No Plates for Pangaea: Tectonic Theories and Timelines Shift Again 

Scientists find evidence that Earth’s first
crust was not from tectonic movement and its
composition has not changed much over time

 

by Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds 

If you studied earth science, one of the foundational concepts you would be familiar with is the theory of plate tectonics: movements of giant slabs of rock beneath the surface. This is a force responsible for mountain-building, earthquakes, volcanism and many other phenomena that earth experiences daily. 

Evolutionary-based education further exalts the role of plate tectonics and the associated volcanism and hydrothermal vents as the creative force behind earth and even a key driver for the conditions thought of as necessary for the chemical evolution of life. However, findings from a recent publication in Nature in April 2025 turned several evolutionary hypotheses of early plate tectonics on its head. 

A Tectonic Shift in Geological Stories 

According to the evolutionary story of the geological formation of earth’s land, the ‘protocrust’ (first crust) was formed 4.5 billion years ago during the Hadean eon. Evolutionary geological theory posits that this first crust was formed from a molten ocean of rock that solidified, creating in the process a distinct chemical signature. This distinct signature was purportedly formed from heavier metallic elements subducting (sinking) towards the center of the earth and carrying with it other elements such as Niobium, which are attracted to metals. Evolutionary geology would therefore predict that there was early tectonic subduction for the earth’s early crust to have an extremely low trace of the element Niobium. However, this study found no evidence of the hypothesized subduction having occurred. In a clear admission, the authors state:  

Many geochemical arguments for when and how plate tectonics began implicitly assume that subduction is required to produce the continental trace-element signature. These arguments are severely compromised if this signature was already a feature of the Hadean protocrust.

In another commentary on the research republished by ScienceDaily and Macquarie University, one of the study’s lead authors further clarified in simpler terms, that: 

Scientists have long thought that tectonic plates needed to dive beneath each other to create the chemical fingerprint we see in continents…Our research shows this fingerprint existed in Earth’s very first crust, the protocrust — meaning those theories need to be reconsidered….This discovery completely changes our understanding of Earth’s earliest geological processes.

This is yet another failed prediction of the evolutionary theory of the Earth.

The question emerges: If hypotheses derived from evolutionary geology assumptions do not stand up to observational scrutiny, why do evolutionary assumptions continue to underpin mainstream geology? 

Sprinting to Catastrophist Hypotheses? 

In a divergent drift, these findings have led to the emergence of alternative hypotheses. The ironic twist is the invocation of catastrophic events, involving an explanation sounding similar to the concept of tectonic sprint, alongside catastrophic meteoric bombardment. In an explanation of the hypothesized role of these events, the ScienceDaily commentary of the Nature article states: 

The heavy meteor bombardment during this early period caused extensive disruption and recycling of the crust. Plate tectonics may have worked in fits and starts [emphasis added], triggered by meteor impacts....

The Old Story Continues 

In an impressive admission, Professor Emeritus Simon Turner from the Faculty of Science and Engineering at Macquarie University who led the study points out that the findings not only challenge “how our continents formed” but also “when plate tectonics began.” 

Unfortunately, in the same breath as the mention of these non-uniform “fits and starts”, the authors then revert to the evolutionary timeline and present-day uniformitarian assumptions proceeded mid-sentence: 

…Plate tectonics may have worked in fits and starts, triggered by meteor impacts until about 3.8 billion years ago, when meteor bombardment decreased dramatically as the early Solar System’s chaos gave way to more orderly orbits…Plate tectonics then fell into a continuous, self-sustaining pattern.

The discerning reader would ask: What are the explanatory processes that led to this “dramatic” decrease in the catastrophic meteoric force and chaotic orbits? Is there a scientific basis to accept an early theory of catastrophism but insist that all “fits and starts” ceased and remained uniform for the past 3.8 billion years? 

In another place in the article, the authors again reaffirm their evolutionary foundation in the hypothesized “4.5 billion years” that the earth’s crust supposedly existed. In 4.5 billion years, they state that the protocrust “had chemical features remarkably like today’s continental crust”. Naturally, with so much evolution supposedly happening in other sections of the earth (including the spontaneous generation of life), the logical question would follow: How could the crusts’ composition remain so stable over 4.5 billion years? 

Despite admitting that the evolutionary geological timeline needs to be rewritten, the authors simultaneously and subtly revert to reaffirm evolutionary thinking in their publication – without adequate evidential basis presented.  

Is this because completely questioning uniformitarian theory would cause too catastrophic a paradigm shift? 

More Shaky Ground Uncovered for Chemical Evolution 

These inconsistencies about plate movements and the first crust also have implications on the hypotheses on chemical and biological evolution. This link in the evolutionary story was mentioned by the authors admitting that one of the reasons for their research to identify when plate tectonics first began, is that it would be “marking the earliest evolution of life.” 

With faulty hypotheses on earth’s early geological history, alternative explanations will be required within the chemical evolution literature to revise the processes and timeline of chemical evolution once again. With so many revisions documented, this story once again places doubt on another aspect of evolutionary theory standing up successfully to scrutiny. 

Can Geology Go Back to the Basics? 

While we observe the discrepancies between evolutionary hypotheses and new clues of earth’s unobserved beginning, one other glaring observation from the article should also be acknowledged:  

The team’s calculations showed the protocrust — Earth’s earliest crust…– would naturally develop the same chemical signatures found in today’s continents, without needing plate tectonics to create them.

Yes – the researchers conclude that the beloved “creative” force of geological evolution – plate tectonics – would not have been needed to be the force responsible to “create” earth’s first crust. 

On this note – Isn’t it curious that the conclusion sounds eerily similar to one of the world’s most ancient Written Records of how the single slab of dry land just ‘appeared’ and the water gathered in one place? According to that Written Record, this was not due to meteors and plate tectonics, but dry land emerged from the very Word of God. 

How revolutionary it would be if upcoming geologists would be bold enough to piece together the evidence and be open to a paradigm shift – a shift away from the sands of evolutionary thinking and building a new foundation upon the Rock of Truth! 

---

Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds is a Christian, Jamaican, Environmental Science researcher, and journal associate editor. She holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography from the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona with high commendation, and a postgraduate specialization in Geomatics at the Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. The quality of her research activity in Environmental Science has been recognized by various awards including the 2024 Editor’s Award from the American Meteorological Society for her reviewing service in the Weather, Climate and Society Journal, the 2023 L’Oreal/UNESCO Women in Science Caribbean Award, the 2023 ICETEX International Experts Exchange Award for study in Colombia. and with her PhD research in drought management also being shortlisted in the top 10 globally for the 2023 Allianz Climate Risk Award by Munich Re Insurance, Germany. Motivated by her faith in God and zeal to positively influence society, Dr. Buckland-Reynolds is also the founder and Principal Director of Chosen to G.L.O.W. Ministries, a Jamaican charitable organization which seeks to amplify the Christian voice in the public sphere and equip more youths to know how to defend their faith.