Talk:History of Earth/Archive 1

Untitled
Knowledge seeker, to follow up a discussion started at History of the World and my talk page, I think this article is a good idea. It seems to be a natural history of the earth, which is different from a historians approach which deals with history and its impact of humans (although such history can be more inclusive than just the past few million years as Big History shows). I'm suprised a natural history of the earth doesnt exist on wikipedia, but looking at Earth, I dont see it.--Stbalbach 15:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yeah, I was surprised too not to find something like this on Wikipedia&mdash;the closest thing is the timeline of evolution but I wanted something more descriptive than that. It's going to be tough to keep this article from growing out of control, but I look forward to the challenge. I'll be away for a few days but will resume work on the article when I return. Knowledge Seeker 21:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

History of the Earth
Please note: I have copied this here from our talk pages as it explains some of the thinking behind the article and may be of interest to future editors. I have edited the text slightly to take out irrelevant stuff. Knowledge Seeker &#2470; is the author of the article; I just worked on the prose. &mdash; Puffball 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker -- I think this is a fascinating article. I have made some very minor tweaks to the English, so if it's not on your Watchlist please have a look to make sure I haven't inadvertently introduced any errors. I graduated in biology at Sussex University in England a long time ago: this has brought a lot of it back! How far do you plan to take this? Early evolution is a bit of a minefield, but nothing compared with later stuff. Puffball 20:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'd been meaning to write an article like that for a long time, but it is an ambitious task. I'm pretty surprised actually that it hadn't been written before. There's not even a history section in Earth! I'll be adding that at some point. My goal with History of Earth is to provide a brief overview of the history of the planet, like history of the world. I don't want the article to get too long, so I'm trying to be succinct in each section and I'm not sure how many sections are optimal. I wasn't planning on going into too much detail in later evolution, since I can't really do it justice and it'd probably be better if someone wrote about it in more detail in a sub-article. What do you think? It's hard writing about eras when not much is known or there are several competing theory. What I'm trying to do is summarize the leading theory if there is one, or briefly mention the competing ideas if no theory is dominant. I haven't entirely planned out the rest of the article, but I'm thinking that I'll write the following sections:
 * Colonization of land, (bacteria, plants, animals), including dominance of reptiles/dinosaurs, emergence of angiosperms, divergence of birds and mammals, and of course extinction. Maybe I should mention some of the other extinction events as well. Then the dominance of mammals. I'm not sure if I should keep this all in one section
 * Origin of humanity. Brief mention of primate evolution and then discussion of human evolution. I don't want to go into too much detail because it's controversial, and because I don't want the article to become too biased towards humans&mdash;I'd rather emphasize the vast period of history before humans arose. Perhaps only two sentences on human history, with a reference to History of the world for further information.
 * Spaceflight. A bit of a conceit, considering how much I'm condensing human history, and there were plenty of other major advances in human history. But as a history of the planet Earth, I think it's relevant to discuss the major step of some of a planet's inhabitants launching objects, and eventually themselves, off the planet. Perhaps it would start with a quick mention of the improvements or planetary travel (horse, car, airplane).
 * Anyway, that's the plan for now. What do you think? Any suggestions? After the preliminary writing is done, it's going to need a lot of polishing, and I want to carefully reference some of the assertions at some point. I'd like it to be a featured article eventually, but that's a very long way away. Please continue to help fix it up; I'll definitely need help, and assistance from a biologist will be very welcome. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it needs to be kept within bounds, and that makes for some tough editing decisions, not to mention the composition of lots of sub-articles! If I may say so, your general plan seems excellent to me, though some might argue that arthropods are really the dominant phylum.


 * Darwin's theory is still contentious, though I for one am sold on it. One might say that the scientific community is generally sold on it too, with some technical exceptions. The nonsense of "Intelligent Design" probably needs to be addressed, otherwise you'll forever have loonies vandalizing the page.


 * Any discussion of evolution ought to take mass extinctions into account; and it would be good to emphasize just how serendipitous were the conditions which allowed life to get going at all – and how even more serendipitous are the conditions which allow it to continue. That would lead into the mess Homo sapiens is making. My personal view is that Earth will become uninhabitable for most of us within 25-30 years, but in WP such prognostications are frowned upon. Spaceflight is an important step in Earth's history, but so too is our manipulation of genes, either directly, in genetic engineering, or indirectly, in the social engineering and healthcare which have effectively ended Darwinian evolution of the hominid line.


 * Have you heard the theory that the predator/prey relationship might be the key to evolution? Right there in the primordial soup the pressure started to be a better predator and/or to develop better avoidance strategies. It's posited as being like the arms race, or even naked capitalism, providing an accelerant for change. I don't have any references for this at the moment, I'm afraid: I just heard a programme on BBC radio some while back. But it's an interesting idea, which extends even to the race for the Moon.


 * My biological science may be a bit rusty, but I'm your man for polishing text, as I have been a professional writer for the past 35 years, and will be very glad to do what I can. Puffball 08:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your insightful comments. I certainly do hope people (more knowledgeable than I) will split off subarticles from some or all of the sections. I am actually very surprised that there is no article or even section of an article on the formation of the Earth. That Earth includes neither a "History" section nor even a "Formation" section greatly surprised me, and is one of the reasons I wished to write this article. You're right about the arthropods, and anyway the bacteria are probably the dominant life forms on Earth anyway, depending how you define dominance. I'll rethink how I write that section. The recent sections I've written are going to need a lot of rewriting. In particular, History of Earth has become quite long, and I haven't even finished it. Should I split it up? I'll probably have to, but I want to limit sections to major changes in Earth's history, not minor events like evolution of mammals or something. Maybe I'll finish writing the first draft of the article, then go back and work on these problematic sections.


 * Regarding nonscientific theories, in my opinion, the article should focus on scientific theories of Earth's history, similar to Origin of life (which is why, similar to that article, I specified in the introduction that this article discussed the leading scientific theories). Do you think that's all right? Even if we were to attempt to include religious explanations in the article, I'm not certain how it could be done. If one is to include specific religious events, it would get far too complicated to include all major religions, and it would become extremely complicated with conflicting stories being woven together. Even just focusing on Christianity (which I would disagree with), it's unclear how it could be incorporated. Could you maybe give an example of how this could be addressed?


 * I'll briefly mention some of the mass extinctions, and perhaps you could assist in writing more about them when I've made some more progress with the article. Do you really think that it was so serendipitous that life began? I used to think so, but the more I read the moreit seems more inevitable. That tends to be the flavor from what I have been reading, too. I think many scientists view the short time between Earth's formation and the origin of life (less than a billion years) as suggesting that life's beginning was not an unlikely event. The origin of complex life and intelligence may have been, though. Perhaps if our spaceflight technology ever advances that far, we will find many planets where simple life has evolved, but never find another intelligence. Mass extinctions, including the one driven by Homo sapiens, are quite destructive and wipe out many species, but don't really threaten life itself. Eukarya may be severely affected, but the Archae and Bacteria have survived quite hardily. I agree that humans are a threat to themselves and to a number of animal and plant species, but while we could easily make the planet uninhabitable for us, I doubt we could make it unhabitable for life. In fact, even if humans worked together, I wonder if we could wipe out all life on Earth. After we're gone, I'm sure prokaryotes will survive at least, and probably even animals like arthropods. This is all speculation, of course. You're right, genetic engineering should be mentioned as well. I'll figure out a way to work it in. I'll see what I can dig up on predator-prey as well.


 * I very much appreciate your assitance polishing the text. In fact, it's going to need more than a bit of polishing. As I said before, this is a very ambitious article for me&mdash;I usually write on very narrow topics. Overviews are tough, and I could easily write too much about something. I'll definitely need your help to remain concise and clear. It's going to need to go through several stages of improvement, but I intend to seek featured status for this article one day, no matter how much work it takes. I hope that some good subarticles will be written as well. Oh, by the way, if you have better suggestions for any of the pictures, please suggest them or change them. I'd like each section to have at least one picture but it's not always easy to find something appropriate. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, arthropods rule! Apparently cockroaches can survive incredible levels of radiation. Luckily for us, most arthropods "breathe" by little more than passive oxygen absorption. This limits their size, since once they get any bigger than a lobster they have trouble supplying all their tissues. Apparently there were some whopping dragonflies in the Carboniferous; I wonder how they managed.

