1766:"Earth’s oldest fossils are the stromatolites consisting of rocks built from layer upon layer of sediment and precipitants. Based on studies of now rare, extant stromatolites, growth of fossil stromatolitic structures was biogenetically mediated by mats of microorganisms through entrapment of sediments. Abiotic mechanisms for stromatolite growth are also known, leading to a decades long and sometimes contentious scientific debate regarding biogenesis of certain formations, especially those from the lower to middle Archaean. It is more widely accepted that stromatolites from the late Archaean and through the middle Proterozoic were mostly formed by massive colonies of cyanobacteria and that the oxygen byproduct of their photosynthetic metabolism first resulted in earth’s massive banded iron formations and then oxygenated earth’s atmosphere. Though rare, microstructures resembling cells are sometimes found within stromatolites, but are also the source of scientific contention. The Gunflint Chert contains abundant microfossils widely accepted as a diverse consortium of 2.0 Bya microbes. In contrast, putative fossil cyanobacteria cells from the 3.4 Bya Warrawoona Group in Western Australia is in dispute since abiotic processes cannot be ruled out. Confirmation of the Warrawoona microstructures as cyanobacteria would profoundly impact our understanding of when and how early life diversified, pushing important evolutionary milestones further back in time (reference). The continued study of these oldest fossils is paramount to calibrate complementary molecular phylogenetics models."
840:
geochemistry, and evolutionary biology. The dinosaurs existed on an earth not greatly different than our own, and arguably their lineage is of relatively minor scientific importance. The preceding
Paleozoic period was markedly different. It began with no terrestrial life, a highly oxygenated atmosphere, and with the progenitors for what would evolve to be the life forms we recognize today, as well as others that did not persist. Paleozoic fossils are testimony to an era of dramatic change to both earth and its life forms. The drama of the Paleozoic, beginning with the Cambrian Explosion exemplifies the coevolution of earth and life that has continued unabated since life appeared. “The evolutionary epic recorded by fossils reflects, as much as anything else, the continuing interplay between genetic possibility and ecological opportunity”. The earth’s climate, tectonics, atmosphere, oceans, and periodic disasters invoke the primary selective pressures on all organisms to which they must adapt or perish. Many extinction events punctuate geological history, leaving environmental voids in which lineages appear and divide. The life forms, in turn, greatly affect earth’s environments. The fossil record encodes the inextricably linked coevolution of life and planet, albeit with diminishing clarity prior to the Cambrian where mostly microscopic life left meager fossil clues.
1981:“Laughably POV”? My my my, did I miss something, or is radioactive decay CONSTANT an oxymoron. I see no POV issue here, only some convoluted logic. A ratio is just that, not an inference, and statistics only applies to the extent that decay is random, and there is thus an associated error in decay counting (and if you count long enough, the statistical error is negligible). Any paragraph on accuracy of dating methods should accompany a page on those methods, not here, lest more laws of physics be violated. Neither is there: ‘theories being plastered … as unchanging fact”. The science involved here is both theory AND fact, that has been unequivocally and indisputably tested. Remember, a theory is a construct used in the scientific process of stating and empirically (observably) testing hypotheses. The hypotheses (theories) involved here have long been confirmed and validated as scientific FACT, and the null hypotheses set aside long, long ago (unless radioactive decay constants aren’t constant). The only recourse then for “accepting the null hypotheses” and challenging fossil dating is to invoke superstition.
844:“recounted by microscopic fossils and subtle chemical signals”. During deep time, life only existed where it first appeared, in the sea, and most extant life yet exists mainly in the sea. Even now “the land-based animals each carry with them a miniature ocean, pulsing in their cells and circulatory systems. All life, including human, could be viewed as containers of sea water with the same mineral constituency as the oceans and a dynamic dispersion of molecules that perform the biological processes that constitute life”. Molecular biologists, using phylogenetics, can compare DNA nucleotide and protein amino acid sequence similarity to infer taxonomy and evolutionary distances among organisms, but with limited statistical confidence. The study of fossils, on the other hand, can more specifically pin point when and in what organism branching occurred in the tree of life. Modern phylogenetics and paleontology act together to clarify sciences dim view of the appearance life and its evolution during deep time.
3328:
2868:, preserved as carbon films, are considered fossils even though minerals didn't replace their tissues. Insects in amber are called fossils too. In short, I think calling something a fossil is simply saying that it has been preserved, as you say. To address your specific example, the frozen mammoth and a permineralized skeleton are clearly preserved in very different ways, but are still fossils, just as a dinosaur's preserved bones, skin impressions, footprints, eggs, or muscle fibers are all fossils. I don't know of a single term that embraces all mineralized fossils but excludes all other types, although there may be one. A cast would be one example of such a fossil, where the original object has dissolved and minerals fill the void, but permineralized remains and petrified remains also fit your concept. Also, many structures are made of minerals to begin with. The columnals of a
3870:
4788:
3093:
1509:
description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute.
863:
some more inspirational pizzazz and, importantly, convey the take home message that “fossils and their study” have been and remain important to science. As a molecular biologist, I’m well aware of the limitations of the science in my field to address major questions about evolution, especially during deep time on earth. If my instincts are correct, there are a number of people who work on this page. I’m unsure how the wiki collaborations work in practice -- is there a way that the existing page can stay in place while several people collaboratively attempt an evolved version? --
3672:
range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Eldredge and Gould developed their theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record. Furthermore, in the strictest sense, nearly all fossils are "transitional," due to the improbability that any given fossil represents the absolute termination of an evolutionary path.
826:(concurrence and tomatoes) from what I think are several others dedicated to improving the page. I love the title “Developments in interpretation of the fossil record” that enables chronological storytelling. For references, I drew upon Knoll, Conway-Morris, Gould, Fortey and a couple of websites, all of which are enjoyable, non-recondite reading. I have also purposefully included keywords (e.g., tectonics; extinction events; Cambrian explosion) to facilitate page development and/or wikilinks. --
31:
1550:"If the Deluge had carried the shells for distances of three and four hundred miles from the sea it would have carried them mixed with various other natural objects all heaped up together; but even at such distances from the sea we see the oysters all together and also the shellfish and the cuttlefish and all the other shells which congregate together, found all together dead; and the solitary shells are found apart from one another as we see them every day on the sea-shores.
1679:
pre-scientific can be found. I said some groups because I was trying to be more inclusive than creationist or abrahamic would allow. A chinese herbalist grinding up illegally obtained mammoth bones as aphrodesiacs would not qualify as a creationist or abrahamic yet he too is following an unscientific view of fossils. On the casual part, we can probably get rid of that whole paragraph since we have a section on rarity right below, that part just carried over from the merge.
1047:. I am finding it hard to find too many pages on specific fossils, everything seems to be just species pages with a small note if anything about the fossils. This might be much bigger task but an important one that paper encyclopedias can never do. Here we have the room to actually give people pictures of the actual fossils that scientists use to make claims about extinct species rather than just giving people the claims. If you want we can move this discussion over to
3223:
3745:
3727:
3280:
any reader can compare it to other sources and if there is a significant discrepancy or question, it can be raised and addressed on the talk page. The problem arises when the image displays an object which the submitter claims has X chemical properties, or is Y million years old. We can still display the image, but to include those claims in its caption would require reliable sourcing, because there is no way to verify it directly from the image itself.
4739:
4582:
3997:
3824:
2764:. Essentially, the two groups looked at the original mass spec data and verified that the original interpretations were correct, that peptides were present and their sequences were what one would expect for ancient collagen from the ancestors of modern birds. By definition, this material cannot be called fossilized because it is not mineralized, right? Where should this information go? Maybe it is already in another article.
657:
given that the later is the study of the former, and the two broad topics are really inseparable. Many pages are in one or the other category, but not both, in what seems to be a random distribution. It is also interesting that taxonomy for some life forms includes evolutionary history (and extinct taxa), and others do not. In my mind, evolution, fossils, paleontology, and the tree of life are all inextricably linked.
2838:, although I have to say that I find the definition unsatisfying. If a "fossil" is any organism that's at least 10,000 years old, and if frozen mammoths qualify, what does the term "fossilized" mean? Merely "preserved"? And what of 10,000 year-old frozen mammoth, and a mineralized mammoth skeleton that's 4 million years old? -both simply "fossils"? Dictionary.com says that "fossilize" means "
1604:
range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. Simply put, the conditions under which fossilization takes place are quite rare; and it is highly unlikely that any given organism will leave behind a fossil. Stephen J. Gould developed his theory of punctuated equilibrium in part to explain the pattern of stasis and sudden appearance in the fossil record.
4631:
4041:
1873:
on elemental ratios (radiometric dating), that, IMO, are usually faulty anyway. We just can not look at current rates of rock formation, erosion, etc to determine the age of the earth because there may have been factors in the past that are not happening in the present. Faulty dating methods aside, you cannot generalize the age of fossils like that and make it sound like a fact.
2970:
extrusions and intrusions of an igneous rock,faults, and gaps in the geologic record. An extrusion is when lava that hardens on the surface. Then an intrusion is where magma cools and hardens into a mass of igneous rock. In addition more clues come the study of faults. A fault is always younger than the rock it cuts through. Also index fossils help geologists match rock layers.
378:"Dead plants and animals may be perserved as various kinds of fossils. Elephant relatives called Woolly Mammoths have been frozen and preserved in ice. Many animals have fallen into tar pits and bogs. Insects may get stuck in gooey sap that later turns into amber. And when animals are buried quickly and bathed in mineral carrying water, bone eventually turns into stone."
1345:
religious interpretation of the fossil record, or better yet, how different religions view fossils. This page is an an overarching page that should briefly describe subjects related to fossils and provide links to other wikipedia pages that develop the topic more completely. References should never be so haphazardly inserted in any scientific writing.
1598:
dating has shown that the earliest known fossils are over 3.5 billion years old. Various dating methods have been used and are used today depending on local geology and context, and while there is some variance in the results from these dating methods, nearly all of them provide evidence for a very old Earth, approximately 4.6 billion years.
404:
plant material which retains its original mineral composition and structure is still fossil material; secondary replacement or permineralisation are not prerequisite. Carbon films (e.g. graptolites), insects in amber, moulds of dissolved fossils, spores and pollen, and various other non-lithified material are all usually considered fossils.
