![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've already added this to the Phanerozoic article, and I'm thinking that I should add it here as well. If you have anything you want to change, either change it directly, or tell me on my talk page. I'd appreciate your input! I'll be adding it tomorrow, but you're still free to edit it further (but if you're going to delete, please tell me why)... Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 03:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how those bear URL's got in there, but I've added the original copy from my sandbox which (to my knowledge) has no bare URL's. If you wish to edit that section, please do, and then tell me what you did because I'd like to keep my sandbox copy up-to-date. If you wish to delete it, please tell me why (and it better be a good reason...) Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 01:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess I could add the Cenozoic section because the existing one is lacking in information. I don't really know if I can merge the rest though, but I'd appreciate it if anyone could find a spot for it in this article. I also added it to the Mesozoic, but if you want to delete that one, I'd understand. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 02:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't add the entire "Mesozoic" section, just the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous subsections. You deleted too much and someone's going to have to re-write it... Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 01:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I've re-written the section titled "Diversification of Mammals". Before I add it (in about a week or so), tell me what you think. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 02:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead, I have plenty of copies. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 03:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The first true mammals evolved in the shadow of the giant reptiles that filled the world during the mid-Mesozoic. Probably the first mammals were nocturnal to escape predation, and rather small. Mammals only began to diversify after the K-T extinction event when the world was left empty of anything over 10 kilograms. [1] The early Eocene was when earth recovered from the extinction, but mammals were still quite small and living in the shadow of the dinosaurs' descendants: birds. Birds, like Gastornis, ruled the earth, and forced some mammals to evolve to escape predation. Creatures like Ambulocetus took to the oceans to eventually evolve into whales [2], whereas some creatures, like primates, took to the trees [3]. This all changed during the mid to late Eocene when the circum-Antarctic current formed between Antarctica and Australia which disrupted weather patterns on a global scale. Prairies (without grass) set out to rule much of the earth, and mammals such as Andrewsarchus rose up to become the largest mammalian predator ever [4] and early whales like Basilosaurus took control of the seas. The Oligocene saw the evolution of grass, and the beginnings of its conquest to rule the world's flora. The evolution of grass brought a remarkable change to the planets landscape, and the new open spaces created pushed mammals to get bigger and bigger. Grass started to expand in the Miocene, and the Miocene is where many modern day mammals. Perissodactyls like Paraceratherium and Deinotherium (rhinos and elephants) evolved to rule the grasslands. The evolution of grass also brought primates down from the trees, and started the human branch. The first big cats evolved during this time as well, and will eventually branchiate into lions and other large felids [5]. Major tectonic events were occurring alongside these events. The Tethys Sea was closed off by the collision of Africa and Europe [6], and the Isthmus of Panama form between North and South America. The formation of Panama was perhaps the most important geological event to occur in the last 60 million years. Atlantic and Pacific current were closed off from each other, which caused the formation of the Gulf Stream, which made Europe warmer (winters wouldn't get colder than 10 degrees Celsius). The land bridge allowed the isolated creatures of South America to migrate over to North America, and vise versa [7]. The ancestors of bears, cats, dogs, horses, llamas, and raccoons all migrated across, which is why we have the Spectacled Bear, the Puma (in both of the Americas), and the Llama (which evolved in North America). Three million years from today was the Pleistocene epoch, probably one of the most famous epochs in geological history. This epoch featured a roller coaster of climactic changes due to the ice ages. The ice ages led to the evolution of modern man in Saharan Africa (which formed due to the Ice Ages) and expansion. The mega-fauna that dominated fed on grasslands that, by now, had taken over much of the subtropical world. The large amounts of water held in the ice allowed for various bodies of water to shrink and sometimes disappear such as the North Sea and the Bering Strait. It is believed by many that a huge migration took place along Beringia which is why, today, there are camels (which evolved and went extinct in North America), Horses (which evolved and went extinct in North America), and Native Americans. The ending of the last ice age coincided with the expansion of man, along with a massive die out of ice age mega-fauna. This extinction, nicknamed " the Sixth Extinction", has been going ever since. In present day, mammals have come a long way from shrews living in the shadows of the Mesozoic forests. References
