Talk:Boring Billion

[Untitled]
Need evidence for last sentence in 'Cellular Features' subsection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkoenker (talk • contribs) 23:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Make sure to insert figures and/or remove "(Figure __)" from text. (Brian!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkoenker (talk • contribs) 23:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

When we made our page live, someone else referred us to the Wikipedia style manual and said references go after punctuation, not before. A bot went through and changed it all for us, but that's just an FYI! Huynhsa (talk) 18:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops, wrong link for the style manual. This is the correct one to the Wikipedia Manual of Style! Huynhsa (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

What about a transition sentence or two between the "low oxygen" section and the sub-sections on the different hypotheses so it is clear what those sub-sections are about? Kowalskm (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Confusing sentences
This sentence was confusing: "A consequence of the limited breakup history is the paucity of passive margins during the time period from 1.8 to 0.8 Ga[16]." It would be helpful to know why this statement may be relevant to the subject of the Boring Billion. Burrighj (talk) 18:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I would consider rewording the sentence that has "precluded the absence of glaciation" to be more clear. Kowalskm (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Reorganization
I realized that a reorganization of the First Eukaryotes section would strengthen this part of the article a lot. I won't be changing the meaning of the content, just adding to it and reorganizing it. Here's the plan:

Earth's First Eukaryotes (heading)

Steps Required in Eukaryotic Evolution (subheading) (some of this is also covered on the Eukaryotes wiki page though)

DNA Reorganization

Acquisition of Organelles (advanced cytoskeleton allowed cells to eat others, leading to the acquisition of mitochondria and chloroplasts)

Appearance of sexual reproduction

Diversificaton of Eukaryotes (heading)

Multicellular Eukaryotes (subheading) (the evolution ofcell polarity allowed cells to "talk" to each other in multicellular animals)

First Algae

First Fungi

First Terrestrial Life (subheading)

Proto-Lichens

KatieKoalas (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Eukaryotes
The eukaryotes section currently states
 * According to phylogenetic analysis, plants diverged from animals and fungi about 1.6 Ga; animals and fungi about 1.5 Ga; Bilaterians and cnidarians (animals respectively with and without bilateral symmetry) about 1.3 Ga; sponges 1.35 Ga; and Ascomycota and Basidiomycota (the two divisions of the fungus subkingdom Dikarya) 0.97 Ga.

I find this, particularly the middle part about the diversification of animals, very difficult to believe. I suspect this is a molecular clock analysis, but haven't had a chance to read the linked paper yet. In any case, even if they've hit on something besides just the molecular clock system, this should be weighed against the more common view that we have no evidence of any of these groups of animals before about 550 million years ago, and that the Ediacaran fossils, from around 600 million years ago, have nothing resembling bilaterians, sponges, or cnidarians as we know them ; .... one animal does look faintly like a jellyfish, and some others are bilterally symmetric, but as explained at urbilaterian, the term bilateria means a lot more than just an animal that has left and right sides. — Soap — 12:55, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay., so it looks like the paper is indeed a molecular clock analysis, and they state in the introduction that they know their time estimates are way off from what the fossil record suggests, and that the reason for the disagreement is the use of different methodologies.  I will add a sentence to the article later that makes these points both clear.
 * I also note that our article currently omits the paper's mention that the most recent common ancestor of protostomes and deuterostomes (which is also the MRCA of arthropods and vertebrates, terms that will surely be more familiar to most readers) lived around 978 million years ago. This claim, especially if worded to mention arthropods and vertebrates, is to me much harder to believe than even the other things that caught my eye at first. Privately, I can see how cnidaria and bilateria might have split at an extremely early date, provided that both groups remained functionally identical microscopic wormlike animals for hundreds of millions  of years, breathing and perhaps even eating through their skin, and not evolving their distinctive characteristics until they grew  much larger.  But a split between protostomes and deuterostomes at 978mya is much harder to explain, since the presumed MRCA should have been a sizable animal that would have left fossils, and we have no fossils, not even in the Ediacaran age when some quite large animals had appeared.
 * I dont think there's any need for us to remove the paper entirely, but it should definitely be clear to readers that the claims the authors are making are against the common opinion and have no fossil evidence. — Soap — 14:24, 13 January 2023 (UTC)