Aloha AF:

Puzzle: No doubt the India Plate broke off from Africa and Madagascar and eventually smashed into South Asia absorbing some islands on the way. The geology and minerology of the India Plate is radically different than the Eurasian Plate but similar to Africa and Madagascar--but when did they collide? Also radically different is the ethnicity and the cultural differences between the people of India and South Asia to this day. It appears to me that the people of India did not migrate there but where migrated there through plate tectonics.

Now, if I establish that a man is man only because of the ability of complex language. Then man, with the ability of complex language, according to most, is about 50,000yrs old.

Therefore, the people of the India Plate, who went for a ride, and the people of the Eurasian plate, both must of had the ability of complex language at the time the plates collided making it much later than the 40M years ago that current geologic studies suggest.

That is some specious reasoning

Also, I read your first line like, "Aloha as fuck!" Super aloha to you too dude!

Regarding the OP. No.

OP: Really,........... this is what you've shown up with?

(May 4, 2020 at 8:43 pm)Haipule Wrote: Aloha AF:

Goodbye to you too.

Quote:No doubt the India Plate broke off from Africa and Madagascar

Not exactly. During the break-up of Pangaea, East Gondwana (Madagascar, India, Australia, and Antarctica) separated from Africa ~180 million years ago. India and Madagascar didn't separate from Antarctica and Australia until ~130 million years ago. So most recently, India broke off of Antarctica.

Quote:and eventually smashed into South Asia absorbing some islands on the way.

The few islands that were between Indian and Asia were attached to the oceanic plate that India is attached to and were moving with it. They were accreted onto southern Asia.

Quote:The geology and minerology of the India Plate is radically different than the Eurasian Plate but similar to Africa and Madagascar--but when did they collide?

Yes, It was part of the super-continent Gondwana along with Africa, South America, Antarctica, and Autralia. North America, Europe and Asia made up the super-continent Laurasia.

Quote:Also radically different is the ethnicity and the cultural differences between the people of India and South Asia to this day.

They are culturally isolated courtesy of the Himalaya. A big damned mountain range will do wonders for keeping people out.

Quote:It appears to me that the people of India did not migrate there but where migrated there through plate tectonics.

That's a fascinating notion. Let me know what the Nobel Committee thinks of it.

Quote:Now, if I establish that a man is man only because of the ability of complex language.

You would be wrong.

Quote:Then man, with the ability of complex language, according to most, is about 50,000yrs old.

Hard to know but likely wrong by at least an order of magnitude.

Quote:Therefore, the people of the India Plate, who went for a ride

A magic carpet ride?

Quote:and the people of the Eurasian plate, both must of had the ability of complex language at the time the plates collided making it much later than the 40M years ago that current geologic studies suggest.

According to your assumptions, none of which you demonstrate.

Modern plate tectonics occurs at roughly the rate that your fingernails grow. You want to move India from the coast of Africa to the south-west coast of Asia, subduct a few thousand km of oceanic crust that's between the two continents, and throw up the Himalaya, all in a few tens of thousands of years. The friction alone would produce a wall of plasma along the subduction zone, killing anybody living in Southern Asia or India. The Himalaya would be thrown up with enough force to pulverize them and everything for a thousand kilometers. The West Indian oceanic ridge would have been spreading at hundreds of meters a year, leaving the Earth's mantle exposed and producing magmas that have never been observed on the planet.

Clearly none of that happened, so your assumptions are obviously wrong.

(May 5, 2020 at 12:04 am)Paleophyte Wrote:

(May 4, 2020 at 8:43 pm)Haipule Wrote: Aloha AF:

Goodbye to you too.

Quote:No doubt the India Plate broke off from Africa and Madagascar

Not exactly. During the break-up of Pangaea, East Gondwana (Madagascar, India, Australia, and Antarctica) separated from Africa ~180 million years ago. India and Madagascar didn't separate from Antarctica and Australia until ~130 million years ago. So most recently, India broke off of Antarctica.

Quote:and eventually smashed into South Asia absorbing some islands on the way.

The few islands that were between Indian and Asia were attached to the oceanic plate that India is attached to and were moving with it. They were accreted onto southern Asia.

Quote:The geology and minerology of the India Plate is radically different than the Eurasian Plate but similar to Africa and Madagascar--but when did they collide?

Yes, It was part of the super-continent Gondwana along with Africa, South America, Antarctica, and Autralia. North America, Europe and Asia made up the super-continent Laurasia.

Quote:Also radically different is the ethnicity and the cultural differences between the people of India and South Asia to this day.

They are culturally isolated courtesy of the Himalaya. A big damned mountain range will do wonders for keeping people out.

Quote:It appears to me that the people of India did not migrate there but where migrated there through plate tectonics.

That's a fascinating notion. Let me know what the Nobel Committee thinks of it.

Quote:Now, if I establish that a man is man only because of the ability of complex language.

You would be wrong.

Quote:Then man, with the ability of complex language, according to most, is about 50,000yrs old.

Hard to know but likely wrong by at least an order of magnitude.

Quote:Therefore, the people of the India Plate, who went for a ride

A magic carpet ride?

Quote:and the people of the Eurasian plate, both must of had the ability of complex language at the time the plates collided making it much later than the 40M years ago that current geologic studies suggest.

According to your assumptions, none of which you demonstrate.

Modern plate tectonics occurs at roughly the rate that your fingernails grow. You want to move India from the coast of Africa to the south-west coast of Asia, subduct a few thousand km of oceanic crust that's between the two continents, and throw up the Himalaya, all in a few tens of thousands of years. The friction alone would produce a wall of plasma along the subduction zone, killing anybody living in Southern Asia or India. The Himalaya would be thrown up with enough force to pulverize them and everything for a thousand kilometers. The West Indian oceanic ridge would have been spreading at hundreds of meters a year, leaving the Earth's mantle exposed and producing magmas that have never been observed on the planet.

Clearly none of that happened, so your assumptions are obviously wrong.

Thank you. Yeah, I know I'm crazy but, what puzzles me is the vast cultural and ethnic differences between the two plates which I don't need to prove. Yes the ocean floor became the Himalayas which is a huge divide. But, it appears these peoples where already there on both sides with the ability of complex language. How did this happen and when did it happen? That's the puzzle. The fact that these peoples are there and vastly different questions purely geologic observation.

(May 5, 2020 at 12:29 am)Haipule Wrote: Thank you. Yeah, I know I'm crazy ...

Then why post bullshit like "migration via plate tectonics" in the first place?

Dammit.

I read the title and immediately thought of butter chicken.

Turn off "Forbidden Archeology" and do some real research if the topic interests you. Modern humans are relatively new, the Himalayas are NOT.

Good to hear from you Haipule.
How's the weather? :-)