|
Should I work on a Mesozoic version, or would that be too much? Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 14:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Should we re-add the section because that's a fairly important time in earth's history (involving life)? Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
On the topic of adding that revised version at the top of the section, should I go ahead and with it, or does it need to be revised? Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 00:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed, but everything talking about geological time (which makes up over half of the articles info) is not organized thematically, but rather chronologically. When speaking in terms of geological time, it is natural to order them chronologically, which is why I strongly suggest reorganizing the rest of the article chronologically rather than thematically. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 17:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, went through a reference from that section, and found another article there — 'Snowball Earth' hypothesis challenged, dated October 12, 2011: «The hypothesis that Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during that period was much lower than previously thought, according to a team of researchers.» There's also this piece, too: «Moreover, this data is consistent with the idea that the atmosphere at the same period was much more oxygen-poor, around 1%, as compared to today's levels of approximately 20%.» — which is utterly interesting and worth considering, etc. Lincoln J. ( talk) 16:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Errata in the GTS graphic--(top, lede)--are: 1) "Hominids" should read "Hominins"--occurs twice; 2) Hadean color band should end at 4.0 Ga (vice 3.8). Help is requested of any editor to revise the graphic template. (OR: Questions, pls reply here.) Thank you. Jbeans ( talk) 05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I notated the following "punch list" of items (from the old graphic) that still needs correcting>
1. The recent edits show nicely on the new page graphic, BUT, not at all when the graphic is 'clicked' to zoom in---instead the old edition reappears without the new edits.
Items 2 thru 6 are problems with data values, presented per the template that follows:
2. [CURRENTLY READS> "4560 Ma: Formation of the Earth"]-------> {SHOULD READ> "c. 4540 Ma: Formation of the Earth"}
3. ["4527 Ma: Formation of the Moon"]-------> {"c. 4480 Ma: Formation of the Moon"}
4. ["750-635 Ma: Two Snowball Earths"]-------> {"c. 750-630 Ma: Two Snowball Earths"}
5. ["230-66 Ma: Non-avian dinosaurs"]-------> {"c. 230-66 Ma: Non-avian dinosaurs"}
6. ["2 Ma: First Hominins"]-------> {"c. __ Ma: First hominins"}
Items 2, 3, and 5 are corrections that conform their revised values to the article narrative; note, all are "c.", or circa, values--ie, should not be presented as other than approximate, which, again, is consistent with the article narrative. Item 4 is corrected for a significant figure value--in the context of precision, and of adjacent data values. Item 6 is a problem: the value "2" is outdated/wrong, and should be replaced; research homework is due. I volunteer for that task, but meantime let's discuss the above punch list; any additions, objections, comments? // Jbeans ( talk) 07:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Undid good faith edit re paragraphs (also per WP:LEAD)> Our priority here should be for the lay reader. Long runs of mashed-up sentences are discouraging to behold. There’s no guiding punctuation space to signal that a new line of thought is happening; no stopping point for the reader to reflect on the material just read; no place for you, reader, to visually ‘hold your place’, should you want to pause---no rest here, jus’ keep reading!
Serviceable paragraphs provide cohering thoughts, separated from the cohering thoughts of adjacent serviceable paragraphs. They are separated physically---a service to the reader---for the advantages of: 1) comprehending a separate component of the larger body of material; 2) to signal a closing of ‘this’ line of thought; 3) and for ease of reading;---and why not? They shouldn’t be jammed together to degrade readability for no perceivable advantage gained.// Jbeans ( talk) 05:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Re, recent contention, and the addition at some point of "— now dominated by human activity—". "...now dominated by..." is conjecture. Adding the qualification "believed by some ..." improves the accuracy of the statement and lessens the appearance of agenda.
