Answer:
In the past, there were various pieces of evidence that were used to dispute the idea of continental drift, which is the theory that suggests that continents have moved over time. These pieces of evidence were put forward by scientists who did not believe in the concept of continental drift.
Step-by-step explanation:
Here are a few examples:
Lack of Mechanism: One argument against continental drift was the lack of a known mechanism that could cause the continents to move. Scientists questioned how continents, which are large land masses, could shift and change their positions without any clear explanation.
Fixed Continents: Another argument was that continents seemed to be fixed in their positions. Scientists believed that the continents were immovable and had always been in their current locations. They argued that the shapes of the continents fit together like puzzle pieces simply because they happened to look that way, not because they were once connected.
Gravitational Forces: Some scientists proposed that gravitational forces were responsible for the arrangement of continents. They suggested that the distribution of land masses on Earth was due to variations in gravity, rather than the movement of the continents themselves.
Geological Stability: The stability of the Earth's crust was also used as evidence against continental drift. Scientists believed that the Earth's crust was rigid and could not undergo significant movements or changes in shape.
However, over time, new evidence emerged, such as the discovery of mid-ocean ridges and magnetic anomalies, which supported the theory of continental drift. This led to the development of the theory of plate tectonics, which explains how the Earth's lithosphere (crust and upper mantle) is divided into several large plates that move and interact with each other, causing continental drift and other geological phenomena.