![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Information on this page was text-merged from the now redirected page Timeline of the Precambrian. Please see here for full editor credit. |
Never ever heard such a number before, every other source says Sun is about 4.6±0.5 Ga old, that oldest meteorite is about 4.56 and so on. Any source for 4592.1 Ga (please)? Or is it just an extrapolation back from 4567.17 Ma, assuming a certain contraction time and planetary formation time?? Rursus 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
While nagging around and being generally inconvenient, I'll somewhat sadistically feel an urge to add another objection: the figure 4567.17 Ma, does it really refer to the age of Earth? It certainly refers to the measured age of Efremovka CAI, one of the boulders measured - but Efremovka is a carbochondrite meteorite, Earth is a planet that may or may not have been created as much as 50 Ma afterwards, if we adher to the modern theories of protoplanet "oligarchic growth" (a modern and good theory - but yet just a theory!). Let's be pessimistic, saying that 50 Ma was the delay before Earth was created, and we get 4517 Ma, which is in disaccord with the Wikipedia time for creation of Moon 4533 Ma, or the one I found on the net 4527 Ma. But either way: Earth was probably formed in the time interval 4567 to 4527, but when?? Rursus 08:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Sigh! At last I found a proper source making the Original Reseach of this faulty article unnecessary. See Harrison J. Schmitt's (Apollo 17) Lecture 7 from NEEP533 Course Notes (Spring 2004)! It tells us the following:
This means that there is nothing such as 4592.1 Ma!! 4592.1 is desinformation!! Remove it, darn!! The SN Trigger sprinkled the solar nebula with radioactivity, foremost Al-26, believed to be responsible for some inner asteroid melting, so the SN Trigger cannot have been much earlier than say 4568 Ma. Instead of using the WP:OR timeline sketched here, use Schmitts and mark it as speculative. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I took the date 4533 Ma from Giant impact hypothesis. Before that, Timetable of the Precambrian said 4537±10 Ma. Anthony Appleyard 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Possible
mnemonics are:-
For the initial letters of the names of the periods:-
For the root meanings of the names of the periods:-
Anthony Appleyard
18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I've looked specifically at a page on the Earth Sciences portal. I was a little confused at first to see this page arranged with the oldest event at the top of the page. Geological convention would have the youngest at the top and the oldest at the bottom, to reflect Charles Lyell's Principle of Superposition in stratigraphy. I hesitate to suggest we should invert the order, on the basis that I might open a can of worms on numerous other pages - but one only needs to look at a stratigraphic column (see diagram in Table of geologic time section on that page) to see that it is the way a geologist would present such information. (user - dyvroeth).
This line of the article caught my eye: "2000 Ma: Animal tracks in west Texas; first evidence of multicellular life." This would be a remarkble discovery if true. There have been claims for the discovery of burrows from over 1000 Ma, but as far as I know they're contentious. Does anyone have a reference for the west Texas tracks? Cephal-odd 04:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Good question, I looked at that and did a double take myself...
Jcforge
15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I've found life seems to have 'started' only a few hundred million (to a billion) years after the earth was formed... which would be close to 2000 mya.... as for 'tracks' it's probably meaning traces of fossils that indicate life... it does seem misleading...
The article is wrong, and a very good example of when cited by a high school student, making him/her fail by citing erroneous sources. The article must be rewritten in its entirety:
Now, I'll challenge the factual accuracy. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Worst errors fixed now, but new found:
Sorry for being unconvenient (eh, actually a kind of sadistic pleasure, hehe!) Said: Rursus ☻ 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And another error (?):
Said: Rursus ☻ 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Now fixed also Hadean and Earth/Proto-earth issues. More to be done about the article:
Said: Rursus ☻ 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
One more error found: Neoproterozoic Subcommision of ICS, annual report of 2006, says that Cryogenian starts 750 Ma. Said: Rursus ☻ 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The language contains lots of technical terms, it must be fixed to be comprehensible by Jim, Joe and Mary. Said: Rursus ☻ 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This article says:
The Giant impact hypothesis article says:
So which is it?