BTW -- new at this -- appreciate the patience. Is "take it to the talk" an asymmetrical activity? ChrisHackett ( talk) 00:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite a rather long list of citations, much of the context remains unsourced and several claims lack attribution. :
That is about it for the problems of the article. I hope I am not being too harsh. Dimadick ( talk) 14:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Overview and Leds are exactly the same thing. Any "Overview" section thus should be merged into the lede, or renamed to a more appropriate name. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on History of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
In the overview section "Eons", I changed some verbs in the past tense to make them agree with the rest of the text, which is in historical present. - Alumnum ( talk) 19:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It would be good to find a citation to attach to the last lines of the introduction to better credit the article and suggest further reading material to those interested — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.3.18 ( talk) 06:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. It's possible this is an WP:ENGVAR thing. Alternative names suggested (e.g. Earth's history) may be explored with future RMs. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
History of Earth → History of the Earth – See below Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The name of the article should be "History of the Earth". "History of Earth" sounds like broken English. No? -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 05:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i personally am an evolutionist,but i believe that everybody should be taught both sides of the debate young earth v old earth. i believe that you should also make a page where you are biased to the creationists since you all ready have a page biased to evolutionists and the theory of evolution. i hope you take the request into consideration, thank you 72.83.35.131 ( talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I recommend that this page is biased to a non-creationist. As no-one was present at either the religious creation or the creation described here, this creation does not actually meet the requirements for "scientific" under the definition within Wikipedia itself. On the Wikipedia page defining the scientific method, it clearly states "The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed." Neither the religious nor method of creation described on this page was "observed" and so careful observation cannot be applied to it. Both methods require a "leap of faith" and therefore by claiming this is a scientific explanation of creation is clearly in error and is biased to an atheistic view.
I recommend a change be made to flag this page at the beginning as a "non-scientific" belief on par with the opinions of Biblical creationism.
Your attention to these concerns is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbaptlltech ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
it's all there: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, Phanerozoic. fgnievinski ( talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement: "Human activity is now a dominant force affecting global change, harming the biosphere, the Earth's surface, hydrosphere, and atmosphere with the loss of wild lands, over-exploitation of the oceans, production of greenhouse gases, degradation of the ozone layer, and general degradation of soil, air, and water quality." does not include citation(s) to the source(s) supporting the statement. 47.51.27.61 ( talk) 18:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Under the Eons titled section, in the Phanerozoic part of the table, it somewhat misleadingly says, "Several mass extinctions occur, among which birds, the descendants of non-avian dinosaurs, and more recently mammals emerge." But mammals, at least the non-placental variety, are easily as ancient in origin as birds and perhaps even predate them by up to a 100 million years. Mammals 225-160 mya, birds 160 mya, and placental mammals 90-66 mya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.211.178 ( talk) 23:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Under Oceans and atmosphere it says: "Stars are known to get brighter as they age, and at the time of its formation the Sun would have been emitting only 70% of its current power. Thus, the Sun has become 30% brighter in the last 4.5 billion years." There is an error with the percentages. If the sun was emitting 70% of its current power, an increase of 30% would mean that the sun is emitting 0,91% of the current power (0,70*1,3). 81.229.248.65 ( talk) 20:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This article fails to mention Milankovitch cycles, and may need an entire section on them. LightProof1995 ( talk) 06:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
