Talk:Timeline of the evolutionary history of life

Reference Links

Some of the Reference Links no longer work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.230.8 (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Modern Extinction but not evolution

The list contains a couple of modern extinctions (aurochs and thylacine but no modern appearances of species. Would it be acceptable to add one or two choice examples to give the modern end of the list a sense of a process still going on rather than a process ending? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.186.28 (talk) 23:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That isn't really realistic..speciation is a hell of a lot more complex process than extinction usually is (unless so-called 'extinction' is in itself actually a speciation - see pseudoextinction. Also, it is very difficult to determine precisely when a current species became the species it currently is/when it stopped being the species it had been before. Involved are issues of crown group vs stem group, gradualism vs punctuated equilibrium, post-speciation admixture (hybridisation) events, &ct, &ct..

If you want to consider some of our domestic animals as being their own separate species from their wild ancestors, though (and many do), then there are many examples of recent appearance of species. Take your aurochs, for example. The wild aurochs went extinct in the 16th century, but our domestic cattle were domesticated from the aurochs. So you might call that a 'new species'. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Date of India/Asia collision

The timeline gives the date of this collision as 22Ma. Previously, the only date I've seen for this event is 50-60 Ma. Thoughts? 140.247.23.113 16:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Himalayas had formed by at least 40Ma. Verisimilus T 09:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

New study - oldest undisputed evidence

• fyi - if it's relevant Canadian-led science team finds oldest evidence of life on Earth, By Randy Boswell, The Ottawa Citizen. Published: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 The previous unsigned comment was legt by User:Canuckle

The article to which it refers is Banerjee et al. in Geology 35 (6): 487. I am not yet thoroughly convinced by it. Verisimilus T 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see citations for virtually all these dates, but especially the early ones. The Wikipedia entries on Archaea, bacteria, biogenesis, etc are much better sourced than this timeline, and I think the numbers there are more accurate as well. Hopefully, someone will find the time to update his timeline according to more recent research. For example a 2008 letter in Nature confirms the oldest known bacteria as biologic. But the date is about 3.5 billion years old, not 3.8. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v416/n6876/full/416073a.html#f1 Eperotao (talk) 17:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

POV

This article makes very bold and definite statements about the dates of early life. Can anybody really put their hand on their heart and say life began at exactly 4Ga? Or that photosynthesis started at 3.5? There's a lot of interesting discussion, that could be placed in the article or elsewhere, about the veracity of this. There should be at least some mention of the arguments involved! Verisimilus T 09:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean exactly 4 billion years before you wrote that, or before I read it? Obviously it is ridiculous to make any such claim and expect the figure quoted to be precise. However, it is the best estimate we have, and no reasonable reader would expect it to be exact, merely accurate. That the article reports the best figures presently available to science goes without saying. It also links (in the table entry for 4000Ma that you tagged) to the origin of life article which goes in great detail into the question of the date of origin of life on Earth.

Are you sure that "POV" is the correct tag to use? Which POV is being over- (or under-) represented here? SheffieldSteel 13:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

By precisely, I mean 4Ga as opposed to 3Ga. Some (Cavalier Smith, I think, is a champion of this cause) exercise the view that since there's no good evidence for life pre-2.7Ga, we oughtn't to assume that there was life at all.

I suppose my qualm would be that a reader of this page would leave with the impression that we know when life appeared - surely it would be better to give a range on the table that reflects reasonable limits imposed by science?

And as far as the dates giving the "best estimate available to science", I agree so far a good date can be given, but I doubt the reliability - sources are definitely required. The 22Ma date for the collision of India and Asia, for example, is plain wrong. Verisimilus T 15:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Earliest Domesticated Animals

Under 11ka, the article states "Domestication of dogs (first domesticated animal)". I can't find a good reference, but I seem to remember a study which suggested that pigs were actually the first domesticated animals. Does anyone else know anything about this? -Athaler 19:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Dogs were the first domesticated animal. Whatever source said pigs, they were likely writing with the assumption that 'except dogs' was implicitly understood. It can also be reasonably argued that dogs were not per se domesticated by humans. Dogs have been with humans since at least the Upper Paleolithic (the last part of the Paleolothic, the end of the first part of the Stone Age). dogs may have been with people even before humans developed language. More importantly, it does seem most likely that dogs' origins came not from any deliberate human action, but of their wolf ancestors' own volition. (likewise with cats, though at a considerably later date, ~10Kya Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

What should this page be?

