[naasking]

We would naturally just assume that the same species appearing in different places just implied that those places were closer together in the past + migration. And so we have Pangaea before continental drift.

If we lacked progenitors of those species in some places, we would just call it a temporary gap in the fossil record, of which we have many.

We're pretty good at inventing explanations. Eventually these gaps might start looking conspicuous, but I'm not sure if we're at that point yet.

[melagonster]

but we have good prove of continental drift now. before we getting enough evidences, this theory just a joke.

[naasking]

You've missed the point, because these theories are basically compatible with the existing evidence, they just tell a different story.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

I suppose a counter example would be a species found on multiple continents but during a time when they weren’t joined together. But you’re right that a natural overlap due to past plate tectonics could lead to false negatives with what I’m suggesting.

[naasking]

Right, but how could we know that they weren't joined together? We don't have DNA evidence for a lot of history so we build narratives from morphological evidence. If we find the same or similar species in two different places, we would typically just create a narrative around one of two possibilities, a) these two places were closer together at one point, or b) there was some great exodus from a common origin driven by factors unknown. The former is something like Pangaea, the latter describes human exodus from Africa.

Eventually there might be enough separate lines of evidence to refute these possibilities, but no one aside from those on the fringe would entertain the possibility that this was evidence of an advanced culture without overwhelming evidence.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

That’s a good point, I do not have a rebuttal.