But you're right, the bacterium is the real boss in the ecosphere.

I think it is indeed highly serendipitous for life to begin anywhere, and then to thrive. The chemical composition of the planet has to provide the necessary elements. Gravity and temperature must fall within a reasonable range. The peculiar properties of water are crucial (which suggests to me that water is an essential concomitant of life). For example, if ice sank, life could not have continued in the sea. The links formed by carbon make it #1 choice for the complex molecules needed at startup and thereafter. Daylength and circadian rhythm are probably also important, as also the lunar cycle and the stimulus of the tides: the Moon is an unusually large satellite with a correspondingly large gravitational pull. Maybe also the tilt of the axis and the cycle of seasons. The conditions here are probably pretty rare, which is not to say that they aren't endlessly replicated elsewhere. It's intriguing to think that life is widespread in the cosmos, either seeded by comets or just an inevitable consequence wherever conditions are right.

With short-termist politicians in charge, the Earth will be unable to sustain so many people for much longer; in geological terms, for no longer than the blink of an eye. Even if the eco-crash doesn't get us, we're a monoculture just begging for viral disaster. But I doubt that we will become wholly extinct. If we do, there might be a natural cycle of sapient forms arising and then killing themselves off, until one manages to get it right. Presumably such "people" would get a handle on faster-than-light travel, which I suppose is when the colonization of space would become really interesting. (Of course, some believe that "they" have done that already.)

Another possibility is that Earth and all its systems exist merely as one of a multitude of simulations inside somebody's computer, either as a game or as a scientific model. But this philosophical idea has no more relevance to "History of Earth" than religious theories. I agree that one should stick absolutely to orthodox science, otherwise the piece will become uncontrollable. I suggest that you ignore religion completely. After all, some eminent scientists are atheists, but plenty are believers.

Likewise I would suggest you abstain from any sort of prediction about the future; leave the reader to figure that out.

I don't think the Colonization of Land section is too big at the moment, but when a section does get too unwieldy, why not just make a sub-article out of it and retain a summary containing a link? How long should the parent article be? How long will the interested reader devote to it in one sitting? Maybe you should set a limit, e.g. 5,000 words, and see how it goes.

I will hunt around the Commons and Google for images, but I think you're doing a pretty good job already.

My knowledge of science is hopelessly out of date: to get other input on various topics, have you considered checking the history pages of relevant articles (e.g. Evolution) and then contacting the chief contributor(s)? There might be a case for having some place on the site (if there isn't already) where such appeals could be posted. But, as I say, I'll do what I can, as this might prove to be the most interesting and fundamental article in the whole of Wikipedia! Puffball 16:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been keeping my eye on this. I'm a little busy in the real world right now, but I will return to help you out on this project. --TheLimbicOne (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Water seems important, but I wonder if it's essential to life. Perhaps there are alternative biochemistries we haven't thought up yet. Really, all that's necessary is for some sort of self-replication to arise. Even if it were water based, even if ice sank, there are plenty of regions on Earth where water doesn't ever freeze. And I doubt the length of days or circadian rhythms are very important for many microscopic life forms. I do think these factors are important for Earth's large multicellular life, but not for life itself. Anyway, unless we find some more concrete information, I'll leave it out of the article for now. All right, I'll keep working on the land section, and we can trim/split it as necessary. Speaking of images, today's featured picture will be beautiful for the spaceflight section. Yeah, I'll try to recruit some people to help flesh out some of the details or write subarticles and such once I finish writing the skeleton&mdash;we'll definitely need help. I want to add something about the origin of sexual reproduction but I need to find more information, so I haven't written about it yet. I'm excited about the article too, and thanks to both of you for helping out! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a great image. I'm still polishing; just about to do a bit more ... Puffball 19:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Seeker, this article is really motoring! I admire your ability to condense so much info into such a small space. I have tweaked the text up to Humanity, and substituted the Australopithecus reconstruction for your migration map. The Australopithecus is used elsewhere and might be a bit hackneyed by now, but I do think it will revive the lay reader's interest a bit, as the migration map is of a piece with earlier diagrams. Also you have to click on it to see any detail. But if you think the map preferable, by all means rv it. Remove your comment from Humanity when you're happy with that paragraph and I'll get out my polishing kit. -- Puffball 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I really appreciate it! It's been tough writing this article but it's nice to have encouragement. I hope I'm not condensing too much; it feels like I'm glossing over so much. I only hope that people more knowledgeable than I will be able to write detailed sub-articles at some point to do the topics justice. I'll probably want to go into a bit more detail on the "Humanity" section, since I skipped over a lot, but I don't want to give undue weight to humans: in the grand scheme of things, yes, they've affected Earth in the last split second, but not enormously more than the creation of the Moon or the colonization of land, you know? The next section, on civilization and basically encompassing human history is going to be tough. I'm not certain I have a good enough grasp on history as a whole to lay it out in a couple paragraphs (I'm thinking two for now). I have an idea for the broad themes of the section. I'm almost wondering if I shouldn't invite a couple guest editors to write the section. I'll have to ponder it a bit more and do a bit more reading first.


 * I definitely agree with the Australopithecus picture! You know, I was trying to find a good picture like that to use, but all the ones I saw on Homo habilis and Homo erectus appear to have questionable copyright tags, so I got frustrated and used the map. That's not to say I don't like that image; in fact, I think it's among my favorites on Wikipedia. I'll see if I can squeeze it in somewhere else, perhaps if the "Humanity" section gets long enough. As always, thanks for your help! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All right I'm not sure how to treat the rest of human history. Initially I was going to keep it just a few sentences in the Humanity section. Then I thought about writing a couple paragraphs under a new "Civilization" section. Now I'm leaning towards the former again&mdash;I don't want to get too bogged down in details. I guess I'll just take a stab at writing it later tonight and see what works better...feel free to give me any suggestions. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 21:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What about having three sections on humanity? [1] Hominid evolution, with a history of Homo sapiens up to the invention of systematic agriculture (i.e. Palaeolithic & Mesolithic hunter-gatherers) [2] Man the farmer (Neolithic to Industrial Revolution) and then [3] Man the technologist. [1] depicts man as the subject of Nature; [2] depicts him in contention with Nature; and [3] depicts him recklessly overcoming Nature and faintly adumbrates the possible consequences. I know this is a bit of a stretch. Can we excuse such an anthropocentric POV? Yes, because we are interested in ourselves! Also the mass extinction which is already happening may not be the biggest ever, but may be uniquely rapid. (Assuming the extinction of the dinosaurs was not caused by an asteroid strike but volcanic activity, as dinosaur experts rather than geologists seem to believe.) Your "Civilization" section could be subsumed into [2], since agriculture permitted the rise of a sacerdotal/ruling class, true division of labour, and hence the city. Anyway, please feel free to bin any or all of this! -- Puffball 21:45, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that's a pretty good idea. Maybe one paragraph on agriculture/civilization/most of human history, and one paragraph on science/technology, with emphasis on 1) genetics (changing the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution), 2) Environmental-type stuff including extinction, ozone layer, global warming (affecting the planet), and 3) Spaceflight (leaving the planet), because I want to try to keep the emphasis on Earth, not on humans. Of course, if others end up disagreeing, we can change the article&mdash;I don't own it. I agree that a bit of an anthropocentric view is beneficial, because the article should be about what's interesting to us, and it's more informative to pause a bit over the last split-second. And yet anthropormorphism already permeates the article: I follow the evolution of eukaryotes and abandon the prokaryotes; then follow the animals and abandon the plants; then follow the vertebrates and abandon the invertebrates, and so on with mammals, hominids, and finally humans. No mention is made of insect evolution and such. I've tried to avoid giving the impression that evolution stopped for other creatures but continued for us, but it's not easy. Maybe I'll devote three paragraphs to humans (such a conceit), but combine them into two sections (maybe one on the origins + civilization, and a second one on the science/technology). I want to briefly mention religion in the civilization section as well. As always, I appreciate your suggestions. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:14, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about the anthropocentric POV; would be interesting to compare the same article on some future Wikipedia devised by intelligent descendants of today's insects. Space travel is largely irrelevant to the history of Earth, except as evidence of our technological abilities. So far we have made only tiny hops out there. There is no way that mass emigration of humans is ever going to happen. The technology won't have time to develop. About religion: it was probably the driving force in the creation of a ruling class and therefore an essential ingredient of civilization, but the ghastly bigotry of today is the antithesis of civilized behaviour. Me, I'd leave religion out of it altogether! -- Puffball 09:34, 4 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I disagree about space travel being irrelevant to the history of Earth; it seems to me that if one is following the life of a planet from formation out of the nebula, then certainly atmospheres developing, oceans forming, life originating and so on are important events, but I feel that those life forms launching objects and then themselves off the planet is a momentous event. Perhaps not momentous in human history (although I tend to think it is, but that is my bias); but in the planet's history. I feel that for an alien or a research probe that had been watching this region of space for the last 5 billion years, this would be a major event. Don't you agree? We'll have to see about religion; value judgments aside (and like most things, it can be used for both good and bad purposes), it's an important part of human history, no? I guess it depends on how much we condense human history. If I were to include it, I intend to include it broadly, from a research point of view. Not saying that and then in this year, some believed this god performed these taskas but rather mention the origins of the concept of religion and such. Do you think that's a bad idea? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:10, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