2258:
of the fossil record was turned into absolute dating. The fossils are an integral part of the record. No reason to split the article - unless it's getting too long. If it does grow over long, then start splitting off the details on the various fields of paleontology: invertebrate, vertibrate, hominid, micro-paleo, etc.
672:
The fossil record page can be augmented to provide such a guide in an evolutionary and/or paleobiology and/or paleontology context, probably all three would be best. In this way, the “fossils page” would resemble a scientific review article – and be a challenging, but interesting task. How are such decisions made??
2628:
half lifes, would be used). It's quite rare (outside archaeology) because most palaeontologists work on rocks that are, as you say, too old to use Carbon dating. But really that statement is completely correct- can you specify what you think is misleading about it so that it can maybe be altered for clarity?
617:
Terrestrial(land) environmental fossils, in the first one we have the fossils saved from land conditions which may reduce the ability of fossilisation, ex; Weathering- the fossils
Biggesr Enemy, so fossils in water tend to be preserved specially that no weathering exposed so marines fossils are much common.
1547:
bones” and used as medicine and aphrodisiacs. In the West the presence of fossilized sea creatures high up on mountainsides was proof of the biblical deluge. During the renaissance more scientific views of fossils began to emerge. Leonardo Da Vinci noticed someh discrepancies with the biblical account:
4345:
I am reading a book about paleoanthropology and the author says "One reason that teeth play so large a role in distinguishing between extinct species is their relative abundance in the fossil record. Tooth enamel is harder than bone, and thus is more likely to withstand the pressures of time." Does
4142:
Another editor has reverted this last edit, which I have returned to its original state, until the reason for removing details in the reference, addressing the tenor of
Schweitzer's article, and removing the URL to the full text is made a little clearer - correction, self reverted before I got there.
3660:
Due to the combined effect of taphonomic processes and simple mathematical chance, fossilization tends to favor organisms with hard body parts, those that were widespread, and those that existed for a long time before going extinct. On the other hand, it is very unusual to find fossils of small, soft
3535:
are the only known mammals to lay eggs, and thus those two critters, and only those two critters, form their own mammalian order of
Monotremata. Each one would therefore appear to qualify under part (b): "... a single living species with no close relatives..." . Accepting that there are limitations
2856:
Agreed that the term "fossilization" commonly implies some kind of change to the remains, usually involving mineralization. But the term is indeed ambiguous, because it covers a wide range of events. To speak of fossilization in that sense implies that a clear process happens to creatures' remains,
2627:
Fossils can be Carbon-14 dated, and carbon dating is a form of radiometric dating in itself (since the isotopes decay radioactively). Carbon-14 has a half life of thousands of years- something does not have to be a billion years old to be a fossil (if it were, then Ar-Ar, U-Th etc., which have longer
2585:
it is possible to use radiocarbon dating even on inorganic carbon (not sure if that's what you meant or no, and I'm no expert on this matter, and I may be wrong). Any dead organism incorpated into the sedimentary record is a fossil whether it's 10 years old or 10 million years old- dead shells etc on
1919:
OK, so basically what you're saying is that if something is agreed on widely enough, whether it is fact or not, it should be presented as fact? I don't understand that logic. Consensus has little or nothing to do with the absolute, real truth of a statement. In fact, I should have even go further and
1667:
As they say, “be careful what you wish for”. Religion here will cause it to become a scientific Rodney
Dangerfield, and thwart enthusiasm that seems to exist to make demonstrable improvements. Justifying the reference that was added on the basis of NPOV is no more logical than intelligent design, and
1654:
Ok, I'm not bothered about "casual", it isn't the word I would use, but it makes sense. Regarding the sentence "Even with the wealth of information now known about fossils some groups maintain belief in the pre-scientific views of fossils", the appropriate word for these groups is "creationist". That
1591:
The fossil record and faunal succession form the basis of the science of biostratigraphy or determining the age of rocks based on the fossils they contain. For the first 150 years of geology, biostratigraphy and superposition were the only means for determining the relative age of rocks. The
Geologic
1573:
Early naturalists well understood the similarities and differences of living species leading
Linnaeus to develop a hierarchical classification system still in use today. It was Darwin and his contemporaries who first linked the hierarchical structure of the great tree of life in living organisms with
1553:
And we find oysters together in very large families, among which some may be seen with their shells still joined together, indicating that they were left there by the sea and that they were still living when the strait of
Gibraltar was cut through. In the mountains of Parma and Piacenza multitudes of
1410:
Perhaps that sentence could move up in the section to right before the part about
William Smith and be turned into a paragraph about pre-scientific views of fossils. I think we could come up with something about early views such as erectus bones being used in China as "dragon" bones and ground up for
1320:
Obviously, very pleased to hear you are working on putting references into the article. Could I suggest you don't use the word "religion" to imply the "Abrahamic tradition", "Christians" or "creationists". A citation to the
Washington Times supporting copy could be a reference, even if it pertains to
1165:
A lot is conjecture based on common sense. Often complex chemistry is involved, and testing plausible theories in controled lab conditions is mostly precluded since there is no way to know, much less simulate the conditions the deceased experienced over the eons. There are many citations that discuss
642:
I thought it might benefit both pages if we merged. Fossil record seems to deal with the history of Fossil hunting and various historical views of fossils whereas this page deals more with the modern science of fossils. I think it would work well as one page here at Fossil that has a small section on
3279:
I agree that some degree of trust is needed, but consider that some editors may also have unknown agenda, and we have no way of vetting them. In the case of a photo of an object which is readily identifiable, such as a bird species, we would consider the image as "self verifiable", in the sense that
3208:
In this case in point, it was a photo of an insect claimed to be fossilized in Baltic amber. Baltic amber was apparently only formed during the Eocene, which can in principle be verified, but we would still need to rely on a Wikipedian who says this is Baltic amber and not another type. So as far as
2539:
dated (using other radioactive isotopes with longer half-lives than C14), usually by dating rocks above and below the fossil. For others, dates can be estimated from the strata in which they appear (and the species that appear alongside them), where those strata can be radiometrically dated at some
2257:
on. Therefore to split the current article is quite absurd. We don't need another religious/pseudoscience POV fork here. This article is a science article, the fossil record was used by early paleontologists to create a relative time scale. By using radiometric dating techniques, the relative dating
1998:
I'm trying to be a neutral point if view, and saying that for a scientific article a high agreement on falsifiable evidence is accepted as fact. This is a fundamental principle of science, not an issue of POV. The statement that "Knowledge is all about opening people eyes to other viewpoints and not
1597:
Since the early years of the twentieth century, absolute dating methods, such as radiometric dating (including potassium/argon, argon/argon, uranium series, and carbon-14 dating) have been used to verify the relative ages obtained by fossils and to provide absolute ages for many fossils. Radiometric
1579:
When Charles Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, the oldest animal fossils were those from the Cambrian Period, now known to be about 540 million years old. The absence of older fossils worried Darwin about the implications for the validity of his theories, but he expressed hope that such fossils
1567:
Smith, who preceded Charles Darwin, was unaware of biological evolution and did not know why faunal succession occurred. Biological evolution explains why faunal succession exists: as different organisms evolve, change and go extinct, they leave behind fossils. Faunal succession was one of the chief
1009:
famous; or 2) Phylum (going lower than phylum is probably impossible. I presume the table entries would be genus; species and common taxon name. If there was at least a stub to link to, the table entries would be blue rather than red. Do it, but don't desert this page, as I will need a copy editor.--
4382:
The links for the history section have some implicit anachronism, for example, "vaporous exhalations" is linked to "vapour" and "exhalations", which are concepts that have developed a lot since Aristotle's time. Really, this should be linked to something that discusses Aristotle's ideas rather than
4113:
A most constructive edit has shifted the section and added valuable referenced text. I am not sure the section adpression is the most appropriate to this, but have created a subsection, tidied up the reference added a URL, and changed discovered to proposed, which reflect the text of the paper more
3654:
Fossilization is an exceptionally rare occurrence, because most components of formerly living things tend to decompose relatively quickly following death. In order for an organism to be fossilized, the remains normally need to be covered by sediment as soon as possible. However there are exceptions
3567:
Thanx for such a quick reply. Hmmm So are you disagreeing with me, or are you disagreeing with part (b) of the definition? In any case, given that you yourself say that they are "dramatic" examples, is this not an excellent reason to include them? Actually, on re-reading, I think that they are more
3193:
I see. Sorry for the confusion. As for photograph verifiability, many fossils have somewhat restricted temporal ranges, so perhaps reliable sources could be provided that tell the age of the taxon, not the individual fossil? That might resolve the age issue. I'm not quite sure how the locality of a
2558:
Classic mineralized fossils aren't C14 dated. But organic matter preserved in the past few thousands years is arguably a fossil, and is datable. Note the main page mentions amber resin fossils, with extractable DNA. Not carbon datable when they're 40 million years old, but clearly still organic.
2168:
If 70% of scientists thought the earth was flat, they probably would do so based on some observable data indicating that was indeed the case. Since there's overwhelming evidence the earth is not flat, there's no scientist that holds this opinion. Even with a 70/30 split in the science community, it
1872:
Furthermore, It is only inferred that fossils are of a maximum age of billions of years old (and for that matter, a minimum of thousands... but there is much more evidence in that direction). Either way, radiometric dating is not observable, and you just can't see it. It's simply an INFERENCE based
1129:
regarding evidence from palaentology. The specific phrase needing citation is that "most fossils tend to be hard body parts such as bones" (paraphrased). It occurred to me that this section "rarity of fossils" pretty much states the same thing- was wondering if anyone had citation for this that I
1008:
After further consideration, you may have a good idea, and I offer ideas on its implementation. Were I to attempt it, I would build a matrix (i.e., table), with columns of geological time periods, and rows of either: 1) fossil site (many famous fossils come from famous sites, and some made the site
982:
I suppose the Fossils category comes up with a list, though it seems much more broad than what I was thinking. There are lots of species in there that are known by their fossils. I was thinking this might be more narrow to just the individual fossils that are notable enough to have their own pages.