Gakrivas ( talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
About the proposed split: I have no objection to the creation of separate more detailed articles as suggested. However, I think this consolidated list gives a useful combined overview of all these topics, and should be kept, with links to other more detailed timelines as appropriate.-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This does not agree with the Vostok Ice Core nor do the links suppport it. Where does this come form? Tks Veteran0101 ( talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Why in blazes did someone undertake to start with the most recent dates on top, going further and further back to the bottom. This makes no sense at all. 66.108.94.216 ( talk) 20:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Disappointed in Wiki editorship Allen Roth
The principal issues I had with reversing the order (use of the word "prehistory" and the inclusion of the stone age) have been resolved. So I reversed the order to earliest to latest. Serendi pod ous 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It says in the article that protowriting evolved 7000 years ago but the Jiahu culture had a script 9000 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiahu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.206.7 ( talk) 11:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_of_prehistory&diff=436536951&oldid=436500714
Serendipodous, why did you remove the stone age timeline (part of prehistory) from the timeline article!?! This really belongs here. This timeline isn't that complex. -- J. D. Redding 02:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is, that the graphic timelines overwhelm the article and make the information less accessible. They're all already in Stone Age, to which this article now links, so they're not necessary. Serendi pod ous 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have an idea I can live with. Serendi pod ous 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]()
|
![]()
| |||
|
Why does this stop at the stone age? Geologic history didn't stop just because some brainy critter started throwing rocks (using geological materials). It should extend right up to the present - geology is still active.
Plus it seems more about paleontology than geology.
And: 34 million years ago: cats begin to evolve ... hmm what did the pre 34 mya cats do? how long were they in stasis before some unknown kitty says let's evolve.
Vsmith (
talk)
01:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a LOT of overlap between these two articles; indeed I think much of this was copied from that one. A broader, geological as well as biological approach may help Timeline of evolution reach FL. Serendi pod ous 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
a lot of people have never even heard the term Ma before. i propose to have all of the sayings of Ma changed to billion or million years ago if it is appropriate. Staindfan10 ( talk) 04:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed a Ma is an actual unit of time measurement, which means 1 million years. My bad, i just wanted to know what a Ma was. Staindfan10 ( talk) 05:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
With reference to the statement that this animal evolved 0.3 MYA, I believe this is completely inaccurate and that the animal diverged from the orang-utan lineage around 9 MYA. If someone could check that I am not mistaken or have not misread the facts then it would be wholly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcrasher ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It presently lists:
First jawless fish
First shark
First agnathan fish.
Agnatha are jawless fish, so I'm not sure what's trying to be communicated. First gnathan fish, maybe? Though it could probably be argued that that's still redundant with 'shark.'
@ Serendipodous: FWIW - seems uncited entries in the article may not be easily verified - adding references from WP:Reliable Sources to the added entries may help determine if the entries are ok - or - if the entries are WP:Original Research instead - I would think atm - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
For 4450 (Hadean), there's the pluvial period ← check it for yourself: I could hardly find either if it even has anything to do with the Hadean nor... Say, what's the deal with that the there??! Wiki doesn't seem to have any articles on any Hadean pluvial period nor periods, by the way. Does somebody know anything about that??? Lincoln J. ( talk) 09:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't mind but I can't understand something. In this timeline, I read " Nectarian began", " Imbrian began", I go with the links - and there I see totally different dates: the Nectarian on the Moon took place when it was already Archean here, not Hadean - but the dates here are Hadean. Don't get me wrong - I know the difference between Kelvin and Fahrenheit, lol. The dates are less ambiguous, I can assure you - "ago" and in years (was it kinda different years on the Moon?). So I don't get it - maybe it's all right while I should've known something "special"?? Some "transition shift" when applying lunar eras? Or is it kinda relativistic (yikes!)? Real shift in TIME? (Wow!) Don't get me wrong, Lincoln J. ( talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC) :)
That equates to less than 3 seconds over 4.5 billion years. As a qualification, the NASA paper used current static masses and diameters of the bodies. Over billions of years these parameters are NOT static. 98.17.181.251 ( talk) 03:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
4,030 Ma: Acasta Gneiss of Northwest Territories, Canada, first known oldest rock, or aggregate of minerals.