> Perhaps not momentous in human history (although I tend to think it is, but that is my bias); but in the planet's history.

Yes, I'm sure you're right about that. Also I must concede that religion has played an essential role in our progress -- just look at the way the medieval Catholic church kept learning alive. And as I say, religion was instrumental in enabling the formation of a ruling (i.e. priestly) class during the Neolithic. This seems to have happened everywhere that civilization of any description arose. Religion then enabled those civilizations to grow (e.g. ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, even the more primitive societies in NW Europe like the people who built Stonehenge). The problem is how to condense all this into an acceptable space for the article in hand. I wonder why some people are religious and others aren't. Is there some genetic predisposition to religiosity? It gets even more complicated (and explosive) when religion gets conflated with ethnicity. [Off topic: I just wish people would get on with each other a bit better!] -- Puffball 17:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I've tweaked the new sections and introduced a couple of minor ideas/amplifications -- please rv any of it if you're not happy. One more section to go ... it's looking good! Puffball 17:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Moon discrepancy
The number given in the moon section (4.553 x 109 years ago) seems at odds with the number given in the introduction (4.55 x 109 years ago). Isn't 4.533 x 109 farther in the past than 4.55 x 109? —ZorkFox (Talk) 05:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Welcome, ZorkFox&mdash;I am happy I am slowly drawing people into this article! You're absolutely right; it is my error, although I see I'm not the only one to do it&mdash;your question itself suggests the answer! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I see I made a typo (I meant to type 4.553 instead of 4.533), but am glad I was able to help, even while making an error. :) —ZorkFox (Talk) 07:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it helped that you made the same typographical error that I did! Glad you caught it. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Note
In reponse to Puffball's very kind "Knowledge Seeker দ is the author of the article; I just worked on the prose. — Puffball 20:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)", I should note that while I have been the one primarily writing the article, several others, especially Puffball, TheLimbicOne, and now ZorkFox have all contributed significantly. In any event, I would like to be clear that I do not own the article, and in particular if some of you disagree with the way I'm writing it you should feel free to change it or bring it up here. I'm excited to see the participation here. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Problems with Civilization
I think this section is the weakest one so far. There are a couple of reasons why: one, my grasp of history is not as good as my grasp of other sciences, and two, an incredible amount of change has occurred during those times. If you feel that something important was left out, or I've dwelt too long on something, please mention it here or change it. I've tried to keep the focus on material from a global or planetary perspective, but there's so much I wanted to mention that I didn't feel there was room for. How can we improve this section? After I finish writing the "Recent events" section, I'd like to invite editors from History of the world to offer any suggestions or improvements. What do you think? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 20:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, feel free to suggest new images. The Mohenjo-daro one was the best I could find from the ancient civilizations, although there are several other possibilities. There are many, many pictures we could use in place of the da Vinci one, since the section spans most of modern history. I'm certainly open to suggestions. I am partial to the space one, though, and think it nicely symbolizes man leaving the planet as a significant point in Earth's history. Finally, regarding religion: I wanted to show religion in the context of history, and so chose to mention Hinduism as the oldest religion (still practiced today). I didn't mention much on older religions like that of Sumer, and didn't mention any of the newer religions. Is there a better way to do this (without focusing too much on religion)? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * > I'd like to invite editors from History of the world to offer any suggestions or improvements.


 * Yes, a great idea. It's early days yet; there's plenty of improvement to make. But the bones of the article are in place. My own view is that religion has had enough coverage in the article -- we imply that it was instrumental in bringing about civilization, and mention Hinduism as the oldest still practised. Really the sections on humanity should be as tight as possible. The article is about the history of Earth, and surely only our impact on the planet is relevant. I'm not sure about ZF's last para. Is it too much info?


 * WP's servers were ill yesterday, so I refrained from making them work harder ... Puffball 10:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Actually, that last paragraph was added by me. I had planned it as continuation from what I'd written before, and after you fixed up my partial paragraph, I wasn't sure what to do with it. I tried to condense it, but please feel free to rewrite those paragraphs at your pleasure. Anybody else who's watching this page, any comments? Now that the initial skeleton is done, we can step back and consider how to improve the article from here. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Human history
I invited editors from History of the world to assist us; please feel free to invite others as you see fit. In writing this article I have attempted to summarize events from the formation of Earth to the present time. Given humanity's brief stint on the planet, I didn't want to devote too much space to human history, yet so much has happened in that little time that it merited at least a few paragraphs. These sections are the weakest in my opinion, especially for two reasons: One, my grasp of history is weaker than my grasp of other areas. And two, it is extremely difficult to summarize so much information. Obviously, most information could not be included. I tried to focus on the very major events, with emphasis on global matters and those that affect the planet, since this is a history of Earth after all. If you feel there is important material lacking or that too much has been devoted to a less-important topic, please change it or comment here. Feel free to rewrite the sections. We'd definitely appreciate the assistance. Other comments are welcome as well. Thanks! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All right; looks like no one's interested&mdash;and one editor told me he thought the article should be deleted. Oh well, looks like we're on our own for this. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 19:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Pale Blue Dot
While I am moved and awed by everything having to do with space and space tavel and fully support its inclusion in the article, I would argue against the inclusion of the Pale Blue Dot image. It is stirring to know that we can be seen from so far away (in human terms), but I think the image breaks up the article in a strange place&mdash;they're not usually found in References and See also sections&mdash;and isn't of terribly good quality&mdash;it looks like someone scanned it out of a book. I realize the original image isn't the best picture in the world, either, but being taken from so far away, allowances must be made. :) If we really want to have it in there, we should look for a better image and the article needs to be longer so the image won't show up in what amounts to the bibiliography.  Opinions?  —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 03:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think it's a bit weak and intrudes on the bibliography, as you say. But the first image (Earth from space, 1972) is very powerful and the PBD is an intriguing counterpoise. NASA images are in the public domain. Can we find a better one? -- Puffball 20:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed it; if we think of a better use we can restore it later. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 21:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I just sent this email to NASA:
 * I am helping to edit a Wikipedia page about the History of Earth at:
 * I am helping to edit a Wikipedia page about the History of Earth at:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Earth


 * We originally posted this image there:


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:PaleBlueDot.jpg


 * but the resolution was unsatisfactorily low. There is a note that a high-resolution version is available from NASA: we would really appreciate a better image. Would it be possible for you to post the high-res version at


 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/


 * or to email it to me and I'll post it there? Failing that, do you know of any other images of Earth seen from a great distance we might use?


