* Lack of a convincing mechanism: Wegener couldn't explain *how* the continents moved. He proposed that the continents plowed through the ocean floor, but this was physically implausible. The force required would have caused massive deformation and heat, which wasn't observed.
* Lack of supporting evidence: While Wegener had some intriguing evidence (matching coastlines, geological formations, fossils), it wasn't considered strong enough to overturn the prevailing scientific paradigm of a fixed Earth. He couldn't adequately explain why the continents moved, and he lacked the data to convince his peers.
* Scientific conservatism: The scientific community generally resists radical changes to established theories. Wegener's idea was revolutionary, and scientists needed compelling evidence before accepting it.
It's important to note that Wegener's work was not entirely dismissed. Many scientists found his observations intriguing, but the lack of a plausible mechanism made them hesitant.
It was only later, with the development of plate tectonics theory (mid-20th century) that Wegener's ideas were finally validated. This new theory provided the missing mechanism: convection currents in the Earth's mantle.
In conclusion, while Wegener's observations were astute, the scientific community at his time was right to be skeptical. His hypothesis was groundbreaking, but lacking a robust explanation, it couldn't be accepted without further evidence and a more comprehensive theory.