History of Earth → Earth history – However preferred 'History of X' may be as a style on Wikipedia, this page title just reads strangely with respect to reliable sources. This is commonly known as "Earth history", in every major university in the English language world (by a wide margin), just as the science is "Earth science". Even were the current title preferred, 'History of the Earth' would surely have read better. But in any case, Ngrams shows the gap in the actual usage. Then, if we move onto scholarly results, a search for "History of Earth" yields 13,700 raw results, and several early hits for this are not applicable. The fourth result I see is Geophagia: the history of earth-eating. Some other results use the chain of words 'history of earth', but as part of the phrase 'history of earth science', reinforcing the 'earth science' and 'earth history' phraseology. 'Earth history' has 205,000 raw results by comparison, and there are no results on the initial pages not clearly about 'earth history'. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
I've already added this to the Phanerozoic article, and I'm thinking that I should add it here as well. If you have anything you want to change, either change it directly, or tell me on my talk page. I'd appreciate your input! I'll be adding it tomorrow, but you're still free to edit it further (but if you're going to delete, please tell me why)... Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 03:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know how those bear URL's got in there, but I've added the original copy from my sandbox which (to my knowledge) has no bare URL's. If you wish to edit that section, please do, and then tell me what you did because I'd like to keep my sandbox copy up-to-date. If you wish to delete it, please tell me why (and it better be a good reason...) Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 01:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I guess I could add the Cenozoic section because the existing one is lacking in information. I don't really know if I can merge the rest though, but I'd appreciate it if anyone could find a spot for it in this article. I also added it to the Mesozoic, but if you want to delete that one, I'd understand. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 02:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I didn't add the entire "Mesozoic" section, just the Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous subsections. You deleted too much and someone's going to have to re-write it... Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 01:46, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I've re-written the section titled "Diversification of Mammals". Before I add it (in about a week or so), tell me what you think. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 02:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Go ahead, I have plenty of copies. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 03:00, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
The first true mammals evolved in the shadow of the giant reptiles that filled the world during the mid-Mesozoic. Probably the first mammals were nocturnal to escape predation, and rather small. Mammals only began to diversify after the K-T extinction event when the world was left empty of anything over 10 kilograms. [1] The early Eocene was when earth recovered from the extinction, but mammals were still quite small and living in the shadow of the dinosaurs' descendants: birds. Birds, like Gastornis, ruled the earth, and forced some mammals to evolve to escape predation. Creatures like Ambulocetus took to the oceans to eventually evolve into whales [2], whereas some creatures, like primates, took to the trees [3]. This all changed during the mid to late Eocene when the circum-Antarctic current formed between Antarctica and Australia which disrupted weather patterns on a global scale. Prairies (without grass) set out to rule much of the earth, and mammals such as Andrewsarchus rose up to become the largest mammalian predator ever [4] and early whales like Basilosaurus took control of the seas. The Oligocene saw the evolution of grass, and the beginnings of its conquest to rule the world's flora. The evolution of grass brought a remarkable change to the planets landscape, and the new open spaces created pushed mammals to get bigger and bigger. Grass started to expand in the Miocene, and the Miocene is where many modern day mammals. Perissodactyls like Paraceratherium and Deinotherium (rhinos and elephants) evolved to rule the grasslands. The evolution of grass also brought primates down from the trees, and started the human branch. The first big cats evolved during this time as well, and will eventually branchiate into lions and other large felids [5]. Major tectonic events were occurring alongside these events. The Tethys Sea was closed off by the collision of Africa and Europe [6], and the Isthmus of Panama form between North and South America. The formation of Panama was perhaps the most important geological event to occur in the last 60 million years. Atlantic and Pacific current were closed off from each other, which caused the formation of the Gulf Stream, which made Europe warmer (winters wouldn't get colder than 10 degrees Celsius). The land bridge allowed the isolated creatures of South America to migrate over to North America, and vise versa [7]. The ancestors of bears, cats, dogs, horses, llamas, and raccoons all migrated across, which is why we have the Spectacled Bear, the Puma (in both of the Americas), and the Llama (which evolved in North America). Three million years from today was the Pleistocene epoch, probably one of the most famous epochs in geological history. This epoch featured a roller coaster of climactic changes due to the ice ages. The ice ages led to the evolution of modern man in Saharan Africa (which formed due to the Ice Ages) and expansion. The mega-fauna that dominated fed on grasslands that, by now, had taken over much of the subtropical world. The large amounts of water held in the ice allowed for various bodies of water to shrink and sometimes disappear such as the North Sea and the Bering Strait. It is believed by many that a huge migration took place along Beringia which is why, today, there are camels (which evolved and went extinct in North America), Horses (which evolved and went extinct in North America), and Native Americans. The ending of the last ice age coincided with the expansion of man, along with a massive die out of ice age mega-fauna. This extinction, nicknamed " the Sixth Extinction", has been going ever since. In present day, mammals have come a long way from shrews living in the shadows of the Mesozoic forests. References