 * Hoping you can help!


 * Thanks


 * Puffball 22:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The email has been returned as undeliverable. Rats! Will try again. -- Puffball 09:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It was a good try, but I doubt that a sufficiently high-quality image will exist&mdash;after all, this photograph was taken from a great distance, at extremely high magnification. The Earth is 0.12 pixel in size, if I recall, and we don't have a good place for the picture either. I think it's all right to leave it out. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 19:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent events
ZorkFox, I have rv'd some of your edits in this paragraph. The previous version was meant to end the article by looking away from Earth and raising the inspiring possibility of human colonization of space. I felt that your changes watered that down. Feel free to argue! -- Puffball 20:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. The changes I made were intended to break up what I thought was a pretty awkward sentence.  At first I just tried to find another word for "sketchily," and when I failed, decided to remove it.  What about this?
 * {| class="wikitable"

Future developments can at best only be sketchily imagined today—the possible advances in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, electronics, and all the other disciplines which may permit the colonization of distant worlds. Future developments can only be imagined sketchily today, but the potential advances in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, electronics, and all the other disciplines may permit the colonization of distant worlds. —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 01:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Your current version:
 * My suggestion:
 * My suggestion:
 * }
 * As for replacing himself with itself, a species as a whole does not have a gender, so I chose the neuter pronoun. If you're just talking about a lion or a whale or a human and no gender has been specified, I think it's proper to use "it" rather than "him."  English does have a neuter pronoun, it just happens to be the same as the male pronoun (though "they" seems to be coming into vogue to replace it), but in this case I felt the "itself" would work best.
 * About the biosphere, obviously it's where humans evolved, but I don't think it's really possible to break free of it until one is dead (and even then you just get recycled :). Hence, my change to atmosphere, which seems a little more clearly defined.  What do you think?


 * Let's go with your version, though I suggest leaving out the definite article in "the potential advances".


 * I suppose one could argue that we take a bit of the biosphere with us into space, but that includes the atmosphere too. The idea behind "biosphere" is that, up till the invention of extraterrestrial travel, we were tied to the environment that had nurtured us.


 * The gender pronoun thing generates acres of debate on the Manual of Style talkpages: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_37, Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style. I belong to the old school, I fear, and am comfortable with such terms as "mankind" and "the Ascent of Man", so according Homo sapiens a pointedly neuter pronoun jars a bit with me. Maybe I'm past my sell-by date 8-) -- Puffball 09:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that terms like biosphere, atmosphere, hydrosphere, and so on are determined by both composition and location. While a spaceship leaving Earth might carry both humans and a breathable atmosphere, I would consider them separate. That is, if humans developed some super-fast space travel and travelled to another planet, I wouldn't consider them to still be part of the biosphere, any more than the air released from their craft or their exhalations were part of Earth's atmosphere or the urine they excreted or water vapor they exhaled to be part of Earth's hydrosphere. I'm happy with either usage; other possibilities are something like "broke free of the planet" or "left the planet" or "became an independent orbiting body"... &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 19:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are separate. "BIOSPHERE. That part of the earth and its atmosphere which is inhabited by living things." (Abercrombie et al., A Dictionary of Biology, Penguin Books). "The portion of the earth in which ecosystems operate is conveniently designated as the biosphere ..." (Odum, Fundamentals of Ecology, W. B. Saunders). Ecology was my undergraduate speciality, all those years ago. I thought I had remembered the definition correctly, and it seems (pace ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) again) I had! -- Puffball 09:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

All right; I think the matter is settled. Let's figure out what we need to do next. I think adding references is what I'll work on next, although it is going to take quite some time for me to read through the material to try to find the best reference for each point. Also, I am unsure how much to reference&mdash;normally, I'd do most facts, using the new cite system, but I know Puffball said his browser can't display superscripts properly. Inline citation, though, would get disruptive if it is used too much. Any thoughts? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I cast my vote for the new "cite" system. A fix for Safari has kindly been posted by User:Mzajac; it's no longer working on mine ({sigh}) but most other browsers are OK in this respect. It's probably my fault for not being sufficiently diligent in downloading upgrades from Apple.


 * I'd like to invite some up-to-date biologists to contribute, since biology plays such an important part in the article. Would that be OK? -- Puffball 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope they eventually fix whatever's wrong. I'll change the references then. Yes, certainly, please invite whomever you wish&mdash;we could certainly use their expertise! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to summarize this summary article (!) into a single paragraph for inclusion at Earth. You may wish to read it at Earth, and modify it as necessary. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Gregorian calendar
I think the anno Domini calendar should be used either in unison with the euphemistic common era or replace it altogether on this page. The Jesus article uses both (i.e. 45 BC/BCE). This article is one of historic importance and should reflect all cultures and traditions. This article should not have a secular bias or a Christian racism slant. Please discuss and vote. –Darwiner111 15:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC).


 * I disagree. This article has nothing to do with Christianity; the only tradition it should reflect is the scientific one. It may discuss culture but it should not reflect it. I do not know what a Christian racism slant is, but racists from any religion aren't really relevant here. I don't know exactly what you mean by "secular bias"; Merriam-Webster defines secular as follows: "1 a : of or relating to the worldly or temporal b : not overtly or specifically religious c : not ecclesiastical or clerical ." If this is the definition you are using, then I absolutely feel that the article should 1) relate to the worldly or temporal, 2) should not be overtly or specifically religious, and 3) should not be ecclesiastical or clerical. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 18:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I also disagree. Though it is my own personal habit to use BC/AD, and even though it is my preference to see dates in this format, I think we should leave it in the BC/BCE format.  It's obviously not necessary to cater to my habits.  I don't really like how "Before Common Era" rolls off the tongue, but hey... no one ever consults me on these important notation changes.  :)  Knowledge Seeker is correct that the article should discuss culture, but not reflect it.


 * I actually usually use BC/AD too. In fact, I never gave it much thought until recently, but the campaign to infuse religious terminology that he's been carrying out (involving some highly questionable practices) has turned me off of it. And with a fundamental article like this, whose scope is so far beyond human systems, it somehow seemed more appropriate to use BCE/CE. In any case, I don't consider the issue important enough to merit further discussion. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Gigayears
I may be alone in my madness, but even though I love math, I often find scientific notation difficult to decipher on the fly (i.e. as I read). I like that the first reference to the age of Earth was expanded with a reference to "billion" and "thousand million", but find the multiple conventions somewhat verbose. What about simply writing out the number in digits? 4,550,000,000 years. And, I'm almost certain no one will like this next idea, but I have this twitch to add SI prefixes to things, so I'm going to mention it anyway in the hopes it will give you all a laugh (and it does merit of being unambiguous): what about 4.55 gigayears? Hee, hee! (Yes, yes, I know that a year is not, technically, an SI unit. That just makes it even more fun.) —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh...yes, the struggle for what to do with “billion” was difficult for me. I am not certain: I think that using the expanded form would work for the first entry, but I think it’d be a bit cumbersome to continue throughout the article, having to count zeros and such. What do others think? What about “The history of Earth covers approximately 4.55&times;109 years (4,550,000,000 or 4.55 billion years),...” for the first entry? And using scientific notation for the rest? I'm not sure. I do like gigayears, but somehow I don't think that will make it clearer for the average reader. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 07:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest expanding to "4,550,000,000 years" on the first occurrence, then leaving it as scientific notation. I don't think there's a need to have "billion" in there... if only because it is so confusing for persons of different counting traditions.  (Why they have to be different, I don't know!)  I'll go fix it.


