Which of the following is a reason why continental drift theory was not accepted at first? 1.alfred wegener was not a scientist. 2.there was no data to support the theory. 3.the public had confirmation bias. 4.the public was biased against new ideas.

Alfred Wegener's, a German meteorologist in 1912, theory was rejected by some for lack of a mechanism. (Or how it was done.) 

We are taught that modern scientists are driven only by reason and facts. It was only early scientists like Galileo who needed to fear the reaction to their radical views. Neither of these beliefs is true. The reaction to Alfred Wegener's Continental Drift Theory demonstrates that new ideas threaten the establishment, regardless of the century.

Alfred Wegener proposed the Continental Drift Theory in the early twentieth century. The hypothesis proposed that the continents had once been joined, and over time had drifted apart. 

Since his ideas challenged most scientists demonstrates the reactions of the many different communities of scientists. These reactions eventually shut down serious discussion of the concept. 

The geologist Barry Willis summed it up best:

"further discussion of it merely incumbers the literature and befogs the mind of fellow students." 

Why the extreme reaction? Wegener did not even present Continental Drift as a proven theory.

He knew that any argument based simply on the jigsaw fit of the continents could easily be explained away. 

To strengthen his case he drew from the fields of geology, geography, biology and paleontology. 

Wegener questioned why coal deposits, commonly associated with tropical climates, would be found near the North Pole and why the plains of Africa would show evidence of glaciation. Wegener also presented examples where fossils of exactly the same prehistoric species were distributed where you would expect them to be if there had been Continental Drift. 

Even after all of the work, research and life he put into his theory, people still refused the slight idea of it. 

I would choose Answer 3. The public had confirmation bais. 

Because they would look back at preexisting theories and choose/argue with those. 

The answer is choice b

If you are talking about typical sand you would find at the beach or in a river bed here on earth, there are some differences. i would say the first biggest difference is in composition and mineral make up. although the moon is largely made of the same materials as earth’s mantle and surface, the moon experiences very little weathering (no liquid water and virtually no atmosphere). “earth” sand is typically composed mostly of quartz grains. this is because quartz is highly resistant to both physical and chemical weathering. most of the other minerals originally with the quartz are broken down into fine clay and carried away, chemically eroded/ dissolved, or some combination of the two. this usually leaves only the quartz behind, and so most of the time when you see/think of sand, you are talking about quartz. without these weathering mechanisms on the moon, the “sand” (which is likely more silt or clay sized grains anyways) would consist of mostly other minerals like anorthosite, olivine, and proxene.

: )