“ This timeline of the evolution of life outlines the major events in the development of life on the planet Earth. ”

At the moment, it reads more as a catalogue of events in Geological and Human history.

I'd propose that it was considerably slimmed, with only the essential points marked, in time order. Trying to provide precise dates is often difficult so ranges should be given where appropriate. My list of events to include, in approximate order, would be:

• Accretion of Earth
• Formation of Moon
• ¿First life?
• Late heavy bombardment
• First Photosynthesis
• First accumulation of atmospheric oxygen
• First Eukaryote
• Last Banded iron formations
• First multicellular life (Bangiomorpha)
• Sex
• First complex multicellular life (Ediacaran biota)
• More oxygenation; enough for ozone
• Cambrian Explosion
• First land animals (Eurypterids?)
• Ordovician radiation
• First land plants
• Overview of state of play during Carboniferous
• Permo-Triassic extinction event
• Mesozoic marine revolution
• Gymnosperm forests
• Rise of dinosaurs
• First angiosperms
• Rise of mammals
• K-T extinction
• Extensive grasslands
• Humanity's impact on life

I've deliberately avoided an anthropogenic slant - for example, human evolution should be left to the Timeline of human evolution, to which a see-also should probably be conceded. I also feel that physical constraints and processes - for example, low oxygen levels - should be given higher precedence, as they affect evolution as a whole, not just a small sub-clade of life. Their significance must be explained - as it stands, the reader will wonder why they're being told that Rodinia formed and fragmented, for example. This event may have impacted on the evolution of life - but no clue to this effect is given in the article as it stands!

Please feel free to comment on this list, or my opinions, which I imagine will not be shared by all!

Verisimilus T 20:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

With a lack of comment I've pressed on with the trimming. There is now perhaps scope for a little expansion, but I'm wary of creating content forking. I feel that the purpose of this page should be to place events in their context and give an idea of what came when; the place for detailed discussion and description of events is on the pages themselves. The page would, however, benefit from some comments on why each event is relevant to evolution, where this has not been included already. Verisimilus T 17:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the recent outright reversion of edits: Please feel free to add data that is:

• Necessary
• Scientifically accurate, and referenced as such
• Relevant

It looked like you'd simply undone my edits, although I may be wrong; either way lots of the bogus and inapplicable content appears to have re-emerged... although I'm open to debate! Verisimilus T 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hi: I have to say I really dislike what you've done. I have done quite a few edits on this page and find it's current incarnation way to schematic for my tastes. Originally, the page was more a narrative of evolutionary history. I enjoyed filling it out with such things as the first radiation of sharks when I noticed that no one had thought to mention such a major event. The page got so long that I divided it into eons so the tables could be more easily manipulated. But now it looks like a whole bunch of chapter titles with no chapters. I really wish you'd put some content back in. I don't feel inclined to work on this page these days, but that's my firm opinion. Kaimiddleton 08:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• • I agree with Kaimiddleton; a timeline is a valuable method not only for providing an extremely brief overview, but also for providing a somewhat more in-depth chronological look that avoids the limitations of standard prose. However, I also agree with Verisimilus that the previous incarnation of this page was replete with trivia and irrelevencies. I don't see any reason why we can't have our cake and eat it too: if we wish, we can create one shortened page like the current one (but with fixes such as removing the redundant section headers now that it's so short), and another page like the original, lengthy version (but with problems like the anthropocentric focus corrected). Compare pages like List of Latin phrases (full) or Periodic table (large version). Our readers are best-served by providing them with both options, rather than forcing everyone to stick to timeline format for ultra-concise version, and prose format for the slightly more in-depth view, which not only explains when things happened but also what was constituted in each event (e.g., it doesn't merely say "Most modern groups begin to appear in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion.", but also explains what some of those groups were and provide a little context). -Silence 21:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• • • Yes, there's certainly space for a more in-depth history of everything that's ever happened on Earth; maybe it could all be crammed into one page. My problem was with the systematic bias towards the recent and the humanoid. If you're going to list the migration of the grey wolf to North America, should you not also include the migration of the Thelodonts between Estonia and Scotland in the Devonian - and countless other events? The earth's "most recent magnetic reversal" is no more interesting than any of the others; there's little mention of plants, terms such as "the golden age of sharks" are used with no explanation of what that's meant to mean... Certainly, there's room for expansion in the current article, but I think the brief overview gives people a quick guide to the important evolutionary events. Creating an "in depth" page elsewhere sounds an excellent idea, so long as it has a clear rationale - and is scientifically accurate. Verisimilus T 22:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with timeline