 * You guys are getting SI units confused with scientific notation. The SI units for years uses the typical greco-roman prefixes and shorthand,
 * ka = (kiloyear) = thousand years
 * Ma = (mega annum) = million years
 * Ga = (giga annum) = billion years
 * This is typically how geologists talk about the age of the Earth, because while adding lots of numbers to the power of 9 makes you look smarter, it takes a lot of time to type it out. Why don't you guys get with the program in this regard and convert everything to a more user friendly Ma and Ga format? And while we're here, the presence of crystalline zircon with an age date of 4.404 Ga infers that the surface of the Earth had cooled enough to form solid rock by that time, which is less than the 200 Ma you have in the article. See Jack Hills, Narryer Gneiss Terrane, Acasta gneiss and oldest rock. Rolinator 08:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, Rolinator, I guess I’m not seeing where I was getting SI units confused with scientific notation. For that matter, I’m not sure I see where ZorkFox got them confused, either. The difference seems quite clear to me. Perhaps you could point out where you saw this? (While we’re at it, I think you’re getting infer confused with imply.) I don't think that adding zeros makes one look smarter; it seems to me that in fact using prefixes or scientific notation would (possibly) make one look smarter. I don’t know if you noticed all the points in the discussion above: the reason we talked about writing the number out was to make it more accessible to the average reader, who is likely to not be a geologist. Are you implying that 4.55 Ga is more user-friendly than 4,550,000,000? If so, I’m afraid I have to disagree. Nevertheless perhaps using the prefixes would be less clunky than using scientific notation, and we’re still trying to figure out the best way to express all this. I almost would rather just use “billion” throughout. I’ll take a look at the information you provide—feel free to update the article yourself, if you like. If possible, an accompanying reference would be appreciated (I’m trying to reference the major points in the article). If you’re unsure how to use, just leave a message here and I’d be glad to take care of it. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 09:03, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 11:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the confusion arose with my use of "gigayear" instead of "giga annum". I don't know why the SI can't use "year" instead of "annum" ...but they never seem to consult my opinion on these important matters, rather preferring to decide for themselves.  Part of the annoyance for me is that you can't put "giga" and "annum" together in one word (gigaannum) without it looking very foolish; so much for the vaunted prefix-plus-unit system.  Ah, well.  I think it's fine to use scientific notation for the years as long as the first example is given a more accessible expansion, as we have right now.  Others are free to disagree with me.  (And I can't see anywhere in the article where we talk about zircons and 200 Ma.  But it's late and I'm tired, so I could be missing it.  I hope Rolinator will help by pointing it out to us or fixing it.)


 * Don't worry; I incorporated the new information some time ago. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm not contributing
I'm having major problems with my ISP and may be offline for extended periods. Even when I can get online (they control my phones as well) I'll be using dialup. Puffball 09:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem; you’re certainly not obligated to contribute. We’ll look forward to your return! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- the problems are getting worse (we won't go into it). In fact, computers and the internet are beginning to drive me nuts! Puffball 09:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Solved Puffball 21:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Big Bang
I'm just putting this here because it was too long for the edit summary. I think Big Bang should be capitalized. It is a named event, like World War II, and not just any old large explosion. In my opinion, and despite my usual respect for it, www.m-w.com is in error with its lower case entry. Wikipedia uses Big Bang. (I know, it's a minor quibble. :) —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 07:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Merriam-Webster is my dictionary of choice, but of course I'm open to other ones as well. Are there any dictionaries that capitalize it? I would like to check the OED, but I don't have a copy. As much as I love Wikipedia, I would never use it as a spelling authority over Merriam-Webster or other reputable dictionaries, and I definitely don't think that Wikipedia should be creating its own capitalization style, even if it seems logical to Wikipedians. I'm happy to keep it uppercase if other authorities recommend capitalization. NASA's website appears to be inconsistent. I'll check Chicago when I get home, but I don't recall it being mentioned there. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 08:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I myself have become confused. I made the change while at work, and thus without access to my many dictionaries.  Two of my dictionaries have the term, two don't (one because it's lame and cheap, the other because it's very old).  Of my two dictionaries that have the term, Meriam-Webster uses lower case, and Random House uses upper case.  I'm happy to go either way, I guess, as I consider Meriam-Webster to have more authority than Random House.  :)


 * It seems to me that it should be capitalized, whatever the OED says. ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) is surely right in his first paragraph. Puffball 21:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit uneasy with us creating our own capitalization rules on Wikipedia. I don't mind the capitalized version being used, but I'd be a lot more at ease if a major dictionary or style guide supported it, since my usual references say not to do so. Can anyone find such a reference? Even if we don't like the way dictionaries spell words, I don't think we should be using our own spelling&mdash;even if we think that's how it should be spelt. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 11:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems a silly thing to worry so much about, so let's just make a decision. I suggest that, since Meriam-Webster is, by and large, one of those dictionaries to which scholars pay attention (the others being Funk & Wagnall's, and Barnhart's World Book Encyclopedia Dictionary), I think we should go with what it says.  I.e. lower-case.  Far be it from me to contravene the normal decorum of the village with my upstart miscreant ideas.  Heh!  :)


 * I leave it to you guys to decide how you would like to leave it. This issue is less clear and much less important to me than the quotation marks below. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Lower-case seems to prevail (though really I feel it shouldn't). ZorkFox, be bold! Be as miscreative as you like! -- Puffball 20:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Current tasks
First, I wanted to really thank everyone who has been working on this article. I think it has really turned out well so far, and I'm pretty happy with the balance between sufficient detail and brevity. I think it's short enough to read through in one sitting. Also, the article has drawn praise from several editors. You can see some comments on my talk page, but we all share in deserving the compliments. I think it's an article to be proud of and I've made links to it from several articles—feel free to add any wherever you see fit (I don't want to spam other articles, of course). I've been working on adding references—the sections up to the origin of life should be well-referenced now. Of course, if you find additional or more rigorous references, please list them—I'm only an amateur and may not be familiar with the best literature or evidence. Also, I'm having trouble with the title of section 3: I'm currently using "The first millennium" but if anyone has a better suggestion, let's hear it. Obviously, the major task still facing the article is the continued addition of references. Also, as mentioned before, I'm still not thrilled with the human history section, though that may be unavoidable given the incredible amount of material that must be condensed. We should start thinking about submission for peer review at some point to help us define what directions to seek improvement in. I'm not sure where else to go from here. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help with the citation markup, KS. I hyperlinked it to the original paper on the ScienceDirect website with the DOI which (in theory) should never result in a broken link, and gives the abstract to nonsubscribers for free.  The data in the Cavosie paper seems to agree with the 4.2 Ga for the presence of relatively cool water on earth.Rickert 09:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the much more authoritative reference, Rickert. Your assistance is greatly appreciated. If you need to change any of the chronology, go ahead&mdash;I'll recalculate the "clock times" later. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 10:11, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Unicode usage
I love Unicode as much as the next person, possibly more than average, but it is not, unfortunately, supported very well. It's OK to use it for symbols people won't be using to search a document, like "—" and "×", but when we uses it for apostrophes and quotation marks, those are harder to deal with. For example, you can't search for "Artist's", you have to search for "Artist’s" ...which involves either finding a character somewhere to cut-and-paste, or knowing that Alt+0146 (on a Windows machine) will get you the curly/angled/whatever version. It is especially confusing depending on the font in use; on Wikipedia, the font doesn't make a distinction, and so even though you use "’" it still shows up as "'". (There appears to be a miniscule difference in the white space around each character, but casual persons cannot be expected to notice this outside carefully controlled contexts, as in those created by placing the characters between quotation marks.) Also, if used in wikilinks, the Unicode characters won't work. I think the apostrophe and quotation marks are too common to replace with Unicode characters and should be put back, so I did it. :) —ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 10:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I very much disagree. I very much feel we should use apostrophes and quotation marks instead of single and double primes. The benefit of using proper typography outweighs the benefit of improved searching, which I feel is marginal&mdash;very few will be searching with quotation marks, and not many with apostrophes. The difference is quite noticeable on my computer and in print, and I don't think that just because it doesn't show up on some platforms it should not be used. Wikipedia has switched to Unicode support some time ago, and I think it can be expected that browsers will support Unicode. Writers shouldn't feel obligated to use the Unicode symbols, but I don't see why those who wish to should be prevented from doing so. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 11:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a bit of a chestnut at the Manual of Style. The consensus there generally seems to be against Unicode. -- Puffball 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've seen the scattered discussions, and I disagree with them. I think issues like this are part of the reason the Manual of Style gets less significance these days. In any case I'm not advocating making a preference for Unicode part of the Manual of Style, but allow it either way, such as -- vs. &mdash;. In my opinion, searching for terms like "artist's" isn't really very compelling. In the first place, no one will be searching for quotation marks. In the second, many browsers search as you type; I don't know what IE does, but Firefox does. And if someone was searching for such a term, they would likely search for "artist" if the "artist's" search fails. All in all, it does not seem to me to be a good reason for not using proper typography. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 18:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I just took a look at the discussion to which you linked. It seems to be more concerned with forcing general usage of quotation marks and software implentations for automatically converting primes to quotation marks. Obviously, those topics aren't relevant here. A concern over mixed styles in an article is brought up. While it is certainly a concern, as ZorkFox points out, many people cannot see the difference; in addition, since it is very important to me that this article look beautiful, you can be sure I will keep it consistent. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 18:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 00:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If I am overruled, then by all means return to the Unicode punctuation marks. I still think it isn't supported very well; it's only by chance that I happen to have the Arial Unicode MS font on my machine (which, incidentally, allows me to see the Bengali script characters used by Knowledge Seeker and myself in our signatures).  This font is not generally available for download (though it used to be) and only comes with certain Microsoft products these days.  The difference is more apparent in the editing window than on the article page in my browser (latest Firefox on Windows 2000 Professional).  What settings and/or software are you using, KS?

