The report published in the journal Science means that we need to change the pictures in our textbooks that show the ancient Earth with huge volcanoes spewing gas into the atmosphere
The gases that created the Earth's atmosphere - and probably also its oceans - did not come from within the Earth but from outer space. This is according to a joint study by scientists from the University of Manchester and the University of Houston. The article was published last week in the journal Science.
According to the group of scientists, led by Dr. Greg Holland, Dr. Martin Cassidy and Prof. Chris Ballantine, the age-old idea that volcanoes were the source of Earth's early atmosphere should disappear. The scientists used innovative analysis techniques to try to study volcanic gases but it turned out to be a bit more complicated. The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
.
"We found a clear meteorite signature in the volcanic gases," said Dr. Holland, the project's chief scientist. "From this we now know that volcanic gases did not make a significant contribution to the Earth's atmosphere. Therefore, the atmosphere and the oceans had to be formed from another source, perhaps from late bombardments of gases rich in water and other materials originating from comets because the composition of the materials is very similar to those of comets."
Until now, no one has had instruments capable of looking for these subtle signatures in samples from Earth - but now that's exactly what we've done. The techniques allowed the team to measure tiny amounts of unreactive gases originating from volcanoes and discovered traces of krypton and xenon, revealing an isotopic fingerprint consistent with that of meteors, which are different from the 'solar' gases.
The study is also the first to estimate the amount of krypton in the Earth's mantle. The project's director, Professor Chris Ballantine of the University of Manchester, said many people had seen the illustrations of the early Earth with huge volcanoes in the background spewing gas and creating the atmosphere. "We are now required to redraw the picture". Concluded.
In a publication in the December 11 Science newspaper, it is claimed that comets and meteorites brought a large part of its atmosphere to the early Earth. This claim is based on the measurement of the noble gases argon krypton and xenon in the atmosphere, compared to the gases emitted from the earth's crust.
The same claim, about the importance of comets and bringing the noble gases krypton and xenon to Earth, was already published by Tobias Owen from the University of Hawaii and Akiva Bar-Nun from Tel Aviv University in the Nature newspaper in 1992, already 17 years ago. Prof. Bar-Nun is happy that their proposal was approved so nicely.
61 תגובות
Misho, you're right, it's hard to fully understand scientific research unless you read the source itself. The purpose of the articles here, in my humble opinion, is to expose the public to scientific innovations and encourage those interested to contact the source. The articles do not pretend to replace the original. This is also the reason why, in most cases, as well as in the present article, a link to the original article is embedded. I recommended that when you see something interesting, leave all the comments, read the article itself and form your opinion based on the data and conclusions in it.
From the responses of the commenters that I read here, I allow myself to assume (and of course I may be wrong...) that any criticism that I raise before you and any reflection and appeal that I add to the quality of the aforementioned research and theory and the facts presented in it, it is likely that you will immediately encounter a seemingly intelligent and learned response from one of you who will try to defend Almost fiercely for the honor of the scientists and facts presented in the article.
I must admit that I do not fully understand the entire content of the article and I have the impression that the fact that this is a particularly unsuccessful/partial translation of the real article and research contributes to this. What I did manage to pick up, however, is the loose and shaky connections between the discoveries that the research presents to us, and its conclusions (while deliberately ignoring other possibilities). I find it hard to believe that the respected scientists responsible for the content of the study were so sloppy and I can only assume that the fact that this article was widely published does not necessarily testify to its accuracy or correctness as much as to its populist power to leverage research groups and attract financial funding.
Of course, I may be wrong, but from our experiences as a modern human society that operates thousands of research groups in the world, it is known that the vast majority of the research groups that raise hypotheses and theories, establish trending studies (and under various constraints) that do not always meet the clear criteria of the purity of science.
I think he claimed already in 1950 that the water on Earth is from an external source...
Ghost,
Hmmm... Now I also saw the link that Michael gave in response 42. You really are psychotic, regardless of whether you are a troll or not.
And regarding what I wrote before, below is response 56. Maybe a troll, maybe not. The article did not ask anyone if God created the world or not. If someone wants to claim something like that, they are welcome to do so in the comment column intended for this purpose. No one will censor. And for those who want to approach the matter, there is the "clean" comment column.
All I said was that every material has an anti-material, I don't need to be censored, I'm not cursing
What is this chatter?