|
Should I work on a Mesozoic version, or would that be too much? Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 14:06, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Should we re-add the section because that's a fairly important time in earth's history (involving life)? Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 00:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
On the topic of adding that revised version at the top of the section, should I go ahead and with it, or does it need to be revised? Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 00:47, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you've noticed, but everything talking about geological time (which makes up over half of the articles info) is not organized thematically, but rather chronologically. When speaking in terms of geological time, it is natural to order them chronologically, which is why I strongly suggest reorganizing the rest of the article chronologically rather than thematically. Dunkleosteus77 ( talk) 17:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, went through a reference from that section, and found another article there — 'Snowball Earth' hypothesis challenged, dated October 12, 2011: «The hypothesis that Earth was completely covered in ice 635 million years ago has received a serious blow. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide during that period was much lower than previously thought, according to a team of researchers.» There's also this piece, too: «Moreover, this data is consistent with the idea that the atmosphere at the same period was much more oxygen-poor, around 1%, as compared to today's levels of approximately 20%.» — which is utterly interesting and worth considering, etc. Lincoln J. ( talk) 16:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Errata in the GTS graphic--(top, lede)--are: 1) "Hominids" should read "Hominins"--occurs twice; 2) Hadean color band should end at 4.0 Ga (vice 3.8). Help is requested of any editor to revise the graphic template. (OR: Questions, pls reply here.) Thank you. Jbeans ( talk) 05:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
I notated the following "punch list" of items (from the old graphic) that still needs correcting>
1. The recent edits show nicely on the new page graphic, BUT, not at all when the graphic is 'clicked' to zoom in---instead the old edition reappears without the new edits.
Items 2 thru 6 are problems with data values, presented per the template that follows:
2. [CURRENTLY READS> "4560 Ma: Formation of the Earth"]-------> {SHOULD READ> "c. 4540 Ma: Formation of the Earth"}
3. ["4527 Ma: Formation of the Moon"]-------> {"c. 4480 Ma: Formation of the Moon"}
4. ["750-635 Ma: Two Snowball Earths"]-------> {"c. 750-630 Ma: Two Snowball Earths"}
5. ["230-66 Ma: Non-avian dinosaurs"]-------> {"c. 230-66 Ma: Non-avian dinosaurs"}
6. ["2 Ma: First Hominins"]-------> {"c. __ Ma: First hominins"}
Items 2, 3, and 5 are corrections that conform their revised values to the article narrative; note, all are "c.", or circa, values--ie, should not be presented as other than approximate, which, again, is consistent with the article narrative. Item 4 is corrected for a significant figure value--in the context of precision, and of adjacent data values. Item 6 is a problem: the value "2" is outdated/wrong, and should be replaced; research homework is due. I volunteer for that task, but meantime let's discuss the above punch list; any additions, objections, comments? // Jbeans ( talk) 07:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Undid good faith edit re paragraphs (also per WP:LEAD)> Our priority here should be for the lay reader. Long runs of mashed-up sentences are discouraging to behold. There’s no guiding punctuation space to signal that a new line of thought is happening; no stopping point for the reader to reflect on the material just read; no place for you, reader, to visually ‘hold your place’, should you want to pause---no rest here, jus’ keep reading!
Serviceable paragraphs provide cohering thoughts, separated from the cohering thoughts of adjacent serviceable paragraphs. They are separated physically---a service to the reader---for the advantages of: 1) comprehending a separate component of the larger body of material; 2) to signal a closing of ‘this’ line of thought; 3) and for ease of reading;---and why not? They shouldn’t be jammed together to degrade readability for no perceivable advantage gained.// Jbeans ( talk) 05:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Re, recent contention, and the addition at some point of "— now dominated by human activity—". "...now dominated by..." is conjecture. Adding the qualification "believed by some ..." improves the accuracy of the statement and lessens the appearance of agenda.
