Talk:Timeline of evolution/Archive 1

message: I'd like to change the notation slightly to be more in line with SI standards.  In particular, I'd like to use kYA instead of TYA.
Are there any objections?
: Works for me, do it! -Vsmith 16:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  kYA instead of TYA ? 

message: I added the Tunguska event just to remind our human readers that collision with Near Earth Objects have always been happening. I have not even included the near-misses discovered in recent years. Flattening 2000 square km of forests to me is quite a significant change to earth and might have caused certain species(though not human) to be extinct. It all depends on your perpectives. It seems that smaller collisions are more frequent than bigger ones , which really change the course of evolution. We ourselves have a real possibility of following the footsteps of the dinosaurs. Such catastrophe really put man's ego in their humble and correct place.
::Tunguska event removed from timeline
:I removed the Tunguska event from the timeline, because it has absolutely nothing to do with the evolution of life on Earth, nor did it have any significant effect on the Earth itself. 157.181.71.7 06:07, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tunguska event 

message: It's nice to think about how and why we exist on this planet but at best, these thoughts that we as individuals have, can only be answered with a philosophical answer. Let's face it, we all live with a philosophy of life. Some have bought into this notion that in the THEORY of Evolution, life sprang forth from non-living material, which was given the exact conditions it needed for this to occur.
Before you even begin to entertain this idea, I would ask you to think about this one thing. Where did the information come form in order to have life in any form, exist under any condition?
I would suggest that evolution and the theories thereof, is more closely related to a religion by which great faith must be exercised in order to explain that which is not subject to real science scrutiny of the ideas and theories that are not able to be observed and or duplicated in a laboratory.
So before any further meaningful discussion about evolution can be explored, lets have a moment to examine our motives for wanting to adhere to this theory and in that, present it as such....just another theory to try and bring meaning to our lives. For if all it does is to explanation our being, then what real purpose does it serve in our fragile humanity.
Regards,
B.E.
:Some have bought into this notion that in the THEORY of Evolution, life sprang forth from non-living material -- it would help if you would actually read the article on which you are commenting, not to mention the millions of words that have been written on science, evolution, information theory, and the various other topics on which you have expounded completely erroneously and fallaciously. -- Jibal 13:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh...click here for a definition of theory in the scientific sense. As Isaac Asimov said, "Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night." And no, evolution is not a religion. Can you name anyone who thinks evolution "brings meaning to their life"? Look, it's perfectly okay to be religious - but what are you trying to accomplish by making everyone who doesn't agree with your personal beliefs religious? If you want to reject the 150 years of scientific support for evolution, and believe in the literal interpretation of your religion's sacred text, that's fine. Just admit that you do this on faith rather than reason, and that this has no place in a science classroom. Isn't religion supposed to be based on faith, anyway? - 68.33.120.32 00:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Who knows? Who can fathom the psychology of the Creationist? Maybe he's having a crisis of faith. - 68.33.120.32 01:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evolution is at best a Theory 

message: In the timeline Lemurs seem to have moved from Africa into Madagascar 64MYA and 40someting MYA. Was it a long crossing or did they do it twice, or is one crossing to be removed?
:The fossa (Cryptoprocta feroxis), a close cousin of the mongoose and a member of the viverrid family, is the largest carnivore on the island of Madagascar. The viverrid family is an ancient line of carnivores that are thought to pre-date wolves, cats, hyenas, and other lineages of meat-eaters — none of which are natives of Madagascar (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0602_040602_fossa.html). Granted that Madagascar does have a very unique and unusual collection of 200,000 or more plants and animals, including "35 species of lemur found nowhere else on Earth," and yes, the ancestral fossa and other early carnivores and primates may have "drifted ashore on rafts of vegetation" 21 million years ago; however, I do not think that these events are worldy enough in significant to be on a timeline of evolution on Earth. These are cases of allopatric adaptive radiation on one island. We have no mention of Darwin's finches here? The reference to the migration of early carnivores to Madagascar is a refernce to evolution that took place on one island. It fails to cite a reference, and for the above stated reasons, I am removing it. Perhaps Wiki should have a separate article on the Evolution of Carnivores on Madagascar. Valich 17:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lemurs and Fossas 