God created the world, and nothing is created by itself
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth Amen!
I'm already tired of entering the article, getting to the comments section, reading the first ones on the matter while wanting to respond to one of them (as Eran M said) and then finding out that the discussion doesn't end so quickly and moreover the discussion is not just long but spoiled and despicable with little if any reference to the content of the article.
It doesn't make sense, that 90% of the discussions on the site are amazingly similar to each other and are not necessarily related to the article above them.
On the other hand, you can't let ghost-like trolls leave ideas here without comment. Therefore, perhaps the above situation is due to a lack of choice.
I would suggest something a little fanciful but maybe still: two comment threads. The right column will be dedicated to the content of the article. The left column will be defined as a sub-column which contains all the controversial topics that arise and are not directly related to the body of the article such as evolution, God and all the other recurring debates. A response that appears in the right column and essentially belongs to the sub-column will be moved to the left column by the website editor, and the writer of the response will receive the first warning. After 3 warnings, his responses will not be published. Thus, those who insist on developing a discussion that is not directly related to the article will have the option to do so, and at the same time a discussion can be conducted My concerns about the article.
Today the situation is that the development of relevant discussions is prevented due to the burden and irrelevance of the existing "broken" discussions.
Thanks.
Thank you Rah 🙂
Yael, I'm with you, it's a shame that every article here, no matter what its topic, immediately turns into a discussion about whether there is/isn't God, whether there is/isn't evolution, which turn into insults and blasphemies in the second stage: "liar" "cheater" and their biases. The third step is, of course, gagging.
So go ahead Yael and continue with the interesting articles ignoring the jarring cacophony that accompanies them.
Jewish:
Do you agree more with a ghost?
Maybe you can tell us what he says?
I followed the discussions here..
I agree more with ghost. But I don't underestimate Michael
It's just that it's hard for Michael to accept other things as I understand from what I've seen on the website so far. (a week)
In any case, it's a shame that you drag important discussions like this into personal insults.
In any case, debate the culture.
Ghost:
You must have noticed that this is not the case.
Some people disagree with me and I never said that everyone agrees with me.
You wrote "And you, in the two years you said you write here, write mostly nonsense and bring all kinds of links. It seems as if you don't have an opinion of your own and you rely on the opinions of others, which proves your stupidity."
And I just wanted to show that you lied about that too.
Attorney, please continue the discussion by email.
I would say something, but it would jeopardize my continued stay here on the site. So I'll just shut up.
Michael, you must have noticed that for all those who support you in the links you provided, there are also those who do not agree with you in those very links. That doesn't make you right. When your day comes (that you will live to be 120 with God's help) you will know the truth. like anyone else. Until then, even Einstein could not establish facts but only try to prove them with scientific descriptions. Take this article for example, it also refutes what was thought about the atmosphere until today. Michael, science is also partly wrong like religion. There is only one truth.
It is important to remember that part of this site and any site of this type (intellectual site, meaning) attracts people of all kinds who all have one thing in common, they like to argue, and preferably on the relevant topic - in this case, science.
Of course, when they enter the site, they don't come with the goal of arguing, but they suddenly see a response, and this response is so wrong, so wrong, so far-fetched that they have to respond, and that's how it all begins.
Michael is an example of something good for this website, he is an extreme marker of striving for scientific truth, unfortunately there is no dominant person who comes from the other side (although there are many second sides, the opposite of science is many things). A site that gets people's blood flowing and keeps them coming back is a site that is good for all parties. And so a site like this needs trolls as much as it needs Michael to expose them. The only problem with this is that it can lead to a culture of chaos. See as an extreme marker the V-net site, which in a little more than seven years, the comments on it turned from relatively polite responses to dirty and unbridled comments.
I can't help but be happy that there is a site in the Land of the Hebrews, speaking Hebrew where people can argue impolitely/overly politely with each other and read interesting articles about science. And may all this continue.
Ghost:
Apparently the truth is not really a candle to your feet (but we already know that, don't we?).
Here is a sample of responses from people who were otherwise impressed.
