|WikiProject Geology||(Rated B-class, High-importance)|
|It is requested that a geological diagram or diagrams be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.
|It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.|
- 1 dates
- 2 image
- 3 Copywrite violations
- 4 Columbia
- 5 Rodinia and Urantia?
- 6 Clarification required
- 7 map
- 8 Amazonia
- 9 laurasia + gondwana = rodinia?
- 10 File:SnowballGeography.gif
- 11 Map
- 12 I think this article was in the news recently, didn't they find some old rocks linking texas to siberia?
- 13 Paleogeographic reconstructions
- 14 BBC news story
- 15 Naming
- 16 Rodinia has entered popular consciousness as one of the two great supercontinents
That's a great picture of the Rodinia breakup. But, where did it come from? Need source info and any copyright status on the image page.
This picture is the least of our worries.
This article is a direct copy of the answers.com article. --Mijokijo 18:16, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- No. Check the bottom of that page and you will find the following: This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer). Also the copyright note at the very bottom. Vsmith 23:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
- Ah, didn't look close enough. My bad.
- As for the picture, it seems to come from http://www.geology.uiuc.edu/~burmeist/edu/norway.html All the other pictures seem to be made by the same person, --Mijokijo 17:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
The article states that Rodinia is the oldest supercontinent. What about the Columbia (supercontinent) entry? The Columbia article has no supporting links; is Columbia a reasonably accepted scientific hypothesis?
- The article says that Rodinia is the "oldest-known", which should be taken to mean the oldest for which there is widespread acceptance in the field. There have been other, earlier pre-Cambrian supercontinents proposed, none of which (owing chiefly to a paucity of surviving data after so long a period) are widely agreed upon- these remain hypotheses only with scant evidence indeed. Presumably Columbia is one such proposal.--cjllw | TALK 01:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- I still do not see any connection between the Rodinia supercontinent and The Urantia Book, a spiritual and philosophical book that discusses God, science, religion, history, philosophy, and destiny (this is where Urantia is redirected). Could you please explain it here before reverting me again? Thanks in advance. --Friendly Neighbour 06:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
McMenamin, Mark A. S. (1998) Discovering the First Complex Life: The Garden of Ediacara. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
marine life … [with] the further separation of the landmasses and, in consequence, a further extension of the continental seas … these inland seas of olden times were truly the cradle of evolution. -The Urantia Book3
--(McMenamin 1998: 173)
The last quotation in this chapter's epigraph describes the Proterozoic breakup of the supercontinent Rodinia. This amazing passage, written in the 1930s, anticipates scientific results that did not actually appear in the scientific literature until many decades later. This unusual source is The Urantia Book.4 The name Urantia refers to planet Earth. (McMenamin 1998: 173)
The comments concerning Rodinia's breakup and its influence on animal evolution are found in part III, "The History of Urantia" in The Urantia Book.." (McMenamin 1998: 174)
..... the anonymous members of the Urantia Corps hit on some remarkable scientific revelations in the mid-1930s. They embraced continental drift at a time when it was decidedly out of vogue in the scientific community. They recognized the presence of a global supercontinent (Rodinia) and superocean (Mirovia), in existence on earth before Pangea. From The Urantia Book:
1,000,000,000 years ago … [t]he first continental land mass emerged from the world ocean…. 950,000,000 [years ago] … presents the picture of one great continent of land and one large body of water, the Pacific Ocean.6
800,000,000 years ago … Europe and Africa began to rise out of the Pacific depths along with those masses now called Australia, North and South America, and the continent of Antarctica, while the bed of the Pacific Ocean engaged in a further compensatory sinking adjustment. By the
� McMenamin, Mark A. S. (1998) Discovering the First Complex Life: The Garden of Ediacara. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
end of this period almost one third of the earth’s surface consisted of land, all in one continental body.7
.... the concept of a billion-year-old supercontinent (the currently accepted age for the formation of Rodinia) that subsequently split apart, forming gradually widening ocean basins in which early marine life flourished, is unquestionably present in this book. (McMenamin 1998: 174)
