“…However, opponents of the theory cite a significant number of arguments based on evidence from the rock record, against the SEH (e.g., Williams, 1975Williams, , 1986Williams, , 1998Williams, , 2004Williams, , 2008Williams et al, 2008;Young, 2004): (1) thick successions of diamictites with associated water-laid deposits; (2) evidence supporting glacial cycles and eustasy; (3) the combination of tidalites, tidal rhythmites, and thick glaciomarine successions indicates unfrozen seas over significant areas; (4) evidence for strong seasonality in glaciogenic deposits; (5) indications of gradual palaeoclimatic changes at the start and end of Proterozoic glaciogenic events rather than the rapid and extreme changes inherent in the SEH; (6) a lack of high latitude Proterozoic glacial deposits; (7) cap carbonates and BIF within the expected stratigraphic succession from SE events are not that common, and the stratigraphic position, facies and chemistry of these chemical rock types can equally be explained through alternative genetic models, especially related to rifts as supercontinents begin to break up (e.g., summary in . A recent comparison of Neoproterozoic glaciogenic units with Phanerozoic glacial deposits also provides a strong case against the SEH (Etienne et al, 2008).…”