In most cases, you will also be able to find out what they are basing their words on (unlike you - who do not base your words on anything).
https://www.hayadan.org.il/chimps-are-smarter-then-human-2608093/#comment-244104
https://www.hayadan.org.il/the-planet-that-shouldnt-exist-0209097/#comment-243952
https://www.hayadan.org.il/milky-way-and-byond-0406092/#comment-223402
https://www.hayadan.org.il/evolution-sciam-0004093/#comment-210035
https://www.hayadan.org.il/is-god-a-mthematician-1512095/#comment-257252
https://www.hayadan.org.il/glast-in-orbit-1306088/#comment-59888
https://www.hayadan.org.il/underground-search-returns-uncertain-results-2212096/#comment-257868
devil's advocate
I read your accusations against Michael and I could not recall any case that corroborates them.
http://www.hayadan.org.il-admin/edit-comments.php#comments-form
To be safe, I looked at the comments on the site and also checked the deleted ones - which I keep in a special file.
I did not find any confirmation of the things.
I may have missed something because there are no tools on the site to carry out this type of task, but even if there is some spewing of Michael's that I missed (and I'm not saying there is) surely your blanket accusation has no basis.
Michael, what are you trying to say by that? It just proves everything I say about you and what the lawyer says about you.
There are people here who also agree with me. So why am I the fool, maybe you are the fool. If I write nothing except to discredit you and others then according to your logic I will be right. It's a fact that I say my opinions and ask questions and you, in the two years you said you were writing here, mostly write nonsense and bring all kinds of links. It seems like you have no opinion of your own and you rely on the opinions of others which proves your stupidity.
Ghost:
It's not hard to piece together your response
https://www.hayadan.org.il/underground-search-returns-uncertain-results-2212096/#comment-257836
with all your other comments.
His lawyer:
You of course happily ignore the comments I responded to.
When I claim that someone is lying - it's because I caught them in a lie. When I claim that someone is a troll it is because they walk like a duck, quack like a duck, etc.
This is the situation and I repeat - you will not find evidence of anything else.
Obviously - you prefer to blame even if you can't substantiate the things.
The one who takes away from his friend - on him the sight - even the Sages knew this and it is also acceptable in the current legal system, but you allow yourself to attack without a shred of sight.
So please - check your own behavior first.
Michael
You decide who is a "troll", "stupid", "liar", "systemic liar", "a liar who is simply a pleasure", "pathological liar", "idiot" and a host of other nicknames from your creator, not me.
The evidence for them is not really hard to find, although some of them have been deleted and can only be understood indirectly based on the comments that follow them.
For all these I only praised your discussion culture.
Again without giving proof, and I'm sorry but I don't have that ability, although the website operators probably have it and you can ask, but I have a feeling that most of the curses here are directed at the discussions you participate in, and for the most part, how shall I say it.. "You're a beginner" .
Michael, I wonder how you already know what I'm thinking about and where I'm trying to lead. Based on which sentence I wrote are you leaning? Besides, maybe I don't know English and maybe someone who has read the research in English and participates in the discussions on this site can explain. Your response in 38 is delusional, it seems as if you know what people think and what conclusions they draw among themselves. Maybe you're an extravert?
Ghost:
I have explained to you exactly what I expect you to do.
repeat things?
If it interests you - read the study itself.
Using the mention of the phrase "Earth" to imply God is not one of the things I expect you to do.
Asking "innocent" questions afterwards just to obscure your intentions is an acceptable method but - as you can see - it doesn't work.
The fact that I do not know the answers to these questions does not justify any of the delusional conclusions you are trying to lead us to.
His lawyer:
Well - your last response already included real lies.
It is not true that I am hurting someone who disagrees with my opinion (unless he is telling real lies or showing disdain for others). It's simply not true and it's no wonder you didn't give any examples even though I suggested you do so.
I have been active on the site for a long time and I know trolls never shut up if they are ignored.
Especially when it comes to trolls with an agenda.
More than that - I know that a large part of the trolls chose to stop trolling as a result of my comments.
Unlike you - I have no problem confirming my words.
You are welcome to look for comments from Ermac
https://www.hayadan.org.il/men-speed-evolution20202083/#comment-39274
Or of Yitzhak Sade:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/pope-undrmine-evolution-in-a-book-1404070/#comment-32715
Michael, what exactly do you want us to do with the information you wrote? Do you know who wrote the article? Am I making things up? All in all I say my opinions. I thought an educated person like you would be able to answer, but apparently you don't know and instead of not answering or saying you don't know, you slander.
