he didn't have anything to prove
It is generally thought to support the Theory of Evolution.
eruptions of molten material, magnetic stripes in the rock of the ocean floor, and the ages of the rocks themselves
The public, due mostly to religious reasons, was not ready for any transmutational theory and Lamarck's theory had no evidence to support it thus scientists of the time did not pay it much attention. Also Cuvier was Lamarck's enemy and denigrated the theory Lamarck developed.
Morphological evidence.Genetic and genomic evidence.Geographical evidence.
Volcanoes are still erupting today. :)
Arthur Holmes theory was that the mantle under goes thermal convection.
1928
Arthur Holmes i believe.
A hypothesis is a statement of theory. Something that is unproven. You gather evidence to support that theory. Gather enough evidence to support and a theory becomes accepted as fact.
Fossils support his hypothesis.
Arthur Holmes 1928 theory described plate tectonics and a modern view of the solid Earth. He pioneered the use of radioactive dating of minerals, and understood the mechanical and thermal implications of mantle convection, which was a basis for plate tectonics.
Many lines of converging evidence.
yes
democritus
In the 1960's scientists uncovered new evidence that seemed to support Wegener's theory.
No. There is no scientific evidence to support this theory.
A conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it at all.