Tropical fossils are being found in areas prone to artic animals now and artic fossils are being found in tropical places.
You can't prove a negative with direct evidence.
There is no direct proof. But there is evidence best explained by Pangaea having existed. This is the case with a lot of science, and looking for proof is not a very productive way to proceed. Proof works well only in mathematics.
Pangaea was a large super-continent that existed millions of years ago.
Scientists believe there were several other supercontinents before Pangaea.
Pangaea was a supercontinent that existed during the late Paleozoic and early Mesozoic eras .
You can't prove a negative with direct evidence.
there was evidence of Pangaea because south America and Africa fit together as a puzzle and there are two of the same fossils are found in that continent
No,because geologist have evidence that,before Pangaea existed, other supercontinents formed and split apart over billions of years. And the answer is right because i took it out of the Science book!!
the name of the continent that existed 225 million years ago was pangaea
it may be pangaea
They weren't called anything. When Pangaea existed there were no people around to form countries or name anything.
There is no direct proof. But there is evidence best explained by Pangaea having existed. This is the case with a lot of science, and looking for proof is not a very productive way to proceed. Proof works well only in mathematics.
no
Pangaea existed from about 250 to 175 million years ago.
Pangaea was a large super-continent that existed millions of years ago.
Pangaea existed from about 250 to 175 million years ago.
Plate tectonics led to the theory of Pangaea.