939:
page has fallen victim to subjectivity, as several listed sites are not traditionally considered to meet the admittedly fuzzy criteria (i.e., extraordinary fossil richness or completeness); 100 paleontologists would generate 100 different lists. A separate page is possible, but you’ll be working on
862:
Thanks for the kind words, but it is really just a melding of the ideas of people smarter than I. And, I do not intend on placing them in the page. Both of the merged pages were already very well done. I offered these paragraphs as food for thought of possible ways to give the merged “fossils” page
825:
I am initially constraining editorial boldness to the discussion page, because I think the two paragraphs that follow (offered without even my own copy editing) markedly expand the scope of the fossils page, which is my suggestion, but I worry about drifting too far a field. So, I look for feedback
791:
that contains some good information, but appears to have been partially hijacked by commercial jewelry interests and is thereby biased -- perhaps the link should be removed until the amber page is cleaned up, maybe by a polymer chemist; 4) The words "sea" or "marine" appear nowhere on the page, and
656:
The merger seems plausible, but, the fossil record is a notably paleontological concept. It seems to me there is already a bifurcation between fossils and paleontology on wikipedia, as if there are two distinct groups of authors. This may confuse people interested in either fossils or paleontology,
3242:
which is physically identical? Obviously since all animal photographs could hypothetically represent members of genetically distinct but morphological identical species we need to remove all of them that do not represent individual specimens who have been genetically confirmed to be members of the
2808:
Fossils are defined by their age. There's no single chemical transformation that makes a dead creature a fossil. Indeed, frozen mammoths and unaltered shells are still fossils, without any substitution of materials, provided only they are old enough. The key to the sentence you quote is "at the
1585:
Since Darwin's time, the fossil record has been pushed back to 3.5 billion years before the present. Most of these fossils are microscopic bacteria or microfossils. However, macroscopic fossils are now known from the late Proterozoic. The Ediacaran biota (also called Vendian biota) dating from 575
1344:
May I suggest that you develop the topic more completely in a separate section? I, for one, think the topic belongs elsewhere, but let's let the wiki vetting process work as it should. Unfortunately, the fossils page is a magnet for vandalism. There you can cite appropriate references that argue a
1272:
At the moment there aren't sufficient references in the Fossil article, in fact the references on your talk page are much better. I noticed you deleted a reference I added earlier to the creationist bit. The reference had some relevance, but didn't cover all of the information. Could you advise if
740:
it looks like all we need to do is note it here on the talk page. If we were actually moving a page the edit history would automatiacally come with it to the new name, but here the old edit history remains on the redirect page. Since this is my first merge, I may be wrong, feel free to correct me.
671:
I think the merger is a great idea. The existing page is both well written and understandable to non-experts. However, some more substance would help, since fossils is a broad category, incorporating the fossil record would enable the page to provide more of a road map through which to drill down.
403:
A fossil does not need to be 'actual stone'. It's a loose definition, which basically encompasses all organic material derived from non-living organisms. Recently dead organisms (e.g. those on the sea-floor, or shells deposited on the seashore) are sometimes referred to as 'sub-fossil'. Animal and
391:
Still, people do use the word loosly to describe bones of prehistoric creatures that aren't yet silicified, such as sabretooth bones or bones of primates. But if there is still soft material present, like with mammoths, that's not something I think anyone would call a fossil, unless they are using
4270:
a younger fossil in an older layer, there has to be some sort of disturbance of the older layer that would automatically rework the older layer into a recognizably younger deposit of some sort, e.g. the fill of a sinkhole, cave, or fissure. Without the younger fossil engaging in some sort of time
3671:
Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical
3649:
In regards to the "Limitations of the fossil record" section, keep in mind that I have recently replaced that section with a similar subheading from the transitional fossil article. The reason is that the old section ("Rarity of fossils") had zero references, and the section from the Transitional
3251:
movie? Obviously we need to cite a cinematography journal before we can establish that this particular screenshot is from Avatar. Both of those claims, that picture A is a robin and picture B is from Avatar could be challenged in principle, but to demand sources is a bit absurd. Sometimes, in the
3163:
As a frequent contributer of paleoart, I am wondering if this problem applies to user made restorations. Many are based on reliable sources, which are often listed on their description pages, but are you considering them to be OR because they were not made by professional scientific illustrators?
2438:
article says "The work Peri lithon (On Stones) by Theophrastus (372-287 BC), a student of Aristotle, remained authoritative for millennia. Its interpretation of fossils was not overturned until after the Scientific Revolution. It was translated into Latin and the other languages of Europe such as
1678:
Which is exactly why I have framed the religion as a historical perspective. We can mention that some still hold to these historical views despite overwhelming evidence. Not sure pre-Darwinian would work because it goes back further to Da Vinci and William Smith. But yeah maybe a better word than
1603:
Some casual observers have been perplexed by the rarity of transitional species within the fossil record. The conventional explanation for this rarity was given by Darwin, who stated that "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical
1546:
Various explanations have been put forth throughout history to explain what fossils are and how they came to be where they were found. Many of these explanations relied on folktales or mythologies. In China the fossil bones of ancient mammals including Homo erectus were often mistaken for “dragon
2969:
The relative age of arock is its age compared to the ages of the other rocks surrounding it. The absolute age of rock is the number of years since the rock formed. Usually geologists use the law os superpostion to determine the relative ages of sedimentary rock layers. Also geologists also study
2330:
to avoid these problems. The pseudoscientists try to break off little chunks of pages with few editors so they can make up stuff. It was diffuclt to monitor 2 pages. And they were not really warranted. The only time we should make a fork in Fossil is if a section gets overly long with legitiment
1896:
I think it should be presented as fact, on par with other articles with science/science, science/religion or science/creationism conflict. As a science article falsifiable 'facts' should be presented as fact so long as there is wide consensus among scientits. In this case scientific consensus is
1868:
Anyone claiming fossils to be "millions of years" or "billions of year" old obviously thinks this because of the sedimentary layers the fossils are found in. How do they know how old the sedimentary layers are? Because other scientists have dated them. How did they date them? By the "age" of the
1752:
I believe the study of stromatolites is one of the best examples of the importance of fossils to science. Accordingly, I have spent the last month obtaining and understanding papers (dozens) from diverse research spanning three decades. It turns out to be a difficult subject rife with scientific
1508:
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a
839:
Contemporary paleontology is too often thought of as the study of dinosaur bones because that is what captures the attention of the public and the news-reporting venues. The modern study of fossils actually has interdisciplinary linkages to many other scientific fields such as molecular biology,
2787:
The Holocene epoch extends from 12,000ya to the present (and foreseeable future), so that's not a very helpful time-frame. And searching around the internets hasn't been any more enlightening; mostly turning up creationist sites that claim that fossilization can occur "very rapidly" under ideal
1376:
In the original discussion, I considered two sentences one too many. However, the consensus was for a very short paragraph. Unfortunately there are large numbers of pages that attract vandalism in a wide range of subjects. After you include the references you are working on, I would suggest the
4223:
Searching for the quote, I can find numerous references to it on creationist websites and forums. Creationists are known for their dishonest quote mining, so quotes should be double checked before used. Especially since creationists have used Ager's words out of context beforehand in a similar
3323:
Hi, I'd like to propose inclusion of some wider ranging images of fossils. I think it would be great to include either recognizable plant, or vertebrate fossils. I have an image of an Eocene fossil flower already uploaded, and can also provide images of Eocene fossils, easily recognizable as
3178:
We make a special exception in WP:NOR for illustrations prepared by a Wikipedian based on reliable sources, subject to review by the other editors. The issue here is different: it relates to photography of some object, which is OK in itself, but if the caption states "this is a picture of a 10
1722:
page needs juicing up regarding the continuing importance of the fossil record, and this is a fine example. More often than monthly, significant articles appear in prestigious journals such as Science or Nature, where fossils are paramount; very often, the fossils come from China. Here is the
1640:
as obvious and to be expected as a result of the nature of the fossilization process. As to the second point, why limit it to the vocal creationists - as any culture or religion in a mythological pre-scientific mindset would have trouble comprehending the details of paleontologic and biologic
1561:
William Smith (1769-1839), an English canal engineer, observed that rocks of different ages (based on the law of superposition) preserved different assemblages of fossils, and that these assemblages succeeded one another in a regular and determinable order. He observed that rocks from distant
1219:
I consider the sentence is appropriate and was agreed by consensus on the Fossil Record page before the merger. The reference you deleted wasn't perfect, but had relevance, was from the Washington Times and procedures require all material should have citations. The example used to explain the
843:
Modern paleontology and evolutionary biology share a goal of unfolding the tree of life, which inevitably leads backwards in time to the microscopic life of the Precambrian when cell structure and functions evolved. Earth’s deep time in the Proterozoic and deeper still in the Archaean is only
782:
A few comments for improvement: 1) Despite the new technologies now available for studying species genomes and proteomes, etc., the study of the fossil record and the individual fossils remains critical to understanding evolution and the tree of life branch points -- this should be stated and
1840:
Probably what you are thinking of is when igneous rocks cut across sedimentary rocks with fossils in them. When that happens, using fossils to date the sedimentary rock, we can know that the igneous rocks that cut across the sedimentary rocks are younger. But without other evidence, such as
4613:
Please change "There are many processes that lead to fossilization, including permineralization, casts and molds, authigenic mineralization , replacement and recrystallization, adpression, carbonization, and bioimmuration." to "There are many processes that lead to fossilization, including
3067:
source telling us that the specific amber in that specific photo is Baltic, we can't call it Baltic. After it's reliably identified as Baltic, we could then give its age range, per reliable sources. But at the moment, all I see is a picture of what appears to be amber, without any reliable
935:, but not here. Several of the “See also” links are redundant or questionable (e.g., taphonomy, since it is now in the page narrative). Regarding a “fav” or famous fossil list, I think it would become intractably long, not to mention the subjectivity involved. I’ve already noticed that the
2476:
My rather poor stub, with links to some on-line codes of ethics, is considered "non-notable' by some Knowledge editor and will be deleted, unless one of you steps in. Thinking about this has softened my brain to the extent that it's beginning to dribble out of my ears, so I have removed
616:
the other important condition is the Geological condition : which concerning the environment surrounded the body organism, as the environment more suitable for the organis, more fossils will remains.We also can see why Marine(Sea Water)Envronmental fossils is much more common than the
1924:
fossils are....". I think you can see my predicament. I hate seeing theories being plastered to articles as unchanging fact. Knowledge is all about opening people eyes to other viewpoints and not being dogmatic. Regardless, the fact remains that POV is not acceptable in Knowledge.