I'd rather it be more about discussion and less about overrule, if possible. What browsers/operating systems don't support them? I've been using typographically correct quotation marks and dashes on my private web site for years and haven't come across a computer that didn't properly display them. I don't think you need to have Arial Unicode MS&mdash;at least, I just bought a new computer and I see no evidence of an Arial Unicode MS font. I agree that not all systems will have the Bengali characters installed, but basic typography seems well supported. I'm using Firefox 1.5.0.1 on Windows XP. I have a high-resolution monitor so my default font size is a bit larger. Printer settings are default. My computer natively supported the Unicode typography. The visual appeal and the correct typography are both compelling reasons for me to push for Unicode. Unlike the "Big Bang" issue above where there is conflicting use, there is no doubt about which characters are "correct", even if their use wasn't previously technically possible. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 08:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "overruled" was a poor choice of words. :)  I, too, use the typographically correct characters on my Web page, but the font family I use (Verdana, sans-serif) makes fairly clear distinctions between the "'" and the "’".  Other software (i.e. not browsers) do not seem to handle such characters too well (in my experience), but I guess we can't worry about them or we'll never get anything accomplished.  Heh.  I apologize if I overreacted by reverting the changes, and will be happy to put them back in place if that's the consensus.


 * You certainly did not overreact. What software, aside from browsers, might people use in conjunction with this article? The only ones I can think of are programs like Notepad or Microsoft Word and both support Unicode. I guess I didn't think about people using programs aside from browsers on the article. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:18, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 04:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Unicode support depends mostly on the fonts a piece of software can or will display. Notepad will let you input Unicode characters, but they'll just show up as blocks (at least, this is the case on my version of Notepad; I don't know what changes, if any, might have been made to it in XP).  Wordpad will display some/all Unicode characters depending on which font you select for the document.  Personally, I think the Unicode quotation marks look much better, but they are harder to produce for the average user (even the average user who knows how to use the "Insert [a character] " table at the bottom of an edit page) and are not, in general, in use on the rest of Wikipedia.  I would find them irksome to use in everyday life (or everyday editing, as may be the case).


 * Yes, Unicode works fine in Notepad and Microsoft Word on Windows XP. I wouldn't expect the average user to be obligated to use Unicode quotation marks any more than I'd expect them to use Unicode dashes. If necessary, editors watching the article (like me) can fix those, as well as spelling mistakes, misplaced commas, and so on. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

BCE link target?
I originally linked "BCE" to Common Era, since Before Common Era (which BCE stands for) redirects to Common Era. This seems logical to me; readers wishing more information about "BCE" will find that best in Common Era, and links should go to the most specific target, in my opinion. Another editor feels it should link to Gregorian calendar. I think it makes just as little sense as linking to Calendar or Time. What do others think? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, "BCE" does not neccesarily stand for "Before Common Era", even though this is the most commonly used. Many interpret "CE/BCE" as Christian Era, even the Encyclopedia Brittanica, which defines CE as "Christian era– dating from the birth of Jesus Christ". Though linking to "Before Christ" would be inappropriate, linking to "Before Common Era" is no more appropriate given the wide appreciation that "CE" stands for Christian era as well. Linking to Gregorian calendar would also give NPOV on the era debate, and I think Gregorian calendar is certainly appropriate since "BCE" is directly associated with it. CrazyInSane 02:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for not being clear. When I wrote that section, I was using BCE to stand for "Before Common Era"&mdash;that other interpretations are possible does not mean that linking to a different article is appropriate, anymore than a link to BCE would be appropriate. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the fact that you are willing to discuss the matter prior to reverting my edits, and I made my edit simply to assert NPOV with the "BCE" link. I figured that the link "Gregorian calendar" ensures that you aren't asserting a strictly Christian nor secular point of view, however if you restore the "Before Common Era" link it's ultimately your call. CrazyInSane 16:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. I saw that you removed the link to Common Era. I feel that it is appropriate and logical for an abbreviation to link to its expanded phrase the first time it is used in an article, and so restored it. I am not willing to be so bound by fear of not being politically correct that I use a vague and inferior article link rather than pick a format. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hadean Eon vs. Hadean eon
My understanding of the use of stratigraphic names is that the terms like period, stage, eon etc. should be capitalized. This is a geological convention. For example, see. Rickert 22:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I was trying to stay out of this one—I feel like I've been making a big deal out of minor style issues recently. Merriam-Webster doesn't use any capitalization in its entry. But the reason I originally used lowercase when I wrote the heading was based on The Chicago Manual of Style (15th ed.), which is my style manual of choice. It suggests the following in chapter 8 (Names and Terms), section Scientific Terminology: Geological Terms: "8.143 What to capitalize. Formal geological terms are capitalized; informal terms are not. The generic terms eon, era, and the like are lowercased or omittted immediately following a formal name. Eons are divided into eras, eras into periods, periods into epochs, and epochs into stages." The following examples are given: "the Archean (eon), the Mesoproterozoic (era), the Paleozoic (period), the Tertiary period of the Cenozoic, and the Paleocene (epoch)". It also refers writers to the U.S. Geological Survey, Suggestions to Authors of the Reports of the United States Geological Survey, and Scientific Style and Format for more detailed guidelines. Therefore, my preference is not to capitalize. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * My point is that the "official" scientific body (the NACSN) and the bible (the NASC) on stratigraphic nomenclature in North America recommends the capitalization. To a certain extent, this convention is followed in the literature, although with abundant exception.  I believe that if pressed, most geologists who have thought about this issue would agree that it should be capitalized.  It seems funny to me to use a lower case in this context, however you have used equally relevent sources, and more importantly, consensus seems to be against me.  It would seem that I will simply have to wince every time I read it.  ;)  Rickert 17:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think there is a tendency for people in all fields to overcapitalize terms that are important to them. Nevertheless, I don't really have a strong opinion in this case, and if you feel that this term should be capitalized, feel free to change it. Others too are welcome to comment here. Of course, other editors in the future may see the capitalized version and change it to lowercase. I wonder if it would be simpler just to use "The Hadean" as title. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 04:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as someone has a good reason (like you do) I am fine with either. Although your suggestion to change it to just "The Hadean" sounds a tad more poetic.  :)  Rickert 05:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it to "The Hadean". Eon was a bit redundant, anyway. I think this will work best; others are free to comment if they like. By the way, my comment above about "people in all fields" was a generic reference; I hope I didn't come across as implying anything about you specifically. Anything else you can offer to improve the section? I am happy with the referencing but additional references or better-quality sources are always welcome. I'm slowly making my way through, trying to add references throughout the article. Hopefully we'll be ready for peer review soon and they can offer us further suggestions on how to improve the article. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well resolved. :) Sammysam 17:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why, thank you! &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Origin of Life
The sections on origin of life (beginnings of life the the first cell) don't line up too well with the origin of life article; it privileges one theory in a field where there is by no means a consensus, and claims that for the random emergence of a replicator from "organic soup", the "broad principles have been quite well established" - dubious at best.--ragesoss 15:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right; I intended the organic chemistry scenario only as illustration, but now that I reread it, it does get undue prominence. I tried to rewrite it&mdash;what do you think? Incidentally, I don't care that much for the origin of life article; it seems a bit disorganized to me, but perhaps I just have a short attention span. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's better. It's still kind of misleading at the beginning, with the "broad principles" line; yes, the broad principles of how a first replicator might have arisen are established, but it also seems like the article is saying that that form of origin is well-established, as opposed to exogenesis or panspermia, etc.  And, no, I don't care much for the origin of life article either (although I suppose the randomness, a sort of "hypothesis soup", is symbolically fitting).--ragesoss 16:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, yes, the point is well-taken. I didn't mention panspermia or exogenesis since obviously there is limited space here and it seemed to me that they carry minority positions in science currently. Perhaps, though, I should mention the possibility of life or organic chemicals arriving from space. I am confused, though; my understanding of panspermia and exogenesis was that life arose in those scenarios in the same manner of a replicator arising, then gradually becoming more complex through evolution (obviously this doesn't apply in the version of panspermia where life always existed); isn't that still how life is believed to have originated, whether on Earth or elsewhere (or both)? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

