Why do you think it took so long for scientists to accept the idea of continental drift?

Answer 1

The theory of continental drift was originated by Abraham Ortelius in 1596 and further developed by Alfred Wegener, a German geophysicist and meteorologist, around 1912. The theory is supported by 3 types of physical evidence:

1. The fossils of some identical animals and plants were recovered from different continents. However scientific studies showed that these animals and plants could not have survived in all of these different climates. Some scientists objected saying that the animal or plant could have floated across the ocean to another continent. However, they were proved wrong when further research proved that the animals and plants would have dehydrated in the salt water.
2. Some mountain ranges can be connected across continents. For example, the Appalachian Mountains can be traced from as far south as Georgia, all the way to Greenland, and to the Caledonian mountains of Europe. These mountains were formed during the same geologic period and were a single mountain chain.
3. The final piece of evidence was the connection of coal fields. Some coal fields connected together so perfectly that it was undeniable that the now broken coal fields were once in a single location. For example, on the east coast of South America and the west coast of Africa there are coal fields that fit together like puzzle pieces, indicating that the Atlantic did not always separate the two.

Later corroboration of drift came with the investigation of mid-ocean ridges, which spread as the continents move apart. At the ocean borders, the heavy oceanic crust is subducted under the continental plates, which imparts motion to the continents. The theory of plate tectonics, developed in the 1950's, finally suggested what force was moving the continents around.

Answer 2

I think it took a long time for scientists to accept the idea of continental drift because:

1. typically scientists measure what is seen
2. hard to see when drift occurs far down on the ocean floor
3. theories suppose facts that often cannot be seen
4. it is hard to conceptualize (picture in your mind) something you cannot see or put your hands on
5. scientists love to build models, but how can you make a model that shows slow movement
6. like understanding river deltas, it requires looking at an outcome to theorize what happened to make that become what it is; Continental Drift can be known from its outcome, but what causes it, they'd ask
7. It's hard as a scientist to stand alone on a theory only you believe, and try to convince thousands of peer-scientists that your idea is valid.
8. Peer-scientists would have trouble replicating this-- scientists rely on replication to confirm that an idea is valid (replication means any scientists can redo the steps of an experiment or hypothesis made, and reach the same conclusion.
9. They didn't really understand tectonic plates.