On the timeline, it says all dates prior to 1 billion years are speculative. Technically, if no one was there, aren't all dates prior to humans speculative? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.134.9 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from - but not really. They're based on reliable methods, rather than weak lines of supposition with hints of dubious evidence; their accuracy is there to within a couple of percent, rather than 100%. Besides, there are plenty of dates in human history that are speculative - when was Shakespeare born? Verisimilus T 23:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I see both points, but saying dates prior to 1 billion years is "speculative" is misleading. The calculated margin of error should attached. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousLayman (talk • contribs) 22:28, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Time of Eukaryotes appearance + early evolution part is totally unsourced

Since peroxisomes are thought to have initially developed as a response for the early stages of the Oxygen Catastrophe, it seems odd that eukaryotes appear much later. What is the date of their appearance based about? All the stuff about early evolution is totally unsourced, by the way. Dan Gluck 15:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ozone layer formation

According to this article the ozone layer formed 500 millions years ago, when land became habitable (this is what I have always thought)). However in the Oxygen Catastrophe article its formation is related with the much earlier oxygen catastrophe. Is it a real discrepancy, or are we talking about two different phases in its forming (i.e. for a stable 21% oxygen atmosphere one needs a much thinner ozone layer compared to the one needed for the land to become habitable)? Dan Gluck 09:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Theia?

Should Theia be mentioned here? It has always seemed to me that there are a lot of difficulties with this hypothesis, and the evidence offered so far is equivocal, to say the least. Perhaps it could be included with some indication of evidence to the contrary. --210.240.107.24 (talk) 02:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this article does not deal with silly myths. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, from my understanding, the current coverage of Theia in the article is fair (although one could argue about the semantics). As far as I'm aware, it's quite widely accepted that two "proto-planets" collided to form the Earth and Moon. Verisimilus T 10:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

See, I just learned something. I didn't know the myth was used to name the planet. Interesting. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Grasses?

There are diferant dates for the evolution of grasses. On The Grasses page there is a third date. Which date is accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.97.85 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Picoliths (sp?), small silica shards today found only in grasses, have been found from the late Cretaceous, but are not certain proof that "grasses" existed. The first grass fossils/pollen are (I assume from this article) at 35Ma. Grasses rose to dominance and played an ecologically important role at about 5Ma. Hence the three different dates. Verisimilus T 15:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I independently came across the grasses issue. This article has 'Evolution' in the title, therefore I think the date should reference estimated evolution dates, not times of dominance. I still want to change grasses in the main section to at least 55 mya, but will think on it a while. GameKeeper (talk) 23:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Does the in-text list contribute anything not already present in the diagrammatic timeline? Is it worth keeping? (Especially as it so broad-brush, inaccurate and unreferenced)

Verisimilus T 08:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the in text is far easier to read quickly. much like the summary of articles. GameKeeper (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Humans 50 millennia old

This article claims modern human facial bone structure evolved 200 millennia ago. This is wrong. Only ape-like creatures that could stand upright evolved by then. Anwar (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Homo sapiens idaltu was pretty human like and lived around 160 millennia ago. I would not describe it as any more ape-like than we are. GameKeeper (talk) 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Holocene extinction event