message: An anon just added this:
:Anthropoids : Bugtipithecus inexpectans, Phileosimias kamali and Phileosimias brahuiorum similar to today's lemurs , lived in rainforests on Bugti Hills of central Pakistan
"Bugtipithecus inexpectans" and "Phileosimias brahuiorum" each only get one google hit, to the same page from a non-English website, . "Phileosimias kamali" gets me no hits at all. Can anyone confirm this info. func(talk) 06:42, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropoids 

message: 1) Neither here, nor Wiki entries on the ice age I found, discuss the idea that the raising of the Isthmus of Panama [mentioned here] is the ultimate beginning of the global thermohaline circulation, which in turn led to the ice ages. Many think adaptation to the resultant chaotic climate is what drove human evolution over that tiime period. Worth a mention?
2) Toba volcanic eruption at 74 KYA. I've seen the human "chokepoint" population mentioned in several places at circa 10,000, nothing close to 2,000. Consider using a range.
It's great to see all this timeline in one digestable piece!
Skookum172.193.251.124 17:55, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  1. Ice Age/isthmus 2. Homo chokepoint 

message: Isn't the emergence of eucaryotes as early as 2100 MYA debated? --EnSamulili 06:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, isn't the claim that the origin of life at 4 billion years still being debated? Scanning through some recent news articles, I get the impression that there isn't direct evidence of life past 2.8 billion years. I think it'd be more accurate to put a range of years for this or some other indication of the uncertainty. -- KarlHallowell 20:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eukaryotes 

message: "New World Monkeys have prehensile tails and migrate to South America. Catarrhines stay in Africa as the two continents drifted apart." This is a very confusing statement for 30MYA. Don't the primates evolve in Laurasia 55MYA. Old World group moves into Africa 20MYA after Africa collides with Asia. There should only be lemur-type prosimians in Africa 30MYA. New World monkeys move into South America from North America 5MYA when those two continents are joined. The classic Old-New World primate split occurred in Laurasia not Gondwana.
:Please note my comments about primate contradictions on talk:timeline of human evolution. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old World Primates in Africa before Collision with Asia? 

message: While this is rightly a broadly geologic outline rather than an anthropological one, I wanted to suggest three things to slightly fill out the last six or seven points .
*Moving the beginning of recorded history back 1200 years to keep it in-line with the invention of writing in Sumeria (3200 B.C.).
*Mention the industrial revolution, one of the "big two" revolutions alongside agricultural.
*Mention nuclear weapons and the possibility of our destroying all higher lifeforms. Sensible? Marskell 15:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human history 

message: Forgive, what you may call, my ignorance.  I am a Catholic mother who is trying find information which is not only palatable to my admittedly creationist sensibilities, but that will also provide my children with an intelligent and sensible source of education regarding the history of the world from it's creation.
Since scientific theory and religious theory are NOT mutually exclusive, and, since modern science has repeatedly confirmed biblical historical points rather than refuting them, I feel no reason not to teach evolution to my children as a theory. 
However;  when I reach 27 kYA on your timeline I become stumped.  While you mention the extinction of all of the other "homo" species, you leave us with the impression that there still exists two specific humanoid races; homo-sapien and homo-floresiensis.  Following the timeline to it's current point, you never mention the extinction of either species.  Is it your theory, then, that there are two distinctly different species of humanoids that now populate the earth?  If so, how do I explain this to my children?  And how do we tell the difference between who is homo-sapien and who is homo-floresiensis?
MOMK9875 01:28, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your question. Homo floresiensis is presumed to be extinct; all humans today are Homo sapiens. H. floresiensis is thought to have become extinct around 12,000 years ago (see Homo floresiensis#Recent survival); after that, Homo sapiens was left as the only surviving human species. Were any to be alive today, you would have no difficulty in differentiating them, as the height of Homo floresiensis is around three feet (one meter). — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:49, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Homo-Sapiens and Homo-Floresiensis 

message: Does it matter what the creationists think?
I think reference to that in the first para should be removed.
I don't see a scientific disclaimer in the book of Genesis either.
:Strongly agreed. This article is about a timeline supported by contemporary scientific wisdom. It would be an entirely different matter if there were any evidence at all in favour of young earth Creationism, but there really really isn't. Their objection is purely religious and has nothing to do with fact or the interpretation of fact. Radix 12:17, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it has, and I agree with its removal as well. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it matter what the creationists think?