Who believes in The Pangeae Theory? What do you think the world would be like if all the continents were one?

I dont know why would would have any reason not to believe this….. There is quite a bit of supporting evidence. Pangaea also isnt the only time that all the worlds continents were united.

I think maybe if humanity evolved with there being one super continent things may have turned out better, but there also would have been less cultural diversity I think. If something like this were to suddenly happen over night (yes i know, impossible) I think it would be hell.

I believe it. I have no reason not to.
Tectonic plates are fact. Movement of the continents is fact. The increasing size of the Atlantic ocean is fact.
If you progress through time and see that the Atlantic is increasing, then it logically follows that if you digress through time, you will see the Atlantic decreasing. If the earth was infinitely old, then it would certainly follow that at some point in time, the Atlantic would’ve not existed.
But I understand how someone could doubt, thinking that the Atlantic ocean has always existed, just that it was much smaller at one point.

This is where fossil records come in. There are fossils found in places where, if continents were aligned like they are now, would’ve been impossible. For example, there is the Mesosaurus which has been found in southern Africa as as well as southern South America. There are tons of examples like this that you can find if you dig (pardon the pun).
There’s also paleomagnetism to consider. The history of the magnetic field in certain materials, which will signify that the rocks had been in different orientation throughout the history of the Earth.

What do I think it would be like to have a single supercontinent?
Terrible.
We would have a single coastline. Anything in the center of Pangaea wouldn’t have much for water sources. Places that are further away from coastlines have more extreme weather, hotter hots and colder colds.
Given the opportunity, I’d choose not to live in a supercontinent.

As a thought experiment let’s assume the scientific evidence of continental drift is bogus. And we must also ignore all the earthquakes and volcanoes.along tectonic plate lines, etc.

OK Poof! There is one big continent.
-There would be no large earthquakes.or volcanes to explain.
-Fewer shamans needed to tell why some things happen. Religion would be different.
-Biodiversity goes down. It is isolation and the response to environment that breeds diversity.
-With no natural barriers, diseases would spread more quickly and uniformly.
-There is much less coast line so there would be less reliance on fishing an more on farming.

Um, what? Does your question mean that you believe it to be untrue?

The evidence for plate tectonics is so strong that it would be delusional not to believe in Pangaea.

I don’t think there’s any way to judge whether the world would be “better or worse.” We might be able to say how things would be different.

For example, the position of the continents has shaped the evolution of life. The reason Australia has so many unique marsupials (kangeroos, koala, etc) is because Australia is separated from the other continents. On the rest of the world, placental mammals dominate. If Australia was connected to the other continents, it wouldn’t have such a vastly different set of animals.

Human culture would probably evolve on a different trajectory, too. In the real world, humans didn’t spread out too evenly, largely because the continents are separated. A few humans trickled from Asia into the Americas about 10,000–20,000 years ago, and their descendents quickly became a wave of settlers, the native Americans. Their culture developed separately from European/Asian/African culture. Then, thousands of years later, a trickle of Europeans came to the Americas, which then became a wave that completely engulfed the native American cultures. If all the continents were connected, such sudden migration events (and cultural takeovers) might not have happened. Cultures may have developed and engulfed each other more gradually.

I think our history would have been filled with more wars if there was only one continent for all humanity. We would not have had larger bodies of water as a barrier between us. I suspect there would have been waves of conquest that might have gone from coast to coast, kind of like the wars in Asia.

As a result, I suspect that technological development would have gone either faster or slower. Slower because all resources are devoted to defense or offense, and research institutes are constantly being destroyed. Faster because the demands for ever better weapons would mean that more resources are spent on military research.

As a result, the military folk in each competing group would have much higher status. Most states would be run by military folks. Democracy would never have developed. We would have two classes of people in most places—the military and the peasants. Most families and schools would be organized on very strict bases, but school would be reserved for only those who passed the test to get in—kind of like in China.

Eventually, one of the nations would achieve pre-eminence for a longer period of time. I don’t know if that would have happened by now, or not. At this point, a lot of internal struggles would occur as people sought more freedom and to create more wealth. Slowly, the military government would let there be more freedom but development would always be much slower than in our world.

So there you have it. Anyone want to move to Pangaea?

Plate tectonics is not a matter of belief, it is a matter of accepting fact or covering your ears and shouting “la la la”.

If all the continents were one today, I think we wouldn’t have depleted our stocks of fish so quickly, people would be more concerned about overpopulation, countries would put more money into border defence, and beach-front houses would be even more expensive.

@syz i believe it’s absolutely true.

it’d be easier to get places, and i’d travel a whole lot more…animals would be able to travel as well so it’d be nice to see more birds here

@Mom2BDec2010 Why bring belief into it? Why not always remain skeptical? That way, if new evidence is found that does not support the hypothesis, you can be ready to change to a theory that better fits the evidence.

Science does not require belief. In fact, belief is antithetical to science. Science requires evidence, theories to explain how the evidence fits together, and repeated testing of the theories to see if they hold up to real world actions. Belief has nothing to do with it.

Science is not about beliefs. We can support a theory or a hypothesis or not. The vast majority of reputable scientists support the well-established plate tectonics theory.