Talk:Supercontinent cycle

message: I'm assuming that the author is using "4000 million years" to mean 4,000,000,000 years out of respect to the old British usage of million and billion. Most English speakers, including in the British Isles, now understand 4,000,000,000 to mean 4 billion, so I'm going to make that change. If there are a large number of people out there who feel that this would be confusing, we'll have to figure out another solution.
Farside268 00:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  4000 million years 

message: Continental climates are characterized by extremes of hot and cold - would these extremes be increased within a supercontinent? Pendragon39 07:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supercontinental climate 

message: This section is more than a tad unencyclopedic, not least because of its grammatically improper title... What may be sound paleobiology by some people's judgment, reads like unrepentant Darwinian pontification.  If this theory is so sound, its merit could be better evidenced by citation of reliable sources.  As it stands, the entire section appears to be of equal merit with speechificatory knowitallism.  Tomertalk 09:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Relation to evolution" section 

message: I seem to recall reading somewhere that the earth has passed through 3 stages. in the first stage all the continental and oceanic plates floated on an ocean of lava. in the second stage the deepest roots of the continents became grounded. we are living in the third stage where the earth is entirely solid down to the iron core. As I recall, this was presented as being important to understanding the continental cycles. just-emery (talk) 06:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three stages 

message: The text of the article states: “The previous supercontinent, Pannotia, formed about 600 million years ago, […] the supercontinent before Pannotia, Rodinia, existed ~1.1 billion to ~750 million years ago.”  But this contradicts the illustration, which places Rodinia as the immediate predecessor of Pangea. --Gro-Tsen (talk) 13:55, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that image ignores Pannotia, maybe remove the image? due to conflict with text. Vsmith (talk) 14:20, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graph contradicts article wrt age of [[Rodinia]] 

message: According to Genetic drift, which I checked when this section conflicted with my vague recollection of Origin, and appears to be a fairly clear and well-sourced explanation, genetic drift *decreases* diversity, not increases it. (Darwin predates genetic drift as a concept, but he did sort of attack this from the opposite direction: larger populations support greater diversity due to an increase in opportunity and competition, and therefore selection, effects.)
There is a more subtle point here: when a small sub-population is isolated from its parent population, genetic drift effects become more important causing diversity *within* that sub-population to decrease, that is individuals become more similar to each other over time than is the case for the larger parent population. They will also tend, as a whole, to diverge faster from the average of their parent population. So multiple small isolated populations as a result of continental rifting will end up at different points - which one might call "diversity" - but the term typically applies to variation within a population, not between populations. 86.26.14.250 (talk) 01:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Drift 

message: This sketch seems to be just a little bit _too_ simplified, being just a collage of modern shorelines of both Americas, Africa, Greenland and Europe positioned to (very roughly) resemble the shoreline of Western Pangaea. The use of modern European shoreline is especially dubious because it has formed relatively recently (no more than 50 MYA, and the modern-looking shoreline formed no more than 20 MYA, roughly the time of the collision with Indian plate) - before that Europe had used to be an archipelago of islands in the Tethys ocean. This image is not informative at all (more like confusing) and I suggest it being removed from the article. There are better depiction of Pangaea on the WikiCommons, too (e.g.). 85.140.2.15 (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, not great. I think the lead image at Pangaea is better. Maybe just use that one? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

text: I changed the image. See what you think. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Simplified sketch of the western part of Pangaea" 

message: Has the breakup of a supercontinent ever been tied to an asteroid or other Space impact? SharkD  Talk  10:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what about tidal locking with the Sun or Moon? SharkD  Talk  05:02, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Space impact & tidal locking 

message: This page gives the impression that vaalbara is a predecessor to ur and that both are compatible, but the page on ur claims that only one of them could have existed in the proposed manner.  Could someone fix this discrepancy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C780:2630:78C8:6588:39E6:CD9B (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ur and Vaalbara: Incompatible reconstructions?