2607:
Since the early years of the twentieth century, absolute dating methods, such as radiometric dating (including potassium/argon, argon/argon, uranium series, and carbon-14 dating) have been used to verify the relative ages obtained by fossils and to provide absolute ages for many
3132:
This reasoning can be used to remove most images from wikipedia. You are requiring that only images that have been written up in a reliable source be included in the article, all others, the large majority of images of organisms in commons, have not and should be deleted then.
1934:
Andrew, it stems from the Undue Weight provisions of the NPOV policy, which is our guiding principle. The idea you are trying to promote is held by an extreme tiny minority in the scientific community, so small its inclusion would violate NPOV. Verifiability, not truth. Thanks,
2272:
have a large body of protectors, so they are not subject to predation. Fossil appears to be a well-written article that has not suffered from attacks. However, some other articles are outrageously biased, and it is impossible at the current time to fix them. I would point to
4178:"...we will land ourselves immediately in an impossible circular argument if we say, firstly that a particular lithology is synchronous on the evidence of its fossils, and secondly that the fossils are synchronous on the evidence of the lithology.” - Ager, D. V. (1993).
3586:
article we have: "... The term was coined by Charles Darwin in his On the Origin of Species, when discussing Ornithorhynchus (the platypus)". So if young Charles himself said it, and in the definitive book, who are we to disagree? On that basis, I am going to put it in.
848:
Wow, very well written though I do feel it digresses a bit for an encyclopedia article. The article does need to flow nicely but we also have to keep the facts in plain view. Where were you thinking of putting this? Were you thinking of replacing any of the current text?
360:
There was recently an article about anceint, perfectly fossilized dinosaur eggs, which showed that dinosaurs needed parental care, due to the infants lack of teeth. If anyone could find a link to this article it might bew of note here and in an article about dinsoaur
140:
Under living fossils, I don't think horseshoe crabs have ever been thought extinct. I think it's more of an issue of a living creature that has characteristics more in common with ancient critters than with modern ones. Jawless fishes like lampreys might also count.
4321:
In any case, a source must be found. The quote by Ager seems to be a creationist quote mine which distorts his meaning. He's argued elsewhere that he does not believe dating methods to be circular. Otherrwize I must remind users that talk pages are not forums. See:
1864:
Billions of years old? That kind of a statement is laughably POV, simply because it is stated like a fact. What about the people that believe that fossils are in fact, not billions of years old? (with good reason)? The age of fossils is not undisputed, assuredly.
1187:
Even so, various religious groups within the Abrahamic tradition have tried to explain the scientific evidence in the fossil record in ways compatible with creationist doctrine. These explanations are generally rejected by scientists as they make no useful testable
385:
In order for something to technically be a fossil, it needs to be silicified, meaning completely replaced with silica (common quartz) or another mineral like calcium carbonate (limestone). So technically frozen Mammoths aren't fossils. A fossil needs to be actual
3536:
on the number of examples that one would wish to include in a comma-separated list, these two would nevertheless appear to be so unusual and important because of that one feature that they would be worthy of inclusion. Any problems if I add them to the list?
910:
I just took off a link to the t-rex, jane because I think that the section could easly get too long if we start putting individual fossils in there. Then I thought maybe we could have a section on notable fossils, but a better idea is to have a seperate page
3551:
Technically, no: a "living fossil" would not necessarily have no living close relatives. A "living fossil" would be any species or taxon that either is in the fossil record, or has many close relatives in the fossil record. Monotremes tend to be dramatic
660:
I have given this page some thought. As a category, it seems fossils should complement the paleontology category, and visa versa. I think the page could benefit from an expansion of content on taphonomy (how fossils form), which then suggests a merger with
2401:
This section is poorly written and not sourced. It also strikes me as solicitation. Referring to a child as "a kid" in a scientific article is weak writing. While I think that this could be included in the article, it desperately needs to be revised.
3486:
Avicenna is known in the west primarily as a physician, particularly exalted as such before the rennaisance. It's misleading to refer to him as geographer. He was like Leonardo an all round scientist, best known for his work on medicine. I suggest an
4095:
It would be very easy to find a number of popular sites to demonstrate that its was profoundly unexpected, in fact the expression is modest, and I have added one reference. 'Shocker' is the expression in the Smithsonian's title on the article on the
2225:
Such a spin-off as Filll suggests would be fine.... as for the existing section on the fossil page, to my eye it contributes a nice history regarding the study of fossils, quite encyclopedic, not controversial, and IMO it ought to stay here. Cheers
1042:
so I think it would be 2. I created a basic page, but I like your idea, now I just have to figure out how to make tables. I don't want to overlap with the fossil sites page too much, but I may have to for really early collections of fossils like the
4293:
to identify and date specific rock formations was "circular reasoning," then the use of index fossils would have no academic or industrial applications in the first place. Furthermore, the problem of "out of date fossils" are already discussed in
2842:", which is what I understood it to mean. Of course, I have no expertise in the matter, I just find the terminology ambiguous. Is there a more accurate term for the mineralized "cast" (for lack of better term) of an organism's remains? Thanks.
4247:
It is circular reasoning. If you cannot directly date a fossil, you have to date by a rock or rock layer. But there is no way of knowing they are the same age, for example a fossil that is young - could have been deposited in an older layer.
112:" page, talking about how geology and fossils interact to give us a timeline, and move the timeline to that page -- or even another one. The evolution of life on earth is deserving of its own page, with links from fossils and other places.
1920:
said "believed to be thousands to billions of years old (although these figures are disputed)", but I'm actually making a concession! I do think, however, a more appropriate and formal statement to change the original to would be "Although
4614:
permineralization, casts and molds, authigenic mineralization, replacement and recrystallization, adpression, carbonization, and bioimmuration." because there is an extra space between "authigenic mineralization" and the following comma.
1829:
I already know that scientists can assume that certain fossils are certain ages, therefore, igneous rock particles nearby are assumed to be the same age as the fossil. If this is true, can you give me some examples???? I'm very confused.
1859:
3136:
I'd have no problem with a Wikipedian saying, "I took this picture of what appears to be X at location Y and time Z." But if "X" requires professional or scientific input, like dating some old object or organism, it would constitute
1070:
I think an additional citation of the "Limestone Cowboy" fossil should be included within this wiki page for the sake of geoanomalies and further discussion around the veracity of the artifact. Further information can be found here:
607:
the first condition is the Biological condition, which is concerning with the internal composition of the organism's body and its skeleton's hard parts , the more hard skeleton is the body the organism have , the more ability to be
392:
the term really really loosly. I think it would be fine for a child's school paper. If you do a Google search for "Mammoth fossils", you can find places referring to the frozen remains as fossils, so it's probably fine for that. --
212:
2331:
content. I do not see that here. I think the page has come a long way since the merge, look back through the history here and at fossil record. Now there are a lot more editors making this into a possible good article candidate.
310:
Only if the flood magically deposited every single nonflowering plant below every flowering plant. It is not the time it takes to form a fossil that is important, but where it is found in relation to other fossils and features.
4770:
Deane and Hitchcock worked circa 1835 on "dinosaur footprints" in western Massachusetts. Later, as president of Amherst College Hitchcock was noted for his "giant bird" hypothesis for the tracks. Is this not worth mentioning?
2788:
conditions. I understand the fossilization process relatively well (for a layman), and it seems to me that there must be some sort of minimum time required for tissue to be replaced with mineral precipitate. How long is the
3896:
This article currently reads "The soft tissues of organisms are made largely of organic carbon compounds, leaving a thin film of carbon residue is left, forming a silhouette of the original organism called a carbon film."
3508:
this story shows a new find in the same areas as other early fossils, this time discovered by a critic of other finds. This should be added to the section on earliest fossils, as possibly the earliest yet.(Mercurywoodrose)
697:
Ok rough merge is complete, we probably need to break out the historical stuff from the fossil record stuff and create a seperate section called Fossil record. We also nee to look into and redundancies and eliminate them.
4231:
That also shows that Ager does not believe that it is circular reasoning, meaning that if the full text was found for the above quote, that Ager is likely arguing for the exact opposite of what the quote appears to show.
1726:
Donoghue, C.J, Bengtson, S, Dong, X, Gostling N.J, Huldtgren, T, Cunningham, J.A Yin, C, Zhao Yue2,5, Peng, F, and Stampanoni, M, Synchrotron X-ray tomographic microscopy of fossil embryos (2006) Nature 442, 680-683.
2299:
to keep it NPOV. Then the POV Creationists attack another article. Luckily, I'm a patient man, so I can throw in my 2 cents worth. The age of Fossils are verifiable facts. The Fossil record and its relationship to
4670:
4361:
Yes, "survived" as in "survived the vagaries of time, erosion, chemical and mechanical dissolution, and denaturing of its intrinsic components in one way or another until a field researcher wrenches it out of its
1574:
the then very sparse fossil record. Darwin eloquently described a process of descent with modification, or evolution, whereby organisms either adapt to natural and changing environmental pressures, or they perish.
1298:
Your insertion was not a reference since it pertains to religious beliefs, not fossils. Your reference has nothing to do with fossils, and was not used by the author of the sentence.Likearock 18:32, 9 August 2006
1580:
would be found, noting that: "only a small portion of the world is known with accuracy." Darwin also pondered the sudden appearance of many groups (i.e., Phyla) in the oldest known Cambrian fossiliferous strata.
1192:
This should be a science page. Other wikipedia pages are for religion or religion versus science topics. I fear it makes the “fossils” page more of a magnet for religious comment than it inherently already is.
223:
in this setting. People knowledgable in many areas of science and the philosophy of science are greatly needed here. And all are needed to ensure the guidelines correctly represent NPOV in this setting. :)
3876:
US and UK spellings are equally acceptable on Knowledge; however, the rule is that one standard should be used consistently throughout an article so as not to alternate. In this case the US standard is used.
