Mulitregional vs Out of Africa

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:12 pm

Now that's what I call thinking ahead. Very good Cogs.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:13 pm

The expanding earth theory:

1. The earth is actually cooling so you would think it would condense.
2. Where did the water come from?
3. Why is it not expanding now?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:41 pm

First of all I don't espouse the theory. I thought it might be fun though. (We're pretty far OT anyway). But the earth does accrete between 15 and 40 thousand tons of space dust every year. I can get you the link if you want to read a lengthy PDF file.

The only one of your questions that I think I can answer is that in the remote past the earth has been bombarded with comets (giant snowballs).

But under the right conditions, water will form from just having hydrogen and oxygen atoms. They're not uncommon in the universe.

BTW - at a conservative rate (20,000 tons/yr) the earth gains 4 trillion pounds per century.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:01 pm

Beagle wrote:
But under the right conditions, water will form from just having hydrogen and oxygen atoms. They're not uncommon in the universe.

As far as I know, you can't just put the atoms together and they mate. There is a very well defined water cycle on this planet and its been active for a long time. Those early life forms supposedly evolved in seas, not puddles. The whole thing sounds 'fishy' to me. If there is any other interest to explore this, I will check tomorrow.

BTW - at a conservative rate (20,000 tons/yr) the earth gains 4 trillion pounds per century.

Really peanuts in my opinion. Again. If anyone is interested I will look tomorrow. btw one of my earlier links already refuted the expanding earth theory.

goodnight.

Cognito · Post by **Cognito** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:27 pm

Really peanuts in my opinion. Again. If anyone is interested I will look tomorrow. btw one of my earlier links already refuted the expanding earth theory.

OK, Monk. Then what do you think about the Incredible Shrinking Earth Theory?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 8:41 pm

btw one of my earlier links already refuted the expanding earth theory.

I missed that. Anyway that was just for fun.

But now - the "Shrinking Earth Theory".....

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:17 am

The cooling of the Earth's surface Monk could well be what kicked off plate tectonics. As it cooled to form a skin the surface would probably form regular polyhedrons which would have had fracture lines around the edges. Bingo! Plates are born!

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:29 am

Like pudding?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:29 am

? Pass, I'm not getting it.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:51 am

I think plate tectonics is a viable theory in principle. One thing about the plates, however. Why are there so few? There are 6 major plates and a few smaller ones. Why not lots of small ones? Or perhaps, at this point in geological time it so happens we have few plates and maybe at other times there were many, who knows?

As for plate movements, I can easily picture heat as the underlying causation. Hot mantle material would be expanding and rising (less dense) and cooler material would be sinking (more dense) and that flowing motion can drive movement at the surface although it undoubtably more complex than I describe.

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:04 am

Beagle wrote: But now - the "Shrinking Earth Theory".....

And then we can discuss the hollow earth theory.
Just think, we are talking about plate tectonics in order to explain how some monkeys got to south america. What we are demonstrating is the incredible theory of expanding rhetoric.

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 7:48 am

Great fun isn't it Monk! You don't get this in a library do you?

Forum Monk · Post by **Forum Monk** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:48 am

Yup, loads of fun; but still a nagging doubt.

How did the monkeys get to south america?

I don't buy the floated on flotsam theory, unless an entire viable troop made the trip and they had no problem adapting to the food, weather, predators (assuming they also made a similar trip) and competition (from all the other mammals that floated over).

Something is missing from the equations ladies and gentlemen. Pangea broke up 200mya, well before large mammals. 180 million years later, we find big cats on both hemispheres, monkeys on both hemispheres, similar birds on both hemispheres, various forms of similar herd animals on both hemispheres, etc. How?

Digit · Post by **Digit** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:11 am

Not all in one go Monk, it seems to have a been progessive rather than sudden. Take a look at the link I posted. Till the Drake passage opened there was no circumpolar current and antarctica is supposed to have been forested, this proposes a perfectly viable route.

Post by **Minimalist** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:16 am

How did the monkeys get to south america?

The Olmecs brought them when they sailed over from Africa?