Is anyone even paying attention to this page anymore? Look under the Cenezoic era section: " The term Anthropocene has been used to describe the period of time during which humans have had a major impact on the planet...." The page as of today lists this as happening 14 million years ago. Is that just vandalism? Or have people just lost interest because the page is too boring. Kaimiddleton (talk) 08:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't find this page boring, but you're right, that date and/or term is completely out of whack. The wikipedia entry for Anthropocene suggests that period only started in the 1800s (a quick websearch confirmed that). Perhaps the original writer was thinking of the Holocene (the last 10,000 years, I think?) or just the origins of hominids in general? I do think that it would be worth it to include the Anthropocene, since there's ample evidence that Human activity may be having an effect on species and evolution. I'm too timid to make this change, though.Quietmarc (talk) 19:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

EvoWiki

EvoWiki is not working, I had to put it here as there is no page on EvoWiki and this page references it Phthinosuchusisanancestor (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Phthinosuchusisanancestor.

What is "Ma"?

What kind of unit of measurement is Ma? This isn't clear. Please provide an explanation so we can also post it on the main page for other users -- Northern (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Annum is latin for year, and the root word for annual. per annum could be translated as "for each year", per diem "for each day" M is for million. Therefore Ma=Million years.

 Actually in Roman numerals M is 1000, one thousand, not one million, which has actually caused some misunderstandings at times. I used to work in tool and die, and it used to be the common convention to quote part prices for stamped parts "per M". but then thousand became confused with million as fewer and fewer people studied latin in school. Hindsight, it might have been better to use the Greek ekatommýrio for million instead, but Mega became the standard with metric.

Age of Earth

The page varies between stating Earth is 4.5 and 4.6 billion years old. The link to "age of earth" states 4.54, the summary at the top states 4.5, the timeline itself states 4.6, etc. It would be optimal to (1) choose one date and be consistent, and (2) mention the justification for this chosen date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.121.97.12 (talk) 06:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Organization

I think this article should use time periods as well as the duration of the event occurrence to list and categorize events of the evolutionary history. Simply listing the duration it happened from present ages did not give much understanding to readers who don't have much background on geological time records. KnowledgeRequire (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Axis stabilization?

In the article: The gravitational pull of the new Moon stabilises the Earth's fluctuating axis of rotation and sets up the conditions in which life formed There is a reference to Note 1, but the page referenced there mentions nothing about an axis or its stabilization. (I'm not claiming the claim is false, just that if it is true there should be a reference for it.) Jamesdowallen (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I found a reliable reference, in a site sponsored by NASA: Astrobiology Magazine, and have added the reference to the article. NameIsRon (talk) 03:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Add chordate/vertebrate to timeline?

It jumps from arthropods to "complex animals", then fish. Is "fish and proto-amphibians" synonymous with that, more or less? Would chordate/vertebrate be a useful thing? It sounds more useful than "complex animals", which I realize is not the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.224.239.114 (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Graphical timeline into chronological order

Hi. Please see Template talk:Life graphical timeline#Reverse order? Chronological? and reply here or there. Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Dates

The previous version gave the origin of both ants and termites as 80 million years ago. This is very wrong for termites, as you can easily see by going to the termites page. I did not put termites back into the chronology, since I am not really sure what the date should be. I suggest that someone should check all the dates. Vegasprof (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Timeline of natural history?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was no consensus to merge. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

---

There is a LOT of overlap between these two articles; indeed I think much of that was copied from this one. A broader, geological as well as biological approach may help Timeline of evolution reach FL. Serendi^podous 19:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

There are key differences between the two articles that may mean Timeline of natural history can be kept. Notice the differences between the two titles first of all. Timeline of evolution only covers the evolution of life on Earth. Timeline of natural history covers everything cosmological, geological, and biological (as it says in the lead) from the beginning of the universe until now. So there are definite differences between the two, even though at some point a lot of the content does overlap. I think they should stay separate, but let's wait on the opinions of other editors. Cadiomals (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The merge tag was removed without a proper closure of this discussion, leaving a confusing history (see Wikipedia:Merging#Proposing_a_merger). However, there appears to be no consensus for a merger, so I'll go ahead and close it. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Speculative?

Underneath the Life on Earth timeline it says "Dates prior to 1 billion years ago are speculative." I can't help thinking this isn't very satisfactory wording. Although it may be difficult to get accurate dates of events that happened that long ago, surely the estimates we do have have been arrived at using a scientific process rather than merely being speculation. Or am I splitting hairs? MFlet1 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The lead image

I don't agree very well with the image on the top of the page... it shows the history of life on this planet as some kind of line, rather than the sprawling, ever branching, ever widening increase in diversity (punctuated by extinction events) that it really was.