3606:
It says in the article that Avicenna rejected the idea that fossils were organic in origin. Bellow in a quote from a translated copy of his book he describes how animals and plants might get turned to stone.
2792:
typical time it would take to fossilize even the smallest, most porous plant or animal remains? Surely I can't be the only WP reader for whom this question arose. Can anyone shed any light on this? Thanks.
2942:
Mammoth Fossils are found all over the world but the first full fossil was found in a cave in Sibera it still had undigested food in its stomach and some kinds of grass that does not live there any more.
3650:
Fossil article covers the same information, while being well cited. Please review the old version and compare it to the new one. There may be information and phrasing that would be worth preserving.
3448:
Could you please add the Lyme Regis Fossil Festival www.fossilfestival.com to the External Links? It's an annual free family festival, one of the Natural History Museum's main public outreach events.
1655:
said, I would settle for "groups in the Abrahamic tradition". Also the precise term isn't "pre-scientific", but possibly is "pre-Darwinian". Also I think "fossil record" sounds better than "fossils".
3229:
2150:
so zephris, if 70% of scientists thought that the earth was flat, does that make it 'fact'? i think not, considering that science means 'knowledge', and this is not knoledge, it is an assumption
915:. I was kind of suprised that we don't have one already unless I am missing it somehow. I tend to stick around the human fossil stuff, does something like this already exist or should I make it?
665:. Let’s keep the dialogue going – I’m a new and timid wikipedian and willing to help work on this page. I also have some nice pictures, but have not yet learned how to place them in the system.
3699:
to this article. I recently created it. It is very much a "work in progress", and I must stress that I am a total amateur at science. Please review it, make changes or leave suggestions on the
260:- re microfossils. I've now fixed the redirect so that 'microfossil' points there, not here. I've also added a short clarifying para (using (reluctantly!) American spellings, for consistency).
2268:
The problem WP faces is that a small fraction of extremists in many subjects wants to hijack WP for their own political agendas, to use as a religious recruiting tool, etc. Some articles like
1699:
I tried out a slightly different version than above and moved the casual part to the rarity section since it seemed to fit better there. We can work on the 'casual' sentence more if you like.
184:"Living fossil" just refers to their lack of morphological change across geological time. When a species or genus once thought extinct turns out to be extant, that's called a Lazarus taxon.
2386:
page should be a bridge to expanded material on such topics as fossil formation (e.g.,diagenesis and sedimentology), which explain the why, how, and when of the record of past life on earth.
2353:
3655:
to this, such as if an organism becomes frozen, desiccated, or comes to rest in an anoxic (oxygen-free) environment. There are several different types of fossils and fossilization processes.
682:
Three days, 6 people in support (here and at fossil record), no oppostion, I think I will go ahead and do the merge. It may need quite a bit of cleanup after so feel free to give me a hand.
2213:
2144:
1890:
961:
page is only listed in the theropods category, and jane gets no mention. Nor do fossils page, though all known theropods are fossils. BTW, Jane is a very, repeat very, impressive fossil.--
4501:
2055:
If there's so much fuss about the wording, why not say that "Scientists regard fossils as thousands to millions of years old". Both sides can agree that this is what scientists think. --
2236:
2136:, and it is a waste of time to continue here. There is absolutely no reason to add information about extremist religious positions and pseudoscience in an article such as this. Read
2173:, the opposing side in science is less than 0,01%, simply because there's no evidence that have stood up to scientific scruteny supporting the earth is just a few thousand years old.
2065:
I would agree with you, Ed, but doesn't this create a disturbing precedent? In that, every article on Knowledge that speaks of an age older than 6000 years must be qualified as such?
2059:
2115:
576:
Very true indeed, and there's nothing about subfossils. They should be worth a section, as they're the (non-)fossils they mean when they talk about DNA extracted from "fossil" bone.
2094:
624:
The material may contain something, but the writing is so poor that I decided to take it out. If the writer would like to do some work to make it presentable, it can be considered.
293:
It depends on the circumstances involved with the fossil. Fossils can be created in a matter of weeks if a catastrophic event occured.(Like a volcanic eruption or a massive flood)
4519:
4515:
1956:
Also, the limitations of fossil age dating, mentioned by Zephris above, do not contradict the fact that fossils are indeed thousands, millions, and billions of years old. Cheers
620:
those two conditions show highly the neccessary of fossilising of the living organism ..if one of these two conditions is absent we may not be able to see full fossils remains.
347:
Yes that's very possible. I just wanted to contribute the photograph which I had taken, but I am not competent in paleotology. I am happy that someone cares to examin it ! :)
3666:
Larger specimens (macrofossils) are more often observed, dug up and displayed, although microscopic remains (microfossils) are actually far more common in the fossil record.
812:
and make some changes. Heck I have only been seriously editing for the past month and I am already merging pages :^) I think there are enough people around to help you out.
547:
I started to clean up the fossil preservation section. More work to do to make it more systematic. We probably need a separate page on fossil preservation at some point.
4704:
4666:
4347:
1714:
I added the paragraph about recent research using tomography on microfossils to gain knowledge of early metazoan evolution. I could have placed this on other pages (e.g.,
2816:
I agree about the importance of your inquiry, though. How long remains take to permineralize, dissolve and be replaced, or recrystallize are fascinating questions. The
2904:
2107:
getting pushed are those of a group of religeous pseudoscientists who want to push their very minority views of religion on the rest of us. As was mentioned elsewhere -
2007:
Every page must present data, and conclusions drawn from it, in a consistent form, adhering to the principles the article is based on, whatever these principles may be.
1753:
dispute. The paragraph below is a rough draft that I offer for editorial comment, as I prefer to avoid prolonged sessions on my computer due to my poor skills on same.
4826:
4776:
3492:
2520:
I understand fossils to be mineral and not biological matter. how can a fossil be C14 dated, since C14 dating is about Carbon 14 absorption into biological matter? --
3296:
3615:
2615:
2413:
1668:
exemplifies what can be expected in the future. What a cohort of religious individuals, untrained in science, believe, based on faith, is not a part of the subject.
1411:
medicine. We could then go into early western views with just a bit at the end that mentions that there is still a minority who hold to these pre-scientific views.
3858:
3318:
2459:
1897:
high, even though there are well known limitations to the methods used. A paragraph on limitations of fossil aging could contain a summary of these limitations. -
89:
1321:
creationists. The sentence was developed by several users including me, but I agree at that stage we didn't include a reference. Addhoc 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
4690:
4166:
4029:
2778:
2090:
I see no reason to cater to some extremist minority view in any way. We do not ask the garbage collector's advice on medicine; we go to a specialist- a doctor.--
1296:
Regarding references, I've been working on new expanded narrative for this page for more than a month; I've used more than a dozen references that will be cited.
2650:
I was watching the science channel, and on it, they had cracked open the femur of a T-rex. They found living tissue. I edited that in, but it was deleted. Why?
3987:
3443:
1140:
It is kind of a common sense thing, but if you must have a source any paleontology textbook should mention it. Or you could go with another encyclopedia like
4720:
4674:
783:
illustrated; 2) It is hard not the emphasize the so-called, Burgess Shale-type deposits (there are many of them) as a lens for the emergence of the phyla -
4619:
4572:
3452:
715:
Just a general point - what happens to the history when the articles are merged? I think we are supposed to show who created each contribution originally.
4194:
2682:
You are mistaken; the find was of fossilised red blood cells and ligamental tissue, not "living tissue." I believe it's mentioned in the T-rex article.
1999:
being dogmatic" may be true, but is not a reason to cast doubt on scientifically accepted 'fact' within a science article. By being a science article it
1450:
I emphasize that if we start down this path, there will be no end to debate. My vote is to segregate science and religion, and keep this page scientific.
496:
3629:?) no longer exists and was contradicted by the quote. Combined the two separated Avicenna bits by moving the quote up into better chronological order.
4025:
3522:
3460:
1831:
4371:
4335:
4241:
4033:
1083:
3327:
2802:
488:
Why is there no article on the formation of fossils and a diagram with it? i belive that that is a very important subject that needs to be covered.
4716:
3195:
3165:
1769:
1075:
3344:
745:
719:
4638:
4615:
2549:
1622:
Only two suggestions, perhaps not use the word "casual", also "creationist groups maintain belief in a pre-Darwinian view of the fossil record".
587:
520:
418:
393:
340:
333:
216:
4623:
3596:
3577:
3545:
4729:
4377:
4217:
4394:
2728:
2691:
2675:
2637:
2140:
which is an article that just discusses that issue, is NPOV (mostly) and states clearly what is religious interpretation and what are facts.
4257:
4061:
2931:
2813:
of the Holocene", which means that things less than 10,000 years old aren't considered fossils. It's an arbitrary boundary but a useful one.
2308:
want an article on the religious interpretation of fossils, go forth and write it, while remembering NPOV and that it will be categorized as
1939:
3661:
bodied, geographically restricted and geologically ephemeral organisms, because of their relative rarity and low likelihood of preservation.
3517:
3350:
That would be an excellent idea, though, isn't it "Eocene"? (Also, perhaps we could post some of the Liaoning plant fossil pictures, too?)--
2568:
2335:
796:– a controversial subject, but it’s hard to accept that only cyanobacteria were involved – see Knoll: Life on a Young Planet; 7) YIKES - no
471:
446:
4780:
4346:
this mean that a fossil can be the original thing, without any mineralization or change? Does "preserved" then simply mean "survived"? --
3885:
3561:
2182:
1960:
1747:
1156:
702:
580:
4355:
4284:
4152:
4137:
4108:
4090:
3904:
I also came here to say that the above "sentence" is gibberish. However, I can't correct it because I don't know what it's trying to say.
2595:
2316:
2078:
Not every article. Just hot button articles which address hotly debated issues. There's no debate over the age of Jupiter, for example. --
1853:
1683:
1166:
paleoecology, taphonomy and preservation for certain fossil sites. I will be referencing a few of these in some forthcoming modifications.
1114:
4055:
3756:
3732:
3501:
2243:
2159:
2027:
1929:
1910:
1454:
1228:
section. That is to be an encyclopedia, there is a necessity of including notable views, even if they are considered demonstrably false.
