• Bombastion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    1 year ago

    Darwin believed one of the more popular explanations of his time: expanding Earth theory. Basically, the planet was like an expanding dough ball. It decently explained why things looked like they fit together. Darwin even went out to Patagonia to investigate some cliffs, and basically “confirmed” the theory.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      So Darwin was trying to explain how creatures with common lineage appeared both sides of an ocean. He “proved” that the land masses were once joined. He didn’t really care so much about “how” they were joined, but it was vital to his theory of evolution that they were.

      • Bombastion@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh, definitely. It’s also worth noting that he definitely wasn’t a geologist, despite having an interest in it. I was mostly just mentioning it because there were theories trying to explain the similarities across landmasses before plate tectonics. We may not always be right about why, but we’re really good at noticing stuff like that (even when it doesn’t mean anything).

    • Gamma@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      That theory sounds bad, like the opposite problem we’ve currently got. Eventually it’d turn into mad max

  • GluWu@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    1 year ago

    Using our understanding of the fundamental elements and atomic particles, we can create weapons capable of destroying the entire earth.

    How was earth made though?

    Fuck, we don’t know. We’ll stick with God.

    • bunnygirl [she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      ehhh, the modern inception of the idea was Wegener in the 1910s, but it had no real mechanism for it.

      it really wasn’t until the 60s that it had been solidified into a single theory with strong evidence behind it and became widely accepted

  • JoYo 🇺🇸@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    bro, you dont need to post screenshots of twitter. just steal the post, no one cares.

  • ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    People only figured out the mechanics of plate tectonics relatively recently. However, they started noticing that the continents looked like they had fit together as soon as they had accurate maps to look at. In the late 1500’s

    Abraham Ortelius in his work Thesaurus Geographicus … suggested that the Americas were “torn away from Europe and Africa … by earthquakes and floods” and went on to say: “The vestiges of the rupture reveal themselves, if someone brings forward a map of the world and considers carefully the coasts of the three [continents].”

    Wikipedia link.

    • modeler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Exactly!

      While the continents might look like they fit together, and the rock types and ages and fossils match at key points all down the coasts from Canada/Scotland all the way down to South America and South Africa, how on earth (sorry) would you explain how the continents are thousands of miles apart?

      One theory posited the earth spinning so fast centrifugal forces ripped ehat would become the moon out of the Pacific, sucking Eurasia and America into the void.

      That’s a Randall Monroe WhatIf if ever I saw one. Think of the energy involved! All life on earth would be extinct.

      So these theories were laughed out of scientific court. Until Vine and Matthew’s seminal paper on magnetic stripes being mirrored over the mid ocean ridge showed there had to be something forcing the plates apart.

  • Tattorack@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m really bothered by this line of thinking.

    Just because something “looks” like it is a certain way doesn’t mean it is. For anything to be considered fact there needs to be evidence. The hypothesis that the Earth may have plate tectonics existed decades before it became fact.

    This leads people to make connections between completely unrelated things, despite scientists, or professionals working in fields of science (i.e. doctors), saying, and often proving, there is none.

  • KoalaUnknown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Alfred Wagner proposed the idea of plate tectonics decades before this, citing the fit of the continents, the same species of plants and animals on continents separated by ocean, and glacial striations as evidence. The problem was that no one knew HOW the plates separated.

    • geogle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      He actually described the continents as scraping across an ancient and immobile seafloor. This was deemed mechanically implausible and contributed greatly to the rejection of Continental Drift. If Al stuck with his detailed phenomenological approach, there may have been wider adoption of his detailed and careful observations.

        • geogle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, am geophysicist for 20+ years, and I teach this stuff, but the best source I remember reading is “The Rejection of Continental Drift: Theory and Method in American Earth Science” by Naomi Oreskes.

  • TruthAintEasy@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is why when people laugh at me for saying things like trees have concsiousness, and are kinda racist, I dont care. Science needs to catch up to intuition sometimes and Im not good at math so Im not going to be able to prove that tree’s have a rudimentary form of cognition and intention.

    Anyways, someone else already proved trees make decisions, cant remember where I read it but a big oak will feed baby oaks via root contact, and will feed certain other trees too, but not as much, because it favours its own species.