I suggest we replace it with a more suitable image... something like this one, for example:

http://evogeneao.com/images/Evo_large.gif

What do you think?

Obhave (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe we should just remove the current lead image and let the "Life on Earth" brightly colored table act as the lead image? That would be quite nice...

Obhave (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove all information on origin of life on Earth and instead direct to page on abiogenesis

In addition to describing the evolution of life on Earth, the current article also discusses a related subject of the origin of life, which is arguably outside the scope. Moreover, what little information is provided on the origin of life primarily argues that life on Earth emerged from Earth itself, and does so despite there being no direct or indirect evidence for this (to my knowledge). To make our article more accurate and better reflect the specific aims of Wikipedia, I suggest we remove all information that describes life's origin, and instead link the reader to abiogenesis. Perhaps if anything is to be written for the origin of life on Earth in our article here, it should be a clear statement that it is uncertain how life first emerged, or whether life on Earth emerged through abiogenesis on Earth at all, or instead/additionally was transported to Earth from elsewhere in the solar system/galaxy/universe. Please comment if you have objections to this potentially imminent, non-minor edit. Besh (talk) 12:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Cites?

I'm sure cites exist for all these points on the timeline but there's not many in the article. By the time you get to the Paleozoic, they're almost extinct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.207.145.188 (talk) 11:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Basic section

Is there any good reason why the basic section so favours frst Chordate organisms and then primates, great apes and humans. This to me seems to tie in to a largely discredited view that the purpose or crown of evolution and our ancestors, e.g. in Wonderful Life (book) by Stephen Jay Gould. The section also has no refs, and while the detailed sections may suffer from a similar bias it is to a much lesser extent. I dont want refs that primates merged etc but refs that these are the most important events in the biology of the last few hundred million years. So I propose we simply remove the section. IMO the article will be just as good without it. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 21:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove tables?

Is there any reason to have these tables? IMO it can be better formatted without using these tables, and just highlight each time period and have its text as a paragraph. There are articles where tables are great but I seriously question whether this is one of them.

First Plantae on Earth?

The list doesn't mention when was Plantae appared on Earth? I think that's important!--181.27.184.97 (talk) 18:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Cambrian explosion

changed captions, removing "complex" from precambrian multicellulars and calling cambrian "many kinds of multicellular" as the Cambrian explosion did not concern only land organisms and the precambrian organisms were few and simple by comparison. CharlesHBennett (talk) 23:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Extinction events.

Someone be so kind as to place the annotation where at each junction of an extinction event, multitudes of still remaining subsets begin to deviate and find niches, each one evolving on their own in seperate ways, adapting, changing slightly in chromosome contents when each adaptation favours one over the over, and overal spread out at a very rapid pace.

86% of all life extinct, implies all traces no longer pertinent, which is not correct. The smallest living relative of a dinosaur is a lizard, one of the larger ones, the crocodile. So yes, of the multitude of species, the larger ones vanished, but solely to be replaced by meriat slightly changed smaller ones, spreading out rapidly. One lizard, lays a 100 eggs, and without predation, 86% of these could very well survive into a next generation, with a good proportion with a slight chromosomic distinction.

Therefore: Extinction 1: 86% gone, 1 million years later, 150% other subsets (in niches). Extinction 2: 86% gone, 1 million years later, 150% other subsets (in niches). Extinction 3. same Extinction 4. same

Extinction 5. Now we have a junction, 86% gone, but the only dumb niche there is, is a loft, room or other 3x3, therefore NO increment and moving out, and no other species but that species. It'll take a few hundreds of millions of years to redo that what was/came before (if not a few billion), and most any scientist would be willing to state: Can that be without any brains at all, after all, 7 billion niches, all of the same minuscule capacity and no overal instance of any indication that those will ever produce any distinct subgroups. :) Extinctions aren't that bad, if it's the right species that becomes extinct. Tough luck for us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.88.245.101 (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SOAP, WP:NOR... and WP:SOFIXIT (so long as you have reliable sources to back up your OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:34, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be "Timeline of the evolutionary history of life"?