Orthodox scientific arguments for such a proposal did not appear until the late 1960s, and a pre-Pangea supercontinent was never described until Valentine and Moores made the attempt in 1970. The Urantia Corps not only had the age of the formation of Rodinia approximately correct at 1 billion years, but they also were first to link breakup of Rodinia to the emergence of animals (even if the mode of appearance was implantation by extraterrestrials). Furthermore, they even got the timing of that approximately correct at 650 to 600 million years ago ("These inland seas of olden times were truly the cradle of evolution").8 (McMenamin 1998: 174-175)
Assuming for the moment that space voyagers are not responsible for life’s origin and history on this planet, one wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed. The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of Wegener’s ideas on continental drift. Perhaps he or she was, or had contact with, an expatriate from Nazi Germany. Whatever the identity of the author, this person proceeded to speculate about the relationship between evolutionary change and the breakup of a Proterozoic supercontinent in an exceptionally fruitful way. Perhaps this was because the thought and the writing of this person were not fettered by the normal constraints of the (too often highly politicized) scientific review process. (McMenamin 1998: 175-176)
Cases such as this one (which is by no means unique) are an exercise in humility for me as a scientist. How can it be that discovery of Rodinia, plus a fairly sophisticated rendering of the evolutionary implications of the rifting of Rodinia, falls to an anonymous author engaging in a work of religious revelation decades before scientists find out anything about the subject? Perhaps this is an important aspect of religion-a creative denial of certain aspects of reality in order to access a deeper truth. (McMenamin 1998: 176)
I am not advocating an abandonment of a disciplined scientific peer review process, but I can’t help but wonder whether science would benefit by having scientists themselves or friends of science systematically scan the various nonscientific literatures for writings such as those appearing in The Urantia Book. Scientists would ordinarily ignore and dismiss such writings, but a discerning eye might pick up some gems. (McMenamin 1998: 176)
The concept of Rodinia therefore has a shockingly unexpected intellectual pedigree. When does the concept finally enter the conventional scientific channels? In articles published in the early 1970s, James W. Valentine and Eldridge M. Moores traced the geological history of the continents and spoke of a Precambrian supercontinent.10 This continent was subsequently called proto-Pangea, pre-Pangea, Pangea I, the Late Proterozoic Supercontinent, ur-Pangea, or simply the Precambrian supercontinent. While writing The Emergence of Animals, Dianna McMenamin and I grew weary of these cumbersome names and proposed the name Rodinia for the ancient supercontinent. The corresponding superocean also needed a name, and we decided to call it Mirovia. Here is the key passage from Emergence of Animals11:
Mirovia is derived from the Russian word mirovoi meaning "world or global," and, indeed, this ocean was global in nature. Rodinia comes from the infinitive rodit, which means "to beget" or "to grow." Rodinia begot all subsequent continents, and the edges (continental shelves) of Rodinia were the cradle of the earliest animals.
Curiously, The Urantia Book also refers to Mirovia, the "world ocean."12 Here are my notes regarding the name from p. 17 of my 1987 composition notebook:
5/12/87 This book would be a good opportunity to "name" "paleo-Pangaea" and "proto- Panthallasa" Majeston 15:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- I won't revert the link as I do not like revert wars but I would like to see some opinions of other editors. --Friendly Neighbour 20:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- Do we really need to quote all of McMenamin's chapter 8? The most significant quote is: Of course I am being selective here in my choice of quotations, and there are reams of scientifically untenable material in The Urantia Book. Quite simply, McMenamin blew it with that speculative bit - no clue why he decided to promote some new age religious nonsense in what was supposedly a serious popular account of Ediacaran fauna. See a review here. Whatever, we surely don't need to hype that religion or pseudoscience stuff in a geology article. Vsmith 01:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually the more significient quote from Mcmenamin is: " one wonders how the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed. The anonymous authors responsible for the critical part of section 3 evidently possessed a high level of geological training, and while writing in the 1930s must have known of Wegener’s ideas on continental drift. " VSmith rather than having a "discerning eye" as McMenamin exhibits perfers to impede serious scientific discovery and recognition by promoting personal bias and ignorance.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Majeston (talk • contribs).