1170:
1054:
1013:
987:
944:
899:
421:
408:
264:
4311:
4081:
I don't think it fits the section, and I also don't see the text supported by the sources I could check. Which one says "unexpected"? --
4075:
3862:
3638:
3475:
2888:
2851:
2829:
2082:
2069:
1617:
1210:
3973:. But I'm afraid the index fossil table is going to need a more knowledgeable person than me, and some sourcing while they're at it. --
3435:
3421:
3387:
3373:
3359:
2360:
2190:
1818:
1672:
1349:
965:
129:
3685:
3405:
3033:
How do you propose verification that the amber in this image is or is not Baltic amber? As for age of baltic amber that is Eocene per
2509:
1703:
1518:
1415:
1200:
1100:
page provides a categorization of the scientific disciplines at the conjunction of paleontology and biology that depends on fossils.--
771:
315:
4649:
4567:
3261:
3218:
3203:
3194:
fossil could be reliably verified unless, according to reliable sources, the taxon it belongs to has only been found from that area.
3188:
3173:
2206:
2047:
1741:
1232:
1178:
275:
4497:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
2262:
2230:
1834:
1381:
1251:
4443:
4399:
4123:
3955:
3937:
3814:
3644:
3312:
3158:
2376:
1869:
fossils found in the layers. Circular reasoning never works, and it throws the issue of the age of the earth into severe question.
1761:
1693:
1626:
884:
867:
830:
536:
519:
I agree. Someone has to volunteer to write it though. I'd love to, and will look into it, but can't promise I'll get to it soon. --
3077:
3054:
3028:
3010:
1985:
3619:
2405:
2220:
2011:
1731:
1659:
1645:
1592:
time scale was developed based on the relative ages of rock strata as determined by the early paleontologists and stratigraphers.
792:
yet all life came from the sea; 5) Neither is plate tectonics mentioned, although fossils are paramount in its understanding; 6)
787:
China is the most important for contemporary discoveries; 3) While the resin fossils paragraph is nicely written, it links to an
303:
Is this not evidence to support Creationist theories that most (if not all) fossils formed during the flood of Genesis chapter 7?
2529:
2285:
1805:
In fossil record – the importance of lower Cambrian Lagerstatt during the past 20 years in elucidating early metazoan evolution.
628:
2619:
1609:
Even with the wealth of information now known about fossils some groups maintain belief in the pre-scientific views of fossils.
686:
651:
595:
99:
2922:
Not sure what the content would be as I've never heard of the topic, nor has google (for either spelling of the second word).
3506:
2443:
2390:
1824:
590:
4772:
3982:
3712:
3488:
2950:
2773:
2521:
2463:
1104:
570:
4811:
3034:
2857:
yet the way that a dinosaur bone becomes a fossil differs drastically from the way that an embryo (or bacterium) from the
853:
816:
4655:
3611:
3509:
2958:
2704:
2651:
2611:
2409:
2369:
2137:
1709:
809:
365:
93:
2490:
2417:
1273:
there were any reason that I could be unaware of concerning your reversion of my edit? Addhoc 18:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1134:
3854:
2783:
I'm surprised to not see any mention in the entry of the minimum time-frame for fossilization to occur. All it says is
2741:
2455:
737:
556:
504:
297:
191:
85:
4724:
4695:
You should consider creating an account. These contributions are easy to do right and you would certainly be helping.
2712:
2659:
919:
199:
4340:
4271:
traveling, the hypothetical situation of a younger fossil being deposited in an older layer makes as much sense as a
3289:
3125:
2995:
2916:
2749:
1562:
locations could be correlated based on the fossils they contained. He termed this the principle of faunal succession.
1497:'s idea of putting the creationist bit at the end of a history section would be a significant improvement. Regarding
1148:"The hard, indigestible skeletons and shells of animals and the woody material of plants are usually preserved best."
4465:
3900:
It doesn't make full sense for several obvious reasons, but someone with a confirmed account will need to fix this.
1086:
523:
4473:
3601:
3042:
2199:
928:
633:
561:
396:
246:
I think there should be an article on microfossils as well as a small section on them in the body of this article.
3496:
3243:
species they are labeled as in peer-reviewed studies that can be reliably sourced. Is the screenshot to the right
2382:
Fossils and the fossil record (and its interpretation) are inextricably linked, and should not be separated. This
4448:
4351:
2861:
becomes a fossil. Taphonomy is a young field, so there's still much to discover about how fossils are preserved.
2755:
4518:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
3914:
3015:
Yes, I have no idea what the age is, or what type of amber, and I'd like a reliable source for it. According to
2876:
when the animal is alive, and need not differ much when the remains are found a few hundred million years later.
250:
3961:
2515:
2469:
2281:
which is about how he was not a myth, in spite of there being several other articles already on that subject.--
2023:
2448:
uhh well i need inf. on bolivias fossil: the ankylosaurus and the trceratopstrackway i need it for a report.
3809:
3690:
1091:
983:
Some of might also endeavor to clean up the Fossils category to see it more evenly applied as you mentioned.
355:
281:
880:
Usually on big edits we can post sections here on the talk page with possible revisions and then get input.
4562:
4097:
2760:
Here is a recent reference for the reexamination of the mass spec data from the "soft tissue" from T. rex:
1048:
4171:
If absolute dating isn't applicable, a fossil can only be relative dated in regards to rocks, but this is
2425:
777:
4537:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
2235:
We recently had some trouble with the Dinosaur/religion page, as it was listed for deletion (here's the
2178:
4799:
4700:
4464:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
3700:
2973:
1586:
million years ago collectively constitutes a richly diverse assembly of early multicellular Eukaryotes.
38:
1196:
I reverted an erroneous reference on the basis of it being erroneous, but the sentence was an invite.
604:
Fosslisation requires two important conditions in order to have the impression Of the living organism.
4710:
2610:
it is a bit misleading at first glance, in my opinion. but the statement does seem to be correct. --
2372:. The article is in sad shape and really needs someone with your background, talents and interests.--
1120:
586:
I know this is probably the dumbest question in the world, but is this "interwiki" link legit? ] --
566:
Someone could well add something about the actual process of fossilisation or make an article on it.
69:
2761:
611:
example of fossils which remain for a long time is: the corals , due to its hard skeleton structure.
4253:
4190:
4133:
4086:
2954:
2912:
2545:
2525:
483:
4227:
4745:
4588:
4553:
4003:
3830:
3513:
3456:
3331:
Eocene fossil flower, collected August 2010 from Clare family fossil quarry, Florissant, Colorado
2937:
2708:
2655:
2396:
2170:
912:
905:
768:
716:
370:
4522:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
3378:
OK, have requested a "file rename" to correct the spelling mistake (chastened look included)...
2212:
Why not do what they did in Dinosaur, and spin off religious fruitcakes to their own page, like
1514:
In this context, I think mentioning creationism in one or two sentences is probably about right.
1294:
Please take your comment to the Talk:Fossil page where I explained the removal right afterword.
4538:
4461:
4390:
4367:
4307:
4213:
3557:
3417:
3355:
2745:
2724:
2687:
2671:
2633:
2591:
2478:
2470:
2108:
1737:
Wikified and added your reference to the page. Could well be added to the Markuelia page also.
1636:, it seems anyone seriously studying fossils from either paleontology or geology would see the
644:
500:
195:
135:
2174:
895:
Good stuff there, with Knoll's influence apparent, and it will work into the existing page. --
4807:
4696:
4525:
3696:
3401:
2645:
2505:
2439:
French." The specifics regarding this topic I cannot find. Anyone have the answer? Thanks
1141:
1126:
552:
3092:
2964:
2291:
I'm going to start with just a tad of an observation. We draw the line at articles such as
4545:
4383:
just the modern meaning of a translation of the ancient Greek! Similarly with other terms.
4331:
4237:
3891:
3708:
3681:
3592:
3573:
3541:
2946:
2927:
2884:
2858:
2825:
2737:
2700:
2451:
2348:" should not be a spin-off, then we need to identify a better place to discuss (or better,
1039:
577:
491:
443:
231:
187:
125:
81:
4794:
it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a
762:
8:
4323:
4299:
4249:
4186:
4129:
4082:
4051:
3978:
3805:
3364:
Quite correct on the spelling mistake... hmmm I wonder how I go about correcting that...
3199:
3169:
2908:
2898:
2847:
2798:
2564:
2541:
2440:
1079:
225:
3234:
Arguably any user-generated image could be original research. Is the image to the right
2128:
said are appropriate. This debate has been discussed in so many other articles such as
4647:
4504:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
4485:
4272:
4172:
3910:
3582:
OK, after a bit of searching, I am confident that I now hold the ace of trumps. In the
3300:
3252:
absence of specific reasons to doubt, you just need to trust your fellow contributors.
3146:
3006:
2769:
2155:
2042:
2019:
1905:
1130:
could use for the evidence from palaentology thingy? (sorry if I'm talking gibberish)
797:
758:
434:
Technically, IIRC they're kryofossils ("frost fossils"). But note that this makes them
417:
Thank you for that clarification. I think I've even learned a little something here. --
148:
120:
116:
105:
4544:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
3942:
OK, restored the carbon film stub to its original content and moved fossil content to
1225:
927:
I was also eyeing the “Jane link” as inappropriate clutter, especially given that the
4439:
4386:
4363:
4303:
4280:
4209:
4148:
4119:
4104:
4071:
3925:
3553:
3413:
3351:
3308:
3285:
3257:
3214:
3184:
3154:
3121:
3073:
3024:
2991:
2785:"Hence, fossils range in age from the youngest at the start of the Holocene Epoch..."
2720:
2683:
2667:
2629:
2587:
2497:
2313:
2141:
2066:
1936:
1926:
1887:
405:
261:
257:
3568:
part (c): "a small group of closely related species with no other close relatives".
219:
giving guidelines for this type of page. It is meant to be a set of guidelines for
4803:
4795:
4686:
3951:
3933:
3717:
3634:
3481:
3471:
3431:
3397:
3383:
3369:
3340:
3050:
2979:
2501:
2486:
2332:
2133:
1700:
1689:
Ok, I agree with Nowimnthing and would advise Loco that he isn't being very civil.