Shouldn't it be "Timeline of the evolutionary history of life"? Abyssal (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

I can see no reason why not. It's currently just bad grammar. --PLUMBAGO 12:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. Rather than faff around with an RM, I'm going to go WP:BOLD and move it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Changes to timeline

These changes to the timeline information are going to need more explanation, especially since the sources being replaced are newer than the ones added. ... discospinster _talk 19:17, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It does appear that while some sources do indeed indicate a date of first plant life of around ~470 mya, the sources that I have listed, that have been shared around other websites including ones hosted by universities, it does appear that they are accurate. Since this information is new, it makes sources would have not "caught on" to the earlier date for plant evolution. In addition, it appears as if the 4.28 billion years ago for the date for life appears to contradict other sources (including other Wikipedia pages) which say that life may have arisen later, and that the 4.28 figure is not confirmed, and that 4.1-3.8 bya is more reasonable. Also, the chart for the evolution of life now has Land Plants at 1 bya, and I think it would be a good idea to keep Wikipedia consistent. I propose that we keep the 1 bya for earliest evidence of plant life, but do not say that such plant life's existence has been confirmed until a later date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Shakiba (talk • contribs) 21:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Timeline templates

I noticed their recent removal. While I don't think I was the one who added them, this article may likely be the best candidate for their inclusion (they were indeed removed at other places where they seemed out of line too). —PaleoNeonate – 04:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Plantdrew for their input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 04:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate:, I agree that the timeline templates are appropriate to the scope of this article (but they are also placed on many other articles where their relevance is tangental at best). However, this article/timeline is far more detailed than the timeline templates. I don't think the templates add any useful content that isn't better presented in the main text (if there are events listed in the timeline templates not mentioned in this article, these events could be added). Plantdrew (talk) 15:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@PaleoNeonate and Plantdrew: FWIW - to be clear - I may have added many (but perhaps not all) of these timeline templates (ie, {{Human timeline}}, {{Life timeline}}, {{Nature timeline}}, {{LifeOnEarth}}, {{LocationOfEarth}}) to several relevant (imo) articles some time ago - but in good faith and as possible improvements to articles at that time (they were not at all intended to be added as spam) - however - if the additions were reverted for good reason (ie, not really an improvement to the article, for example), the reverts were *entirely* ok with me (also see => "Template talk:Life timeline#Recent removal of template from various pages" - as noted earlier => "it's *entirely* ok with me to rm/rv/mv/ce the edits - esp if there is "WP:CONSENSUS" from other editors - restoring worthy edits is welcome as well of course") - I don't recall challenging any reverts at all made for good reason (esp, not vandalism) - hope this helps in some way - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

@Plantdrew: I don't think the templates add any useful content that isn't better presented in the main text: that's true. —PaleoNeonate – 20:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Great American Interchange

The date in the article looks too early. The Great American Interchange happened, according to its own article, 2.7 million years ago, even though there might have been instances of migration before then. The phrasing in this article seems to imply that the majority of species crossed 9.5 million years ago, which is false. Hyxl4161 (talk) 01:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

mega annum

I understand the writing "megaannum" (which the wikipedia spellchecker just corrected to "mega annum") from words like "megatons". However, google returns "megaannum" with a question whether I meant mega-annum. And, in my opinion, the latter should be entered here in this article for better readability and compliance with spellcheckers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LMSchmitt (talk • contribs) 05:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

First evidence of life inconsistency

Under "Archean Eon" we have

4100–3800 Ma ... "Remains of biotic life" were found in 4.1 billion-year-old rocks in Western Australia.[22][23]

but later:

3800 Ma ... The earliest evidences for life on Earth are 3.8 billion-year-old biogenic hematite in a banded iron formation of the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt in Canada

Which? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

also, under "Proterozoic Eon:, we have:

1300 Ma Earliest land fungi[43]

but later:

1000 Ma The first non-marine eukaryotes move onto land. They were photosynthetic and multicellular, indicating that plants evolved much earlier than originally thought.[47]

This implies that fungi are not eukaryotic. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 16:37, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

How many individual animals (excluding plants) have existed since life is believed to have first come into existence on Earth?

