LG: To understand how scientific evidence supports the ideas of continental drift and plate tectonics What do we know about Plate Tectonics? Plate Tectonics Plate tectonics was originally considered before the 20th century. A theory was proposed but scientists were quick to say it was wrong. It was not until the 1950s that evidence began to partially support the theory and continuing examination of evidence developed further understanding of the processes involved. Plate Tectonics The theory states that Earth's outermost layer, the lithosphere, is broken into 7 large, rigid pieces called plates: the African, North American, South American, Eurasian, Australian, Antarctic, and Pacific plates. Several minor plates also exist, including the Arabian, Nazca, and Philippines plates. Major Tectonic Plates of the World Alfred Wegener A German scientist In 1915 suggested that Africa, South America, Australia, Antarctica and India were joined 200 million years ago to form the supercontinent Pangaea His hypothesis was called continental drift Wegener’s Theory Video time (4mins) Questions What was the ‘supercontinent’ called and what did it break up into? Alfred Wegener’s idea of continental drift was not taken very seriously at the time. Why not? What would you say to Wegener about his theory if he was still alive today? Pangaea From Greek: pan meaning “all, whole” Gaia meaning “Earth, land” Wegener used 3 types of evidence to prove his theory! 1.Evidence from landforms 2.Evidence from fossils 3.Evidence from climate Evidence from landforms The shapes of the continents seemed to fit together. Mountain ranges and other features also lined up. Evidencefrom landforms The ‘jig-saw’ puzzle Evidence from landforms The ‘jig-saw’ puzzle Evidence from landforms The ‘jig-saw’ puzzle Evidence from Fossils Glossopteris: a fern Fossils from one continent matched fossils from other continents. Wegener used both plant and animal fossils. found on the southern continents Mesosaurus: a freshwater swimming reptile found in Africa and South America Evidence from Fossils fossil matches Evidence from Fossils fossil matches Evidence from Climate Wegener looked at certain areas on Earth and their climates He noted that the fossils he found on certain sections of Earth did not match the current climate Glacier scratches in S. Africa Evidence from Climate Antarctic ice Evidence from Climate Ice could not have extended this far. So...continents MUST have moved.. Continental Drift Theory At first nobody believed Alfred Wegener’s theory….. WHY YOU ASK! He could not prove how or why the continents moved. Drift away Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw." Alfred Wegener. The Origins of Continents and Oceans (4th edition) Activity Time 1. Follow the instructions on the information page for colouring the right areas in the right colours. 2. Cut out each of the continents along the edge of the continental shelf (the outermost dark line). Alfred Wegener's evidence for continental drift is shown on the cut-outs. Wegener used this evidence to reconstruct the positions of the continents relative to each other in the distant past. 3. Try to logically piece the continents together so that they form a giant supercontinent. 4. When you are satisfied with the fit of the continents, glue them into your book (along with the information page). Discuss with your partner your choices in placement of each piece based on the evidence and decide if the evidence is compelling or not. Explain your decision and reasoning on the evidence. Newer Evidence Wegener’s continental drift idea was not well accepted because few scientist were convinced there was enough evidence to support it In the 1950s two American scientists, Maurice Ewing and Marie Tharp, used new technology called echo-sounding to map the depths of parts of the Atlantic Ocean In the middle of the ocean they found a mountain range (called the Mid-Atlantic Ridge), in the middle of the ridge Tharp discovered a deep trench Mid-Atlantic Ridge Newer Evidence Rock samples were taken from the trench and found to be much younger than those further away from the trench They also found that the temperature of the water was eight times higher along the ridge than anywhere else From these two observations Ewing inferred that at the Mid-Atlantic Ridge new rocks are being made as hot material rises from the Earth’s mantle and pushes the older rocks away from the ridge line Newer Evidence The idea of new rocks created a dilemma because the Earth is not getting any bigger Just as the crust under the oceans is created along oceanic ridges, somewhere else it must be destroyed If one plate rides over the top of another plate, the bottom plate sinks into the semi-solid material beneath it and is destroyed. This process is called subduction Newer Evidence Further Evidence If the crust is being created and destroyed, then the crust should not be as old as the Earth itself. This was found to be the case. The oldest rocks on the ocean floor are only 180 million years old, less than the estimated age of the Earth (4.6 billion years) Questions How do mid-ocean ridges provide evidence to support the theory of plate tectonics? The rocks on the Earth are much younger than the Earth itself. How does this observation support the theory of plate tectonics? If the Earth’s crust isn’t getting bigger, how is crust disappearing? Tectonic Plates http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrKTuCDierM (27mins)