1680:
1614:
1494:
1412:
1153:
1131:
1111:
1051:
984:
916:
881:
850:
813:
742:
699:
683:
648:
548:
312:
3038:
804:- P.S., I could help, or being new here, could provide some peer review function.
4327:
4233:
4201:
3879:
3704:
3677:
3588:
3569:
3537:
3412:
OK I put it under rarety of fossils, as flower preservation is a rare occurance.
3239:
2923:
2880:
2835:
2821:
2305:
2240:
2227:
1957:
1850:
1728:
1669:
1207:
1101:
287:
4474:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101211224655/http://www.edstrauss.com/pwoodfx.html
3851:
you spelt paleontology wrong. it's actual spelling is palaeontology. thank you
3466:
Sorry, we don't do spam (promotion of involved user's organization) on request.
46:
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the
4047:
3974:
3801:
3142:
2843:
2794:
2560:
1811:
The role of erosion and consequent sedimentation in creating the fossils record
1502:
1498:
1451:
1346:
1248:
1197:
1167:
1010:
962:
941:
896:
673:
666:
240:
154:
142:
75:
4510:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
4491:
4412:
Stromatolites provide some of the most ancient fossil records of life on Earth
936:
4820:
4642:
3920:
Reworded and removed dead and seemingly irrelevant reflink. Appears that the
3906:
3583:
3141:
unless there is a reliable source for it. You can bring up this issue on the
3104:
If there is a source for it, sure. But at the moment, all I see is someone's
2865:
2765:
2345:
2327:
2309:
2278:
2192:
2151:
2036:
2015:
1899:
1783:
Replaced stromatolites paragraph that contained errors, and uploaded an image
1044:
793:
639:
468:
362:
272:
247:
162:
109:
4435:
4295:
4290:
4276:
4205:
4144:
4115:
4100:
4067:
3751:
3626:
3304:
3281:
3253:
3210:
3180:
3150:
3138:
3117:
3113:
3069:
3064:
3020:
2987:
2983:
2357:
2274:
2203:
2079:
2056:
1097:
567:
467:
phenomenon safely puts any debate over fossil bodily remain states to bed.
464:
3019:, every item on wikipedia which is challenged requires a reliable source.
2697:
It was not fossilized. They said that it moved when they would touch it.
2430:
It is probably worth noting what pre-scientific revolution people such as
1860:"Fossils are thousands to billions of years old" - Clearly a POV Statement
1568:
pieces of evidence cited by Darwin that biological evolution had occurred.
4682:
4511:
3947:
3929:
3928:
stub articles linked here and in the preceding section should be merged.
3921:
3630:
3467:
3427:
3379:
3365:
3336:
3222:
3109:
3060:
3046:
3016:
3002:
3001:
I do not, however do you have reason to doubt the caption of the image?--
2482:
2296:
2259:
2125:
2112:
1845:
younger. See also the section on Important principles of geology on the
1738:
1690:
1656:
1642:
1623:
1515:
1378:
1229:
625:
533:
508:
294:
236:
47:
17:
4477:
3610:
The source for him rejecting the idea has also removed the page linked.
3179:
million year old rock", we'd need a reliable source for that statement.
2840:
to replace organic with mineral substances in the remains of an organism
2103:
in paleontology or geology over the ages of fossils and rocks. The only
1554:
shells and corals with holes may be seen still sticking to the rocks..."
3426:
Thanks. Let me know if you'd like any images of Eocene fossil leaves.
2373:
2282:
2217:
2121:
2091:
784:
2239:). I'm not saying it can't be done, but it has to be done carefully.
808:
Don't worry about being new, sounds like you have some good ideas. Be
3744:
3726:
3105:
3096:
2817:
2431:
2301:
2292:
2269:
2129:
1757:(?) to accumulate comments. After a week, I’ll give it another crack.
1723:
citation (this week's Nature) which I've not yet placed on the page:
1715:
1247:
This is cut and paste from my talk page, to put the above in context
1221:
958:
932:
662:
529:
348:
4066:
I have added referenced material on the dinosaur soft tissue finds.
168:
I agree. They are everywhere. I saw some along the coast of China.
4661:
3970:
3962:
3528:
2387:
1982:
1815:
1758:
864:
827:
801:
329:
1072:
647:
article is an example kind of the format I think would work here.
3532:
2873:
2869:
2762:
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2009/731/1?etoc
2435:
2383:
2198:
I think the controversial part of this article is the section on
1846:
1719:
158:
157:
was ever thought to be extinct! They wash up by the hundreds on
4749:
4592:
4457:
2500:
page? That would seem a useful and appropriate place for it.
2481:
from my Watchlist. But one of you may be willing to save it. --
2323:
2277:, which is in very sad shape for a wide variety of reasons, or
2034:
Must remember to sign comments, no matter how tired I am! :) -
1786:
Paragraph linked phylogeny and fossils, especially Precambrian
328:
I believe the picture that says "Fossil plants" is actually a
206:
2666:
It was controversial and no source was presented = deletion.
788:
2586:
the sea-floor (for example) tend to be called "sub fossil".
2312:. Otherwise, pseudoscience should not be in this article.
1125:
Hi, I'm currently hunting for citations for a phrase in the
532:, it's an inadequate stub at present, but a place to start.
2820:
article may be a good place for that information. Cheers,
1879:
That's why such a statement should be... (and IS, for now)
442:. for this, organic matter has to be replaced by minerals.
339:
Pic has been re-captioned and moved to appropriate spot. --
286:
Any information on how long it takes for a fossil to form?
220:
4733:
4576:
4468:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
3991:
3818:
2253:
The fossil record is intimately tied to the fossils it is
2169:
would be considered a pretty open case. When it comes to
1808:
Explanation of relevance of fossils to science of geology
1183:
Would anyone really miss this nice, succinct paragraph?
931:
has its own page. It might be appropriate under T-Rex or
3790:
Really needs more footnotes for its many detailed cites.
213:
Views of Creationists and mainstream scientists compared
4275:. It does not support the claim of circular reasoning.
2368:
Ed, with all due respect, we really need your input on
1789:
Misc editing throughout, and, of course, internal links
239:
redirects here, but there's nothing about them! :'-( -
4099:
Into which section then does this data properly fit?
2202:. Why not split that off to an article of its own? --
4514:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
2003:
be assumed that it adheres to scientific principle.
1800:
Subjects I think still need addition or elaboration
3396:Don't forget to have some indication of scale. --
800:, be it bullet or bomb. Hope these comments help.
4827:Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
4660:Please correct the hyperlink for citation #71 to
2535:Fossils are not C14-dated. However, many can be
211:Work is currently in progress on a page entitled
115:Good idea, we could try to set up something like
4818:
3319:Inclusion of an image of a Eocene fossil flower?
643:the history and then goes into the science. The
323:
217:Knowledge: NPOV (Comparison of views in science)
4167:No mention of Circular reasoning in the article
2779:Why no mention of the *minimum* age of fossils?
1110:Interesting, added it to the see also section.
767:Thanks. Important not to delete redirect then.
4500:This message was posted before February 2018.
3988:Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2014
3444:Edit request from KimberlyCoast, 31 March 2011
1780:Some perspective added to first few paragraphs
1377:creationist bit should have its own citation.
108:---- We might also want to consider having a "
4677:Please be nice, I've never done this before.
3099:beetle in Baltic amber, ~50 million years old
4573:Semi-protected edit request on 17 April 2019
3625:Removed the rejection bit as the source (non
4730:Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2023
4492:http://www.wmnh.com/wmas0002.htmCorrelating
3766:Knowledge:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
1821:Why does it take so long to amke a fossil?
4456:I have just modified one external link on
3769:Template:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors
3523:More excellent examples of living fossils?
2605:Thank you. I misunderstood this section:
4407:At this stage, as stated in the article:
2496:How about adding this information to the
271:Thanks thats great work, much better now
4180:The Nature of the Stratigraphical Record
3326:
3221:
3091:
1770:Edit Summary and Further Recommendations
381:Are frozen mammoths considered fossils?
215:. Also currently being worked upon is
174:not resembling any other living species
14:
4819:
4715:Checking reference #3 leads to a 404.
4667:2600:6C67:5C7F:D02F:D9B:ECD3:6358:89F6
4378:Links regarding the history of Fossils
3969:I replaced the instances I could with
3786:Edited this as per request. Comments:
3238:an American robin or is it actually a
3089:Would this be a better image to have?
2907:, or doing a section in this article?
1501:'s comment, the relevant section from
375:Per my daughter's 5th grade homework:
44:Do not edit the contents of this page.
4478:http://www.edstrauss.com/pwoodfx.html
4062:Soft tissue, protein and DNA findings
3247:from James Cameron's Avatar, or just
3116:for the fact that it's Baltic amber.
2986:for the age of that fossil? Thanks,
2734:IN 6th grade you lreanr avout them
2354:Interpretations of the fossil record
1886:thousand to billions of years old."
1748:STROMATOLITES - REQUEST FOR COMMENTS
940:it for a long, long time I expect.--
25:
3502:New likely fossil find in australia
2903:is it worth creating an article on
2422:fossils can be found in sand stone
2370:Religious perspectives on dinosaurs
2214:Superstitious beliefs about fossils
2138:Religious perspectives on dinosaurs
147:Ok, will change the text tonight --
23:
2304:is a verifiable fact. If the the
1841:radiometric dating, we can't tell
1792:Added references where appropriate
738:Knowledge:Merging and moving pages
24:
4838:
4681:Fixed, thanks for the note here.
4460:. Please take a moment to review
4024:10,00 needs correcting to 10,000
1755:Maybe someone can build a sandbox
1179:Discussion - Fossils and Religion
4786:
4737:
4662:http://www.wmnh.com/wmas0002.htm
4629:
4580:
4434:? is it correct? does it exist?
4039:
3995:
3868:
3822:
3815:Edit request on 26 February 2013
3743:
3725:
3645:Limitations of the fossil record
3324:leaves, if required/requested.
3209:I can see, it boils down to OR.
929:Burpee Museum of Natural History
638:After a couple comments over at
176:part of the definition, not the
29:
4266:in an older layer? In order to
2540:other location... and so on. --
1849:page. Hope this helps. Cheers
1541:Possible rewrite of the section
1073:http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm
172:Horseshoe crabs fall under the
3772:Guild of Copy Editors articles
2750:23:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
2200:interpreting the fossil record
596:paragraph removed from article
100:Geologic Timescale andold text
13:
1:
4568:14:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
4444:20:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
4185:Shouldn't this be mentioned?
