Well I looked through them all, and I have to say this:
Creative, but that's really it.
The only real reason this looks appealing is because of the visual cues. In all respects, why do some areas of Mars, the Earth, or so on grow
differently? Shouldn't it happen roughly even everywhere? However, it does not. That is a fundamental flaw. Now, for the moon and Europa we can say
differently because it tried to explain it.
Next, why so sudden? According to his theory, with Pangea and all, we know that life existed around the time of Pangea - but the earth was already
incredibly ancient by that point! If one extrapolates the time frames to do this, one winds up with a planet that is much too small.
Thirdly, what causes this expansion? I don't see that explained at all. This is a critical issue that would need to be thoroughly explained and then
tested before planetary expansion could be taken seriously. If it is expanding, is this new mass? Or old mass? Problem is, we know pretty much that it
can't be old mass (unless it was, as mentioned a sort of "crystilization" which wouldn't happen because of the intense heat).
In the end, I think that, unlike how he said "note this cannot be explained without planetary expansion", that it can be explained with another
important note on Plate Tectonics - that there are MORE plates that we see! There are submersed plates as well
Since there are more plates, there more space. It's possible that Pangea, originally, simply had all the surface plates conjoined, and the submersed
plates were joined elsewhere.
So, in the end, Neal Adams, sorry bud - but I don't think that's the answer to today's million dollar question.