But actually, it seems to me the article hasn't been really updated for a huge while: for quite a few years - even a movie shot - already it's known about amphibolites of 4.28Ga roughly from the same area. Were they lying??? Lincoln J. ( talk) 06:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
There present certain processes that span such significant an amount of time to actually occupy often more than one period (while the subsection is dedicated to only one):
2,200–1800 Ma: Continental Red Beds found, produced by iron in weathered sandstone being exposed to oxygen. Eburnean Orogeny, series of tectonic, metamorphic and plutonic events establish Eglab Shield to the north of West African Craton and Man Shield to its south – Birimian domain of West Africa established and structured.
This one spans all through the whole current and the whole next period - if not yet another next one.
So, I suggest we could consider putting such items out of the main period sequence - say, rewrite the description to place it under the subsection when it starts, so that it could be seen as if in between, or more general. You can't comfortably place huge periods/processes in the same line with other, short events of which it mostly consists. In any case, in addition to that proposed paragraph the prolonged event's starting point - in short - might be placed within the general sequence anyway - for the reference anyway. The suggested paragraph might look like the following: "Starting blabla Ma, throughout this and the whole next period, blablabla experienced blabla, resulting in subsequent blabla of blablabla.":) Lincoln J. ( talk) 12:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Information on this page was text-merged from the now redirected page Timeline of the Precambrian. Please see here for full editor credit. |
Never ever heard such a number before, every other source says Sun is about 4.6±0.5 Ga old, that oldest meteorite is about 4.56 and so on. Any source for 4592.1 Ga (please)? Or is it just an extrapolation back from 4567.17 Ma, assuming a certain contraction time and planetary formation time?? Rursus 23:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
While nagging around and being generally inconvenient, I'll somewhat sadistically feel an urge to add another objection: the figure 4567.17 Ma, does it really refer to the age of Earth? It certainly refers to the measured age of Efremovka CAI, one of the boulders measured - but Efremovka is a carbochondrite meteorite, Earth is a planet that may or may not have been created as much as 50 Ma afterwards, if we adher to the modern theories of protoplanet "oligarchic growth" (a modern and good theory - but yet just a theory!). Let's be pessimistic, saying that 50 Ma was the delay before Earth was created, and we get 4517 Ma, which is in disaccord with the Wikipedia time for creation of Moon 4533 Ma, or the one I found on the net 4527 Ma. But either way: Earth was probably formed in the time interval 4567 to 4527, but when?? Rursus 08:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Sigh! At last I found a proper source making the Original Reseach of this faulty article unnecessary. See Harrison J. Schmitt's (Apollo 17) Lecture 7 from NEEP533 Course Notes (Spring 2004)! It tells us the following:
This means that there is nothing such as 4592.1 Ma!! 4592.1 is desinformation!! Remove it, darn!! The SN Trigger sprinkled the solar nebula with radioactivity, foremost Al-26, believed to be responsible for some inner asteroid melting, so the SN Trigger cannot have been much earlier than say 4568 Ma. Instead of using the WP:OR timeline sketched here, use Schmitts and mark it as speculative. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I took the date 4533 Ma from Giant impact hypothesis. Before that, Timetable of the Precambrian said 4537±10 Ma. Anthony Appleyard 06:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Possible
mnemonics are:-
For the initial letters of the names of the periods:-
For the root meanings of the names of the periods:-
Anthony Appleyard
18:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the first time I've looked specifically at a page on the Earth Sciences portal. I was a little confused at first to see this page arranged with the oldest event at the top of the page. Geological convention would have the youngest at the top and the oldest at the bottom, to reflect Charles Lyell's Principle of Superposition in stratigraphy. I hesitate to suggest we should invert the order, on the basis that I might open a can of worms on numerous other pages - but one only needs to look at a stratigraphic column (see diagram in Table of geologic time section on that page) to see that it is the way a geologist would present such information. (user - dyvroeth).