I could hardly find an answer to the matter from you at all in any article. Most of your things are slander.
About the subject:
After all, the earth is made up of interstellar dust which, among other things, also contains xenon and krypton gas (even if it is in small quantities). There are other gases that are in outer space and exist on Earth. Why exactly these gasses? Does anyone know?
her laugh,
Writing "I'm sure they'll be filtered", and then hurling so many accusations, most of which are probably not true, is the surest way to be right (in the first estimation, you'll be filtered).
I will also refer you to the article about 2012, so that you can see there why filtering is needed in the system.
After all, the website staff are also people, and sometimes they may be wrong and filter a little too excessively (and maybe not enough as common sense claimed. In my opinion, an excess of censorship can hurt more than a lack of it, and ignoring those who are bothered by it).
"You made me laugh" (spelling error in the original):
Do you have something to say or are you just slandering?
Ghost:
Do you really expect us to pretend to know what "the group of scientists, led by Dr. Greg Holland, Dr. Martin Cassidy and Prof. Chris Ballantine" discovered that used "innovative analysis techniques to try to study volcanic gases" based on the little that is written here?
Unlike you - we don't tend to invent all kinds of far-fetched ideas based on a shred of information - what's more, the far-fetched ideas you come up with do not derive from the findings at all and are not even hinted at in the conclusions of the researchers who did check the information.
Do you really want to understand? – read the study itself.
Ghost, I answered you, the proof comes from the experience so far regarding what substances are present in the ball and in what quantity, and the theories that arise from that. In the absence of an institution to study at, I'm sure you can find most of the material online, probably under Geology and Earth Sciences.
Michael
Ignoring, and keeping the announcement "I will not continue to chat with you." would have achieved much better results than descending to the insults of a child in the second grade. Just as you don't respond to the same anonymous who rambles (in every sense of the word) for the umpteenth time about the article about 2012, because you know that the article attracts such people, and you know it won't help, you can also fill in your announcement here and ignore it. I am convinced that a ghost will not continue to emit messages to itself if no one answers it (except in special cases like 2012).
If you notice this speech culture of yours, repeats in almost every discussion when someone is not exactly in your opinion, some of them have even been writing on this site for a long time, and therefore probably not completely "delusional".
Besides, out of most of the commenters here on the site, you are probably the last one who can testify to the arrogance of another.
Common sense,
If these people had no one to argue with, they might not stop completely, but certainly reduce the density of their messages. Note that almost every discussion that reaches a debate of say over 20 messages includes Michael Habibach as a main participant. Also note that most of them end in a lack of mutual conviction, and that a lot of cursing comes from the "rational" side.
You will not find those who disagree with the gentleman's opinion because simply
The system filters them!
This comment will probably also be censored pretty quickly.
And if not - then please know that this is a missionary site that peddles the opinion of a minority group
Advocates of sociopathic analysis, the facts are not really interesting to them, they are the joy of arguing.
He will keep his distance.
So maybe it really is time for you and Michael to talk about the matter instead of saying: you are a systematic liar or it is not true or you are like this and you are like that and that one is like that.
Answer the questions if you are so smart.
If anyone knows how to explain why these gases are related to the proof that the atmosphere was created in outer space?
Or what else can be deduced from the facts they discovered?
The father of the editor,
Wouldn't it be more beneficial, for the benefit of the readers who come to the site for scientific reasons, if mystical messages of any kind are deleted for editorial reasons.
There are other platforms for those who want to engage in it.
Nowadays, not infrequently, the discussion - which could have been factual and informative - is biased towards refuting delusional statements of all kinds.
To that extent, it seems that Michael Rothschild strives for a consistent rational answer and without a letter, deserves some kind of recognition.
His arrogant lawyer:
I'm sorry but I come across many variations of you - people who prefer to be polite to liars and impolite to those who call them names.
Ignoring some of the information, of course, helps to clear the conscience in this matter.
You won't find a single person who showed decency and common sense who received an offensive response from me.
Therefore your attack on me is not an honest act.
Ghost
Although response 24 did ask this, the response was to other things you said before. In any case, if you don't assume that KDA is special, then the discussion is over.
Regarding your question, what led the researchers to conclude... It was probably their familiarity with the materials present in the sphere, and the theories that exist today, which apparently speak of the fact that krypton and xenon only come to us from asteroids, or that they exist but little, so if you find too much it is from asteroids. I guess it's something we learn in the relevant places.
