pacific origin is not compatible with the geological standard model, the theory of plate tectonics. Others speculated the Moon formed elsewhere and was captured into its orbit. Two of the other theories include the coformation or condensation theory and the impact theory, which speculates that the Moon formed from the debris that resulted from a collision between the early Earth and a planetesimal.\n\nThe coformation or condensation hypothesis posits that the Earth and the Moon formed together at about the same time from the primordial accretion disk, the Moon forming from material surrounding the coalescing proto-Earth, similar to the way the planets formed around the Sun. Some suggest that this hypothesis fails to adequately explain the depletion of iron in the Moon.\n\nRecently, the giant impact hypothesis has been considered a more viable scientific theory for the moon's origin than the coformation or condensation theory. The Giant Impact theory holds that the Moon formed from the ejecta resulting from a collision between a very early, semi-molten Earth and a planet-like object the size of Mars, which has been referred to as Theia or Orpheus. The material ejected from this impact would have gathered in orbit around Earth and formed the Moon. This hypothesis is bolstered by two main observations: First, the composition of the Moon resembles that of Earth's crust, whereas it has relatively few heavy elements that would have been present if it formed by itself out of the same material from which Earth formed. Second, through radiometric dating, it has been determined that the Moon's crust formed between 20 and 30 million years after that of Earth, despite its smallness and associated larger loss of internal heat.\n\nThe geological epochs of the Moon are defined based on the dating of various significant impact events in the Moon's history. Analysis of craters and Moon rocks show that there was a late heavy bombardment by asteroids around the period 4.0 to 3.8 billion years ago.\n\nTidal forces deformed the once molten Moon into an ellipsoid, with the major axis pointed towards Earth.\n\nIn 2005, a team of scientists from Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland measured the Moon's age at 4.527 ± 0.010 billion years, which would imply that it was formed only 30–50 million years after the origin of the solar system.[4]
63495
Techtonic scientist who study continental drift (which is ongoing) believe that at one time long ago almost all land masses were collected into a huge circle called Pangea (meaning all land).  When it split up to drift into present locations it was probably pure coincidence why pointy parts of land masses pointed one way rather than another.  My pet theory is that luna tides (that affect the oceans and earth's crust) may have biased the direction of "cracks" in the land masses, but perhaps I'm just a luna-tick.  Incidentally the term lunatic originally applied to scientists who met once a month when they could travel at night with the aid of the light of a full moon.
58110
It is quite simple really. There is no 'theory' as some of the posts have indicated. The earth is composed of a number of large plates, which move constantly (the Pacific Ocean today is spreading at 4-5 cm per year). As these plates move, they sometimes slide under one another. As this happens, the upper plate is lifted. This moves rock that was deposited in an ocean environment slowly upwards and often to the top of mountains. The process takes millions of years, so it is likely the rocks that contain the shells on the top of the mountain your husband refers to are tens of millions of years old, or older. \n\nA perfect example is Mount Everest, which has carbonate rocks (with shells) at the peak. Other examples are many parts of the Rocky Mountains in North America, and the Alps in Europe. The Sierra's in California also contain carbonate rocks in many places that did in fact originate in what is now the Pacific Ocean. It is not rare and not mysterious or theoretical. \n\nThe names of these processes, in case you want to learn more, are plate tectonics (previously called continental drift), subduction (one plate under another), orogeny (mountain building), and carbonate sedimentology( deposition of carbonate rocks).  I'm including some links with basic explanation of the concepts. \n\nAnimated illustrations of plate tectonics:\nhttp://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/tectonics.html\n\nIllustration of subduction:\nhttp://www.platetectonics.com/book/page_12.asp\n\nOrogeny:\nhttp://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/platetec/orogeny.htm\n\nCarbonate sedimentology (great pictures of carbonates in mountains (sea shells):http://epswww.unm.edu/sed/home.htm\nOther carbonate sedimentology links:\nhttp://www.unige.ch/sciences/terre/geologie/w_groups/carbonate_sedimentology/webmain.html\n\nIf you want to see my explanation for how sea shells form in the ocean go to this question:\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiyMjODIRNiCqQ3uGA0_ICPsy6IX?qid=1006011004317
124708
I like this site for looking at where the continents were at different times as the forces of plate tectonics (continental drift) occured.\nhttp://www.scotese.com/earth.htm\n\n50MYA: http://www.scotese.com/newpage9.htm\n150MYA: http://www.scotese.com/late1.htm\n\nThey even project into the 250MY into the future:\nhttp://www.scotese.com/future2.htm\n\nThey also animate the movement of the plates:\nhttp://www.scotese.com/newpage13.htm