This line of the article caught my eye: "2000 Ma: Animal tracks in west Texas; first evidence of multicellular life." This would be a remarkble discovery if true. There have been claims for the discovery of burrows from over 1000 Ma, but as far as I know they're contentious. Does anyone have a reference for the west Texas tracks? Cephal-odd 04:48, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Good question, I looked at that and did a double take myself...
Jcforge
15:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
From what I've found life seems to have 'started' only a few hundred million (to a billion) years after the earth was formed... which would be close to 2000 mya.... as for 'tracks' it's probably meaning traces of fossils that indicate life... it does seem misleading...
The article is wrong, and a very good example of when cited by a high school student, making him/her fail by citing erroneous sources. The article must be rewritten in its entirety:
Now, I'll challenge the factual accuracy. Said: Rursus ☻ 21:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Worst errors fixed now, but new found:
Sorry for being unconvenient (eh, actually a kind of sadistic pleasure, hehe!) Said: Rursus ☻ 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
And another error (?):
Said: Rursus ☻ 22:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Now fixed also Hadean and Earth/Proto-earth issues. More to be done about the article:
Said: Rursus ☻ 22:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
One more error found: Neoproterozoic Subcommision of ICS, annual report of 2006, says that Cryogenian starts 750 Ma. Said: Rursus ☻ 22:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The language contains lots of technical terms, it must be fixed to be comprehensible by Jim, Joe and Mary. Said: Rursus ☻ 06:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
This article says:
The Giant impact hypothesis article says:
So which is it?
Gakrivas ( talk) 20:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
About the proposed split: I have no objection to the creation of separate more detailed articles as suggested. However, I think this consolidated list gives a useful combined overview of all these topics, and should be kept, with links to other more detailed timelines as appropriate.-- Kotniski ( talk) 10:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This does not agree with the Vostok Ice Core nor do the links suppport it. Where does this come form? Tks Veteran0101 ( talk) 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Why in blazes did someone undertake to start with the most recent dates on top, going further and further back to the bottom. This makes no sense at all. 66.108.94.216 ( talk) 20:07, 22 June 2010 (UTC)Disappointed in Wiki editorship Allen Roth
The principal issues I had with reversing the order (use of the word "prehistory" and the inclusion of the stone age) have been resolved. So I reversed the order to earliest to latest. Serendi pod ous 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
It says in the article that protowriting evolved 7000 years ago but the Jiahu culture had a script 9000 years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiahu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.206.7 ( talk) 11:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Edit : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Timeline_of_prehistory&diff=436536951&oldid=436500714
Serendipodous, why did you remove the stone age timeline (part of prehistory) from the timeline article!?! This really belongs here. This timeline isn't that complex. -- J. D. Redding 02:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is, that the graphic timelines overwhelm the article and make the information less accessible. They're all already in Stone Age, to which this article now links, so they're not necessary. Serendi pod ous 13:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
OK. I have an idea I can live with. Serendi pod ous 06:37, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
![]()
|
![]()
| |||
|
Why does this stop at the stone age? Geologic history didn't stop just because some brainy critter started throwing rocks (using geological materials). It should extend right up to the present - geology is still active.
Plus it seems more about paleontology than geology.
And: 34 million years ago: cats begin to evolve ... hmm what did the pre 34 mya cats do? how long were they in stasis before some unknown kitty says let's evolve.