Michael
I am indeed not very well versed in the exact past of and the direction of a ghost's thought, I have been reading here for a long time and so far I have not noticed a particular direction (the truth is that I noticed his responses only around the last week and did not delve into all of them (if at all)).
Your comments, on the other hand, I've been coming across here for about two years, but even if we take the last week (in which, as mentioned, I noticed I didn't notice the spirit), it's more than enough material to compliment you on your excellent "____" (complete, please) culture.
To the attorney:
My assumption is that our Earth is not special. And I'm not debating whether the mechanism is internal or external. Read carefully what I asked: "What is special about gases like xenon and krypton, because of which the researchers came to the conclusion that the atmosphere was created from outer space?" (except that they are in comets).
Besides, Michael is a serial name-caller, so I don't expect an answer from him, because in any case he is unable to provide it.
A disturbed spirit masquerading as anonymous:
I said that you meant for them to think about God and not that you thought about him (after all, to say that you thought about him is to say that you thought and that is one of the sins that I do not attribute to you).
His lawyer:
Since, by your own admission, you are not familiar with the past, giving marks on the responses I give to the troll - responses based on his trolliness which you prefer to ignore is a great discussion culture. Really cool.
Ghost
It doesn't prove anything. The Earth evolved just like the rest of the planets. It really isn't special (or "unique").
It just happens to be in a convenient place, and has enough mass to hold an atmosphere (as opposed to say the moon),
If your presupposition is that he is unique, then maybe this is an example that he is not, the presupposition is not so clear to me.
It also does not matter if the mechanism is internal (and can still exist in many other planets, therefore not unique) or external (this can happen to many planets, therefore not unique).
Clothing for Michael, I thought you were aiming at extraterrestrials, and not at God, but maybe he delved into your past a little more.
Michael
You have a great culture of debate, talk, respond, complete alone. Really cool.
Michael, you thought of God when I talked about uniqueness, not me.
What is special about gases like xenon and krypton because of which the researchers came to the conclusion that the atmosphere was formed from outer space? After all, the entire Earth was created from a combination of stellar dust, could it be that they are simply like "residues" that remained inside the Earth's crust and are ejected?
Someone else entirely:
It doesn't exactly belong.
You talk about water and they talk about atmosphere.
By the way - when the water evaporated - do you know that it left the atmosphere?
They couldn't stay in it as steam?
In fact, the hypotheses are more complex and you can read them here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_water_on_Earth
Spirit disturbed:
Don't brag.
You guaranteed God and you do so in most of your responses.
When you talk about the special something that created the "uniqueness" of the earth (which is a fundamentally different answer from the uniqueness of any other celestial gram) you meant for us to think about God and don't start lying to us now.
For you God serves as a substitute for thought.
I also didn't say this time that we don't exist (what - you really can't read?!) but I just pointed out the identity between your way of thinking and that of the ancient Greeks (not those who invented geometry but those who invented nonsense).
I won't keep arguing with you.
It has been clear for a long time that the water came to Israel from external bodies after it was created
The ball, because the formation process involved heat that evaporated the water that was there
exist on the bodies from which the earth itself was formed.
To Michael: You again? You are the one now involving God. You sound pathetic when you try to say he doesn't exist. (You can't say he exists like you can't say he doesn't exist) Stop.
The meaning of the uniqueness of our ball is that something created the uniqueness on the ball and not that the ball itself is special. Therefore, your claim that the sun has special conditions is correct, but these conditions were probably created not by the sun but by something else (I'm not talking about God, but trying to understand what caused it).
Now they all understood! It turns out that wine can also be made from grapes. and coffee from coffee beans. and that studies are designed to generate clearly unnecessary information.
to me:
That you start thinking is a good start.
Maybe in the end you will also start to think correctly.
Ghost:
The conditions on planet Hema are also special so someone (else) probably intervened there.
The conditions on Venus are also different and it must have been created by the god of Venus.
In general - the conditions in the sea are different from the conditions in other places, therefore Poseidon rules the sea.
Your train of thought is exactly that of those who invented the Greek idols.
What is so special about Xenon and Krypton?