- There is nothing personal or biased in opposing mixing science with religion. One is the sum of knowledge, the other is a system of beliefs. --Friendly Neighbour 06:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any evidence here of anyone "HYPING THAT RELIGION" or mixing science with religion. What I do see is "the Urantia Book authors arrived at the concept of a Proterozoic supercontinent, and the link between breakup of this supercontinent and the emergence of complex life in the ensuing rift oceans, 30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed."(McMenamin 1998: 174) Majeston 16:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
- So perhaps one of those mysterious unknown uratian authors read something written by A. Holmes or another geologist who kept trying to fit the accumulating data to the theory of continental drift during the period of time when most geologists were ignoring it. So what? The urantia book remains a religious or speculative narrative with no scientific credibility and that just happened to get one bit more or less right. There remains no reason to link a science article to it even if McMenamin cited it in awe and wonder - he simply overstated the case and his credibility in the science community may have suffered from it (judging by published reviews). Sorry 'bout impede(ing) serious scientific discovery and promoting personal bias and ignorance - please read WP:NPA. Vsmith 02:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
So What ??? SO Perhaps ???? May Have ????? It might be nice if you even knew what you were talking about. "30 years before most geologists accepted continental drift and nearly four decades before scientists had any inkling that Rodinia existed." Majeston 16:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Section: Geodynamics->Influence on paleoclimate and life Paragraph 3 "Low temperatures may have been exaggerated during the early stages of continental rifting."
Is this supposed to mean that we may have exaggerated the lowness of temperatures &c. or is the writer trying to say that low temperature predominated?
Here's a piece of information I can't seem to find anywhere: What modern day landmass does Amazonia correspond to? If someone could add this information to the Wikipedia article, that would be great, because I'm probably not the only one that's curious about that. Maurajbo (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
- The Amazonian craton corresponds to the northeastern part of South America (I think most of northern Brazil, French Guyana, Surinam and Venezuela). The information should be included in the article about the craton, which doesn't exist yet. Woodwalker (talk) 20:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
laurasia + gondwana = rodinia?
people wonder how geologists could have doubted that south america and africa were once a single land mass when the fit is so obvious. if you recreate gondwana by putting the south end of south america into the slot formed by the wendell sea and the ronne ice shelf then an even more impressive fit exists between the west coast of north america and the west coast of gondwana. alaska fits nicely into the slot formed by the ross ice shelf and mexico curls up nicely against peru.
just-emery (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- This doesn't work this way. West Antarctica is an older craton, East Antarctica is a patch work and West North America is an accretionary belt. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 20:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
- Zandt, George (Spring 2002). "Orogenic Systems: The Andes". University of Arizona.
- You see here better ;) --Chris.urs-o (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
File:SnowballGeography.gif is a fair use image, and so must be accompanied by a fair use rationale for every article it is used in. The image page currently includes a fair use rationale for one or more other articles that use this image, but there is no rationale provided for its use in this article. If a valid fair use rationale is not provided shortly, the image must be removed from this article. Thryduulf (talk) 14:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
This section needs to be more specific on what continents formed Rodinia. There is no mention of Arctica for example. It just uses terms like North American craton, East European craton, Amazonian craton, West African craton, Rio de la Plata craton, São Francisco craton, Congo craton, Kalahari craton, North China craton and South China craton. Volcanoguy 20:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
BBC news story
- I've found a citation for that and added it to the article. Mikenorton (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Rodinia has entered popular consciousness as one of the two great supercontinents
- "Rodinia has entered popular consciousness as one of the two great supercontinents of earth history, the other being Pangaea."
The existence of Pannotia and Columbia are fairly well established at this point. Other more speculative supercontinents have been proposed as well. None of them cut the mustard in terms of sheer greatness? I think it's misleading to claim that any of the supercontinents have "entered popular consciousness." At very most, you might be able to make this claim for Pangaea, home of the dinosaurs. H. Humbert (talk) 03:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. I removed the following from the page:
|“||Rodinia has entered popular consciousness as one of the two great supercontinents of earth history, the other being Pangaea.||”|