References question
When I'm using the same source as a reference for several points, I can use the page number, but then multiple nearly identical versions of the footnote appear in the references. Alternatively, I could use one footnote text for all of them, which would make for neater footnoting, but then the reader would not have a page number to use if he wished to verify or learn more about the assertion. Do the other editors have a preference which way I should continue referencing? For now I'll continue to use page numbers; it will be quite easy to remove them later should we so choose. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

—ZorkFox (&#2487;Talk) 08:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the use of pages is a good idea as long as the section doesn't become bloated with them. It's good to cite sources and make sure your facts are correct, but I think there's a point where the gain in knowledge is outweighed by the minutia.  Good work linking to that story about the data from WMAP; that's an important discovery.
 * Regarding the references I suggest you take a look at cite web and cite book. Joelito 13:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I'll try using them. I hope they don't clutter up the wikitext even more, though. Hopefully it will make it neater. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:37, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Am I over-referencing? I think I've packed so much information into this article that when I add references to all the major points, it's starting to get overcrowded. Perhaps I will back off on the density of footnotes. I'll still work on the paragraphs I haven't tackled yet. If there is a fact or assertion that anyone feels could use a reference, please let me know. And as always, feel free to supply a reference better than one I've used. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think so: one or more references per paragraph should be standard. Great work. bcasterline t 17:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but History of Earth, which I was working on yesterday, already has 6 references. The following paragraph already has 3. At what point should I stop? I mean, I could add references to each sentence, but this is an encyclopedia article, not a medical study. Well, I'll move on to some of the paragraphs that I haven't referenced yet, and can come back to these if necessary. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are long paragraphs, so, personally, I don't think that's overkill at all. As WP:V says, articles should cite sources whenever possible. More or less any fact that isn't taken for granted (e.g. "Modern taxonomy classifies life into three domains.") should be referenced somehow.  Look at some of the current FA and FACs, such as AIDS, which footnotes an enormous number of different sources, or Sassanid Empire, which footnotes many different pages of the same source, as you have (but differently). bcasterline t 20:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I didn't realize how many references AIDS had. Well, I'll continue trying to reference as much as possible, then. And I suppose this article may need more referencing than most, because I've had to pull so much information from so many fields and pack into tiny sections; naturally, it is a bit more information-dense than an average article. Thanks for the feedback. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I meant "Modern taxonomy classifies life into three domains." as an example of a basic fact that I think probably doesn't need to be footnoted. Verifiability is important, but that probably would be excessive :-) bcasterline t 23:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

future
how about adding a session of a possible future

Mateus Zica 07:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's interesting to consider, but we have to be careful not to speculate too much about future events; this borders on original research. While I'm comfortable with suggesting that humans may colonize other planets (which I consider relevant in an article on the history of a planet), it's been deliberately left quite vague. See also Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. While a section covering various sourced speculations on Earth's future might be appropriate, I fear it would be too difficult to summarize them or to find common themes, and it seems to me that the future is just too uncertain to write a strong paragraph. Perhaps if a good Future of Earth article existed (I tried variations but could not locate an article, though I thought there was a similar one somewhere), that could be used as a basis. But as I'm seeing such a section, I think it would be too vague and too speculative&mdash;it would weaken the ending of the article, in my opinion. If someone were to write Future of Earth, I'd be happy to add it as a see also link at least. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:45, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * End of civilization is something like a Future of Earth article. But I don't think speculation about the future belongs in a chronicle of the past. bcasterline t 23:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Do you think it would be helpful in the "See also" section? It is a related topic. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 23:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

LUCA reference
Does anyone know of a good source with an approximate time for when LUCA lived? I need to rewrite those sentences a bit but I'm trying to find a nice citation, and this one's giving me a little trouble. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

"Billion" revisited
I'm still not happy with the way the article treats billions (and yes, I know, I'm the one who wrote it that way). Various options include "4.5 billion years ago", "4.5 thousand million years ago", "4.5×109 years ago", "4,500,000,000 years ago", "4.5 Bya" (or "4500 Mya"), "4.5 Ga" (or "4500 Ma"), and "4500 Myr". Obviously, the first instance must explain the notation. I realize "billion" can have different meanings, but I think perhaps it would be the most straightforward. The first instance could include an alternate form such as "4,500,000,000 years ago" the way the article does currently. The other option is to use strict SI units: "142 Ps" (petaseconds). Just kidding. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...perhaps I have scared away other editors with my overbearing control of the article. Increasingly I feel that using "billion" would be superior to the method I originally used. Any thoughts? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Billion has different usages, sometimes it means 10^9 sometimes (esp. in the UK) it means 10^12. I honestly don't know how many people use it to mean 10^12, but that is part of the reason why geochronologists use "Ga" instead of billion.  My preference is "Ga", but from the above discussion it would seem that use of Ga would confuse some people.  If we could clarify how many people would be confused by "billion", and it were small, billion would probably suffice.  Rickert 06:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the differing uses of billion; that's the reason I initially selected 109 as a clear, unambiguous notation style. Yet I now feel it is too awkward. I understand that Ga is used in the geologic literature; is that correct? It is a logical abbreviation, yet it seems to me that it is not very intuitive nor well-established. The articles I've used as sources used a variety of abbreviations, such as Mya and Myr. It does appear that most use Ga, but I haven't seen this used in more popular literature (for instance, magazines like Scientific American). I would like this article to be accurate and precise, but I don't want it to be too inaccessible to readers, especially since this article spans such disparate fields. But I do think that Ga may be superior to 109, and I think billion is too. Other articles on Wikipedia seem to use billion for the most part, so at least for now I think I'll switch to that. Perpahs Ga would be even better; I am just concerned that if someone reads in the middle of the article they will be confused, especially since years play such a major role in the article. What do others think? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * The number of people likely to be confused by Ga is higher than the number of people likely to be confused by billion. And anyone familiar with Ga as a measurement is almost certainly going to understand that billion is being used as 109 because nothing is 1012 years old.  Leaving it as 109 is a good compromise, but people unfamiliar with scientific notation won't have the same intuitive understanding of the number. It is less precise, but, especially since you use "million years ago", I think "billion years ago" is the most straightforward way to put it. bcasterline t 18:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking as a British citizen, billion is used only to refer to 10^9 in Britain. We Americanized the numerical convention decades ago. Jefffire 18:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Then "billion" sounds fine to me. Run with it.  Rickert 22:21, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Billion, to Spanish speakers (except Puerto Ricans), corresponds to 1012, but since this is the English Wikipedia I believe billion should be used as 109 since the majority of English speakers recognize it as so. Joelito 22:26, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments. Based on this discussion, I will switch to using billion in the article—at least for now. Of course, we can always change our minds later. Please feel free to offer any other feedback on how I may improve this article while I'm continuing to slowly add references. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 05:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hinduism and earliest religion
Nice article. Not sure I'd call Hinduism the earliest religion still practicesd - there are plenty of animists still out there, and Chinese religions have a pretty long history. PiCo 22:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! You're right. I modified it; I'll reword it later with a citation. Appreciate the feedback. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 06:07, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Camb-Ordo bndry
The Cambrian-Ordovician boundary is between 483+-1 Ma (Landing et al., 1997) and 489+-0.6 Ma (Landing et al., 2000). The older date of 489 Ma is the one quoted in the timescale of Okulitch (2001). The timescale of Gradstein et al. (2004; slightly newer), uses 488.3+-1.7, but I’m not sure where that data is from. My suggestion would be to use the Landing et al. (2000) date and reference, as it is the primary source. The Gradstein ref is secondary (i.e. it draws from published Geochron data like that in the Landing paper). The Okulitch is secondary, but it directly references the Landing et al. (2000) date.