This means that our sphere is no different from other planets and the mechanism that creates the conditions for existence of life and atmosphere, etc. exists outside our planet. And in any case it proves that something created the uniqueness of our ball and that our ball in itself is not special at all.
After all those crazy studies I'm starting to think that maybe the biblical story of creation isn't so crazy
Eli
The earth, the iron core and the other materials also came from outer space
Ghost
The question of whether we are alone in a location or not is not at all affected by the research, because if the ball created the conditions, there can still be another ball that will create them as well, and even if it didn't, the same mechanism can create it elsewhere as well.
The mechanism for creating the conditions exists. Thus becoming takes place in any case. Everyone has to decide what they believe.
It seems as if outside intervention created all the conditions that exist on Earth rather than Earth creating it from within. As if the Earth is like all the other planets but some kind of intervention from outer space created the atmosphere, the life and the plants on the globe (like meteors and such). This means that our planet is not fundamentally different from the other planets but that there is something in outer space that produces these conditions and this raises questions as to whether we are not alone in the universe.
Eran:
What does ozone have to do with us?
Ozone is nothing but oxygen that is here so and so.
Sometimes it is a component of water molecules, sometimes it is a component of carbon dioxide, sometimes it is free in the form of O2 and sometimes it is free in the form of O3.
There are many mechanisms that continue to "maintain" our atmosphere and influence it and many of them are known.
Some of them have an action that is harmful to humans (such as the emission of pollutants from factories) and some have a beneficial action (such as the absorption of carbon dioxide and the emission of oxygen by vegetation).
Hmmm.. but it seems that although it comes from the outside, it is regenerated by a process that began following a critical mass of these substances... because after all.. a few years ago there was a hole in the ozone that was closed.. what did it close? Comets? Or because it was covered by another ozone layer?..so it is interesting to know what continues to create and maintain our atmosphere.
fresh:
You are confusing two things which are the very existence of the atmosphere and the distribution of gases in it.
What ancient algae did was release oxygen into the atmosphere and absorb carbon dioxide from it.
In general, it is not clear what is special about the fact that the atmosphere came from outer space, since it is clear that everything came from outer space - including the earth.
I assume that the question that was investigated is not whether the atmosphere came from outer space but whether it came from outer space in a gaseous form or whether the gases were formed in the earth's condensation and were emitted by volcanic actions.
The more they understood the nature of the volcanic activity and the nature of the substances trapped in the bowels of the earth - it probably became clear that the atmosphere could not have been created by volcanic activity.
In general, since the Earth is made up of materials that made up the nascent solar disk that gathered as a result of gravitation, it is only natural that materials with a high specific gravity will sink to its center and materials with a lower specific weight (the gases) will remain in the mantle.
Those who read the link I presented earlier also understand that the issue of asteroids is much simpler than it was portrayed in some of the responses, because as the solar system matures, the asteroids that wander within it decrease (they simply become part of the sun and the planets, which as time passes are "sucked in").
Studies:
You - unlike the academy - failed in your attempt to justify yourself.
Indefatigable quackers, the academy must justify itself
First of all, in the "books" it is described that the atmosphere was created by a type of ancient algae, secondly, if they say that the atmosphere and the water were not created here, then where were they created and by what process, and is it possible to reproduce the process of producing water or natural ozone in a synthetic way? This will solve some problems for us, especially the water problem and the hole in the ozone.
It is not so clear to me how evidence of materials coming from meteorites, found in volcanic gases today, indicates that the atmosphere came from space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet_formation
In the early solar system, according to estimates, the amount of comets and meteors was greater. There is evidence of this from the face of our scarred moon, which has not developed an atmosphere.
Luke - there was simply a lot more junk in the solar system than today, and a sufficient amount of rocks avoided Jupiter and Saturn and hit other planets until the solar system stabilized in its current form.
I want to understand,
1. There was a bombardment of meteorites on Earth that supplied the entire atmosphere, etc.
2. Today we are protected from meteorites because of the presence of Jupiter and Saturn whose gravity acts as a shield for the inner planets.
3. How did facts 1 and 2 exist at the same time 3 billion years ago?
I'd like to receive an answer
Do you really think anyone bothers to update the textbooks?
When I was a child, I was taught at school about mysterious land bridges that connected the continents and disappeared into the oceans without leaving a trace. This is an interesting theory, which was already disproved a hundred and fifty years ago.
And no, I'm not that old.