Is anybody able to provide an authoritative reference in answer to that question? I can't seem to find the answer on the Internet, although I recall reading an estimate in an article I can no longer find. It was up there around 10 to the power of something. 2600:8801:B011:300:A0B9:F42B:4906:8956 (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)Thanks, James.

Parts of the article are still not well cited

The Palaeozoic Era, Mesozoic Era and Cenozoic Era sections have little citations. This is why I added {{More citations needed|section|date=September 2022}} to them. @Chiswick Chap NiceWikiEditor5 (talk) 15:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, you're right, of course, as with thousands of other list articles. Not sure that decorating multiple sections of all of them with boxy tags, to be left in place for years until somebody gets fed up with them and rips them out again, is particularly going to help, however. Best is to add a few citations here and there when you see the opportunity, and to revert any especially egregiously uncited additions. BTW I'm not to blame for constructing this list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Previously, I have added a citation for Earliest Bees. I will add new citations when possible. NiceWikiEditor5 (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Claims about appearance of first fungi

This article makes two pretty bold claims about the appearance of fungi:

1. The visual timeline labels the first fungi at 1.5 billion years ago.
2. The actual table claims that the first land fungi appeared 1.3 billion years ago.

Regarding (1): Clicking on this label in the timeline takes you to Evolution of Fungi, wherein there is little support for the claim of fungi appearing 1.5 bya. This claim appears to stem from a widely cited study by Heckman et al. (2001) which argues for fungi diverging around 1500 mya. However, a later study from Lücking et al. (2009) found a more plausible earliest divergence date of 1 bya, and an even more recent study from Tedersoo et al. (2018) found a divergence time of Holomycota from Holozoa at around 1.2 bya.

Regarding (2): This claim, as pointed out by @Geoffrey.landis above, is inconsistent with other claims elsewhere in the article. The actual claim in the table only cites a news article about the aforementioned 2001 study, based on an interview with one of the authors of the then-upcoming paper and published before the paper itself. A much more recent article by Loron et al. (2019) claims to have found the earliest direct evidence of fungi on land in a 1 billion-year-old fossil.

Another problem with (1) is evident when you look at the label for "earliest animal" in the timeline. In its current state, the timeline's labels for earliest fungi and animals seem to rest on completely different definitions of "fungi" vs. "animals". The label for fungi appears to refer not to Eumycota (true fungi), but rather to Holomycota (all fungus-like organisms). By this logic, since Holomycota and Holozoa (being sister groups within Opisthokonta) diverged at the same time, we should be saying that the earliest "animals" and the earliest "fungi" both appeared around ~1.2 bya (according to Tedersoo et al.). But in the timeline, the "earliest animals" label sensibly points to the earliest proposed Metazoan (true animal) fossil species, and not to the proposed divergence of Holozoa (all animal-like organisms) based on molecular evidence. I think it would be far more sensible to use the same definitions for fungi and animals in the timeline – that is, to point to the earliest proposed Eumycota fossil (e.g. the Ourasphaira giraldae discussed by Loron et al.?).

It's not clear to me what exact claims should replace (1) and (2). Can any (palaeo)mycologists weigh in here? Adrianrorheim (talk) 13:44, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AUT — Bundesland Salzburg — Salzburg — Museumspl. 5 (Haus der Natur · Homo floresiensis) Mattes 2022-10-30.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Multicellular life

This has probably been raised before but there is an inconsistency here which perhaps wants an airing. If I click on 'earliest multicellular life' in the diagram which appears against 1550 Ma it takes me to the article on the disputed Francevillian biota which is dated at 2.1 Ma. Perhaps it ought to direct elsewhere e.g., Multicellular_organism ? cheers Geopersona (talk) 11:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Abiogenesis should be near the top of the article

There should be a high expectation that anyone coming to this link will expect to also be interested in Abiogenesis and to see a link in the introduction. To bury this inside a table is to simply make it more difficult to find, especially if the term "Abiogenesis" is not familiar to the student and therefore they won't know to do a direct search. Pmarshal (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)