 * Landing, E; Bowring, SA; Davidek, KL; Rushton, AWA; Fortey, RA; Wimbledon, WAP. 2000.  Cambrian-Ordovician boundary age and duration of the lowest Ordovician Tremadoc Series based on U-Pb zircon dates from Avalonian Wales.  Geological Magazine, v137 (5): 485-494.  doi: 10.1017/S0016756800004507


 * Landing, E; Bowring, SA; Fortey, RA; Davidek, K, 1997. U-Pb zircon date from Avalonian Cape Breton Island and geochronologic calibration of the Early Ordovician.  Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences v34, 724-730.


 * Okulitch, AV, 2001. Geological time scale, 2001.  Geological Survey of Canada, Open File 3040 (National Earth Science Series, Geological Atlas) – Revision.


 * F.M.Gradstein, J.G.Ogg, A.G.Smith, F.P.Agterberg, W.Bleeker, R.A.Cooper, V.Davydov, P.Gibbard, L.Hinnov, M.R. House, L.Lourens, H-P.Luterbacher, J.McArthur, M.J.Melchin, L.J.Robb, J.Shergold, M.Villeneuve,B.R.Wardlaw, J.Ali, H.Brinkhuis, F.J.Hilgen, J.Hooker, R.J.Howarth, A.H.Knoll, J.Laskar, S.Monechi, J.Powell,K.A.Plumb, I.Raffi, U.Röhl, A.Sanfilippo, B.Schmitz, N.J.Shackleton, G.A.Shields, H.Strauss, J.Van Dam, J.Veizer,Th.van Kolfschoten, and D.Wilson. 2004: A Geologic Time Scale 2004. Cambridge University Press, ~ 500 p. (NB I don’t know if I got this whole reference correct or not)

Rickert 09:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Rickert! That helps a lot! Now we've got good references for the timing of the event. All we need is a reference stating there was a major extinction event at the time...anybody? I'll keep searching. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My understanding is that the Cambrian-Ordovician extinction event is not a particularly large one, and not on the scale of the the end-Devonian, Ordovician-Silurian, Permo-Triassic, Triassic-Jurassic(?), or Cretaceous-Tertiary events (particularly the end-Permian extinction). As a more positive comment, the fact that there IS a boundary between the Cambrian and Ordovician is probably a good clue to the fact that there was an extinction, because these boundaries are commonly placed at major faunal shifts.  That's the extent of my paleontological knowledge, BTW.  :) Rickert 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I added the appropriate references. I am fortunate to have your expertise in these matters. — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The linking of "BCE"
A user removed the link from "BCE" with the comment "Wikipedia endorses NPOV as you and I know..endorsement the linking of BCE over any other term like 'the' is POV". The is not an abbreviation; BCE is. It is logical and traditional for abbreviations to be linked to the phrases for which they stand. I restored the link. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Linking "BCE" is endorsing it even further over the "Anno Domini" system, given that "BC/AD" alrady is ignored at this article. On every article where you see "AD" or "BC", they are never linked. And this is because they are so well known that nobody would want to visit the "anno Domini" link, plus it's completely irrelevent to the actual article material, as is here. As for "BCE", the only reason anyone (i.e. Knowledge_Seeker) would want to link it is to endorse its mainstream usage, as most people do not even know what it means thus a link would press them to investigate. I disagree with this and believe the link should be removed immediately. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 01:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course there are articles (for example, Belgium) that link to anno Domini. Yes, the purpose of links to other Wikipedia articles is for users wishing more information on that topic. I do not believe you've made a good case for removing the link. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 01:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments are appreciated, KS, but remember that you do not own this article, despite the major additions you made here (and maybe you created it, of that I am unsure). Therefore I will await other user responses and remove the link if there is a consensus for such. I will refrain from removing it until a consensus, but I do believe it should be removed promptly. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 02:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Of course I don't own the article; you hardly need to remind me of Wikipedia policy and you will see my statement to that effect if you read the archives. Yes, I am responsible for writing the majority of the article; as you are aware, the initial primary author does get some leeway in setting the style tone for the article. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 02:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't assume Knowledge Seeker is making an endorsement. Linking BCE might be superfluous, but it's not inappropriate. Same with linking measurements such as m, in, etc. You might consider linking the date as a whole (7000 BCE, for example, is more likely to be useful), but linking every date is probably excessive. bcasterline t 02:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I would agree with a linking of the date as a whole (i.e. 450 BCE) if that would be okay with KS. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE

To me this matter seems trivial and I adhere to the main contributor's desired style. Joelito 03:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that linking the whole date does make sense as well, although I do like having initialisms linked (the point is well taken, though, about the other measurements). I changed it back to that for now. I do wonder, though, what the point of only linking one or two dates in this manner is. If we're going to do it, shouldn't we do it to all the dates? Not that that's necessarily a good idea, either. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, BCE should be linked. The best (only, IMO) argument against BCE is that it is less well known.  It's specifically because some people may be unfamiliar with the term that it should be linked.  We don't determine linking on the basis of Wiki-politics or policy - link things which might be unfamiliar to a reader reasonably familiar with English.  Guettarda 03:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Geologic time scale?
I haven't made much reference to geologic units of time, such as the Devonian period, the Mesozoic era, and so on. Do you think I should try to mention these more often? &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * My feeling would be yes. It's commonly used, so it makes it easier to mesh this with other sources.  Guettarda 03:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Very well. I'll try to integrate them into the text. Please feel free to reword my awkward writing. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

random phrase
This precious wet droplet of lava orbiting a star. --arkuat (talk) 06:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh. Grain of dust is more like it! I recall reading somewhere that Isaac Asimov (an excellent writer) described the solar system as "a star, four planets, and debris", which I think is highly appropriate. The quote may be apocryphal though. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't know. Grains of dust don't have earthquakes and volcanoes and plate tectonics, do they? --arkuat (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh—they have them at least as often as droplets of lava do, I'd figure! — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Approaching peer review
Whew—only two paragraphs left to reference (79 footnotes so far!). Once I'm done I'd definitely like to invite some outside help. Peer review is a logical choice. Also, there is the new Scientific peer review, which is a very exciting project—I've been following their project with interest. I think they will be able to provide us with a lot of help, at least ensuring I haven't made any horrible scientific errors. Hopefully some of the reviewers will have expertise in the various fields this article discusses. I think that SPR will be more helpful than PR at this point, although PR will be important later on as we polish the article. So I guess I'm proposing to nominate the article for SPR once I get done with this phase of referencing. What do others think? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think scientific peer review would be quite useful at this point and will invite them to help us improve. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)