BTW -- new at this -- appreciate the patience. Is "take it to the talk" an asymmetrical activity? ChrisHackett ( talk) 00:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Despite a rather long list of citations, much of the context remains unsourced and several claims lack attribution. :
That is about it for the problems of the article. I hope I am not being too harsh. Dimadick ( talk) 14:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 12:40, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Overview and Leds are exactly the same thing. Any "Overview" section thus should be merged into the lede, or renamed to a more appropriate name. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 04:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on History of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the
|checked=
to true
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:20, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
In the overview section "Eons", I changed some verbs in the past tense to make them agree with the rest of the text, which is in historical present. - Alumnum ( talk) 19:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on History of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 15:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on History of Earth. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
It would be good to find a citation to attach to the last lines of the introduction to better credit the article and suggest further reading material to those interested — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.76.3.18 ( talk) 06:47, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move at this time. It's possible this is an WP:ENGVAR thing. Alternative names suggested (e.g. Earth's history) may be explored with future RMs. — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC) — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
History of Earth → History of the Earth – See below Dudley Miles ( talk) 21:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The name of the article should be "History of the Earth". "History of Earth" sounds like broken English. No? -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 05:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
i personally am an evolutionist,but i believe that everybody should be taught both sides of the debate young earth v old earth. i believe that you should also make a page where you are biased to the creationists since you all ready have a page biased to evolutionists and the theory of evolution. i hope you take the request into consideration, thank you 72.83.35.131 ( talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I recommend that this page is biased to a non-creationist. As no-one was present at either the religious creation or the creation described here, this creation does not actually meet the requirements for "scientific" under the definition within Wikipedia itself. On the Wikipedia page defining the scientific method, it clearly states "The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed." Neither the religious nor method of creation described on this page was "observed" and so careful observation cannot be applied to it. Both methods require a "leap of faith" and therefore by claiming this is a scientific explanation of creation is clearly in error and is biased to an atheistic view.
I recommend a change be made to flag this page at the beginning as a "non-scientific" belief on par with the opinions of Biblical creationism.
Your attention to these concerns is greatly appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fbaptlltech ( talk • contribs) 19:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from:
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/the-origin-of-life. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see
"using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or
"donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. DuncanHill ( talk) 17:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
it's all there: Hadean, Archean, Proterozoic, Phanerozoic. fgnievinski ( talk) 20:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
History of Earth has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The statement: "Human activity is now a dominant force affecting global change, harming the biosphere, the Earth's surface, hydrosphere, and atmosphere with the loss of wild lands, over-exploitation of the oceans, production of greenhouse gases, degradation of the ozone layer, and general degradation of soil, air, and water quality." does not include citation(s) to the source(s) supporting the statement. 47.51.27.61 ( talk) 18:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Under the Eons titled section, in the Phanerozoic part of the table, it somewhat misleadingly says, "Several mass extinctions occur, among which birds, the descendants of non-avian dinosaurs, and more recently mammals emerge." But mammals, at least the non-placental variety, are easily as ancient in origin as birds and perhaps even predate them by up to a 100 million years. Mammals 225-160 mya, birds 160 mya, and placental mammals 90-66 mya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.211.178 ( talk) 23:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Under Oceans and atmosphere it says: "Stars are known to get brighter as they age, and at the time of its formation the Sun would have been emitting only 70% of its current power. Thus, the Sun has become 30% brighter in the last 4.5 billion years." There is an error with the percentages. If the sun was emitting 70% of its current power, an increase of 30% would mean that the sun is emitting 0,91% of the current power (0,70*1,3). 81.229.248.65 ( talk) 20:23, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
This article fails to mention Milankovitch cycles, and may need an entire section on them. LightProof1995 ( talk) 06:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. Arbitrarily0 ( talk) 00:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
History of Earth → Earth history – However preferred 'History of X' may be as a style on Wikipedia, this page title just reads strangely with respect to reliable sources. This is commonly known as "Earth history", in every major university in the English language world (by a wide margin), just as the science is "Earth science". Even were the current title preferred, 'History of the Earth' would surely have read better. But in any case, Ngrams shows the gap in the actual usage. Then, if we move onto scholarly results, a search for "History of Earth" yields 13,700 raw results, and several early hits for this are not applicable. The fourth result I see is Geophagia: the history of earth-eating. Some other results use the chain of words 'history of earth', but as part of the phrase 'history of earth science', reinforcing the 'earth science' and 'earth history' phraseology. 'Earth history' has 205,000 raw results by comparison, and there are no results on the initial pages not clearly about 'earth history'. Iskandar323 ( talk) 15:30, 27 October 2022 (UTC)