Vsmith (
talk)
01:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a LOT of overlap between these two articles; indeed I think much of this was copied from that one. A broader, geological as well as biological approach may help Timeline of evolution reach FL. Serendi pod ous 19:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
a lot of people have never even heard the term Ma before. i propose to have all of the sayings of Ma changed to billion or million years ago if it is appropriate. Staindfan10 ( talk) 04:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed a Ma is an actual unit of time measurement, which means 1 million years. My bad, i just wanted to know what a Ma was. Staindfan10 ( talk) 05:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
With reference to the statement that this animal evolved 0.3 MYA, I believe this is completely inaccurate and that the animal diverged from the orang-utan lineage around 9 MYA. If someone could check that I am not mistaken or have not misread the facts then it would be wholly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcrasher ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
It presently lists:
First jawless fish
First shark
First agnathan fish.
Agnatha are jawless fish, so I'm not sure what's trying to be communicated. First gnathan fish, maybe? Though it could probably be argued that that's still redundant with 'shark.'
@ Serendipodous: FWIW - seems uncited entries in the article may not be easily verified - adding references from WP:Reliable Sources to the added entries may help determine if the entries are ok - or - if the entries are WP:Original Research instead - I would think atm - in any case - hope this helps in some way - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 12:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
For 4450 (Hadean), there's the pluvial period ← check it for yourself: I could hardly find either if it even has anything to do with the Hadean nor... Say, what's the deal with that the there??! Wiki doesn't seem to have any articles on any Hadean pluvial period nor periods, by the way. Does somebody know anything about that??? Lincoln J. ( talk) 09:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, I don't mind but I can't understand something. In this timeline, I read " Nectarian began", " Imbrian began", I go with the links - and there I see totally different dates: the Nectarian on the Moon took place when it was already Archean here, not Hadean - but the dates here are Hadean. Don't get me wrong - I know the difference between Kelvin and Fahrenheit, lol. The dates are less ambiguous, I can assure you - "ago" and in years (was it kinda different years on the Moon?). So I don't get it - maybe it's all right while I should've known something "special"?? Some "transition shift" when applying lunar eras? Or is it kinda relativistic (yikes!)? Real shift in TIME? (Wow!) Don't get me wrong, Lincoln J. ( talk) 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC) :)
That equates to less than 3 seconds over 4.5 billion years. As a qualification, the NASA paper used current static masses and diameters of the bodies. Over billions of years these parameters are NOT static. 98.17.181.251 ( talk) 03:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
4,030 Ma: Acasta Gneiss of Northwest Territories, Canada, first known oldest rock, or aggregate of minerals.
But actually, it seems to me the article hasn't been really updated for a huge while: for quite a few years - even a movie shot - already it's known about amphibolites of 4.28Ga roughly from the same area. Were they lying??? Lincoln J. ( talk) 06:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
There present certain processes that span such significant an amount of time to actually occupy often more than one period (while the subsection is dedicated to only one):
2,200–1800 Ma: Continental Red Beds found, produced by iron in weathered sandstone being exposed to oxygen. Eburnean Orogeny, series of tectonic, metamorphic and plutonic events establish Eglab Shield to the north of West African Craton and Man Shield to its south – Birimian domain of West Africa established and structured.
This one spans all through the whole current and the whole next period - if not yet another next one.
So, I suggest we could consider putting such items out of the main period sequence - say, rewrite the description to place it under the subsection when it starts, so that it could be seen as if in between, or more general. You can't comfortably place huge periods/processes in the same line with other, short events of which it mostly consists. In any case, in addition to that proposed paragraph the prolonged event's starting point - in short - might be placed within the general sequence anyway - for the reference anyway. The suggested paragraph might look like the following: "Starting blabla Ma, throughout this and the whole next period, blablabla experienced blabla, resulting in subsequent blabla of blablabla.":) Lincoln J. ( talk) 12:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)