3983:02:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
3886:20:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
3863:20:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
3810:16:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
3713:04:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
3639:23:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
3620:22:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
3578:07:18, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
3562:04:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
3546:03:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
2889:04:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
2852:07:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
2830:17:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2803:22:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
2464:21:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
2183:12:58, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
1825:Using Fossils in Dating rocks
591:01:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
571:23:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
472:17:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
256:There already is an article-
251:10:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
4705:17:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
4691:12:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
4675:03:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
4262:How can a younger fossil be
4153:21:59, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
4138:22:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
4124:21:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
4109:20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
4091:18:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
4076:14:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
4056:19:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
4034:19:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
3597:08:16, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
3436:04:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
3422:09:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
3406:01:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
3388:09:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
3374:04:22, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
3360:01:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
3345:00:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
3313:14:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
3290:13:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
3262:13:18, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
3219:04:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
3204:04:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
3189:04:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
3174:21:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
3159:23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3126:23:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3078:23:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3055:23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3029:23:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
3011:22:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2996:22:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
2834:Thanks for the explanation,
2434:thought about fossils. The
2391:23:21, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
2377:00:26, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2361:00:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2336:00:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
2317:18:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2286:20:33, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2263:19:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2244:18:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2231:05:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2221:05:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2207:00:41, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2145:18:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
2116:19:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2095:05:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2083:00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2070:00:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2060:00:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
2048:17:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
2028:01:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
1986:23:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
1961:20:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
1940:19:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
1930:19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
1911:19:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
1891:19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
1854:15:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
1835:12:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
1819:14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
1638:lack of transitional fossils
1613:let me know what you think,
1082:) 17:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
1049:Talk:List of notable fossils
557:00:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
104:Subpages will soon follow --
78:should get a mention?! :-)
7:
4764:to reactivate your request.
4752:has been answered. Set the
4656:Link for Source has a typo
4607:to reactivate your request.
4595:has been answered. Set the
4018:to reactivate your request.
4006:has been answered. Set the
3845:to reactivate your request.
3833:has been answered. Set the
3686:05:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
3518:18:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
2729:06:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
2713:22:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
2692:05:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2676:04:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
2660:22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
1762:23:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
1742:18:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1732:18:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1710:Importance of fossil record
1704:23:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1694:20:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1684:19:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1673:19:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1660:18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1646:18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1627:17:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1618:17:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1519:10:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1038:Well we already have an ok
600:I've removed the followin:
332:, and not a real fossil. --
130:14:34, 9 August 2001 (UTC)
10:
4843:
4725:18:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
4650:14:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
4637:Thanks for noticing that,
4624:14:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
4531:(last update: 5 June 2024)
4453:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
4395:16:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
4372:04:21, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
4356:04:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
3956:15:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
3938:13:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
3915:07:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
3476:14:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
3461:12:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
2959:13:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
2932:15:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
2917:15:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
2774:22:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
2719:Then it was not a fossil.
2638:10:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
2620:02:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
2596:20:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
2569:19:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
2550:15:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
2530:15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
2510:12:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2491:09:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
2418:23:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
2160:16:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
1455:21:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1416:21:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1382:19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1350:19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1252:19:08, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1233:18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1211:18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1201:18:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1171:19:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
1157:15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1135:10:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
1115:17:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
1105:17:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
422:01:39, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
409:21:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
397:20:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
366:03:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
298:16:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
276:20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
265:14:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
178:once thought to be extinct
4812:09:13, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
4781:02:47, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
4341:fossils, bones, and teeth
4336:07:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
4312:17:26, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
4285:14:22, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
4258:13:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
4242:01:42, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
4218:01:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
4195:23:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
3738:
3497:00:52, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
3230:thumb|150px|right|Avatar?
2965:The Relative Age of Rocks
2905:intentional fossilization
2322:Just last year we merged
1922:most scientists hold that
1795:Cleaned up external links
1087:13:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
1055:14:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
1014:00:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
988:21:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
966:03:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
945:03:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
920:02:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
900:20:20, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
885:13:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
868:22:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
854:18:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
831:14:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
817:18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
772:07:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
746:22:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
720:21:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
703:22:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
687:22:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
652:18:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
629:02:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
581:01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
447:01:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
316:23:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
243:18:58, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
228:21:42, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
94:00:48, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
4419:Some of the most ancient
3602:Did he reject it or not?
2444:23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
761:Pre-merge edit history:
634:Merge with Fossil record
562:Fossilisation/Subfossils
343:16:35, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
336:19:17, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
290:07:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
200:23:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
4449:External links modified
2982:Hi Karl, do you have a
2756:Soft Tissue from T. rex
2581:Not sure about that- I
2171:Young Earth creationism
913:List of notable fossils
544:I did - it looks good.
537:01:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
524:00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
351:16:56, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
4796:"change X to Y" format
3332:
3303:to get broader input.
3249:a very similar looking
3227:
3100:
2516:C14 dating of fossils?
2479:Fossil-collecting Code
2471:Fossil-collecting Code
2109:Knowledge:Undue weight
736:Reading through here:
645:Punctuated equilibrium
4348:Richardson mcphillips
3793:Otherwise, I like it!
3763:Guild of Copy Editors
3757:Guild of Copy Editors
3733:Guild of Copy Editors
3697:Paleontology template
3691:Palentology template:
3330:
3225:
3095:
2864:The animals from the
2408:comment was added by
2191:Proposal to spin-off
2014:comment was added by
1127:evidence of evolution
1092:Importance of Fossils
757:Pre-merge talk page:
356:in the Globe and Mail
282:Duration of formation
42:of past discussions.
4512:regular verification
3754:by a member of the
2859:Doushantuo Formation
1040:List of fossil sites
153:I'm curious how the
4502:After February 2018
4430:the plural form of
4400:Plural of the term
4300:Inclusion (mineral)
2872:already consist of
2426:Information missing
1718:), but I think the
957:Interestingly, the
778:Post-Merge Comments
4556:InternetArchiveBot
4507:InternetArchiveBot
4273:Precambrian rabbit
4182:. J. Wiley. p. 98
4173:circular reasoning
3333:
3228:
3101:
2974:Fossil amber Image
1220:necessity was the
798:Cambrian Explosion
769:Stephen B Streater
759:Talk:Fossil record
717:Stephen B Streater
117:Geologic Timescale
4768:
4767:
4711:Citation 3 Broken
4611:
4610:
4532:
4022:
4021:
3944:carbonaceous film
3926:carbonaceous film
3849:
3848:
3784:
3783:
3780:
3779:
3750:This article was
3149:if you disagree.
3059:Unless we have a
2949:comment added by
2740:comment added by
2715:
2703:comment added by
2498:fossil collecting
2466:
2454:comment added by
2421:
2031:
1121:Rarity of fossils
515:
494:comment added by
258:micropaleontology
190:comment added by
132:
84:comment added by
70:Exceptional Sites
67:
66:
54:
53:
48:current talk page
4834:
4802:if appropriate.
4790:
4789:
4759:
4755:
4741:
4740:
4734:
4697:BernardoSulzbach
4633:
4632:
4602:
4598:
4584:
4583:
4577:
4566:
4557:
4530:
4529:
4508:
4489:
4043:
4042:
4013:
4009:
3999:
3998:
3992:
3884:
3872:
3871:
3840:
3836:
3826:
3825:
3819:
3774:
3773:
3770:
3767:
3764:
3747:
3740:
3739:
3729:
3722:
3721:
3106:personal website
3068:identification.
2980:User talk:Kevmin
2961:
2752:
2698:
2449:
2403:
2134:Creation Science
2009:
1876:Too POV for me.
1775:Summary of edits
1226:holocaust denial
1206:I'm with you. --
513:
511:
489:
484:Fossil formation
202:
123:
96:
63:
56:
55:
33:
32:
26:
4842:
4841:
4837:
4836:
4835:
4833:
4832:
4831:
4817:
4816:
4800:reliable source
4787:
4757:
4753:
4738:
4732:
4713:
4658:
4630:
4600:
4596:
4581:
4575:
4560:
4555:
4523:
4516:have permission
4506:
4483:
4466:this simple FaQ
4451:
4405:
4380:
4343:
4202:Relative dating
4169:
4128:Much better! --
4064:
4040:
4011:
4007:
3996:
3990:
3967:
3894:
3878:
3869:
3838:
3834:
3823:
3817:
3771:
3768:
3765:
3762:
3761:
3720:
3693:
3647:
3604:
3525:
3504:
3484:
3446:
3321:
3240:cryptic species
3108:, which is not
2984:reliable source
2976:
2967:
2944:
2940:
2938:Mammoth Fossils
2901:
2781:
2758:
2735:
2648:
2537:radiometrically
2518:
2474:
2428:
2404:—The preceding
2399:
2397:Fossil Mountain
2196:
2045:
2010:—The preceding
1908:
1862:
1827:
1772:
1750:
1712:
1505:is as follows:
1181:
1123:
1094:
908:
906:Notable fossils
780:
636:
598:
578:Dysmorodrepanis
564:
509:
495:
486:
444:Dysmorodrepanis
373:
371:Fossil Mammoths
358:
326:
284:
234:
209:
185:
138:
102:
79:
72:
59:
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
4840:
4830:
4829:
4815:
4814:
4798:and provide a
4773:73.238.133.102
4766:
4765:
4742:
4731:
4728:
4712:
4709:
4708:
4707:
4693:
4657:
4654:
4653:
4652:
4609:
4608:
4585:
4574:
4571:
4550:
4549:
4542:
4495:
4494:
4480:
4472:Added archive
4450:
4447:
4428:fossil records
4423:fossil records
4415:
4414:
4404:
4398:
4379:
4376:
4375:
4374:
4342:
4339:
4319:
4318:
4317:
4316:
4315:
4314:
4250:FossilHunter16
4224:fashion. See:
4221:
4220:
4187:FossilHunter16
4168:
4165:
4164:
4163:
4162:
4161:
4160:
4159:
4158:
4157:
4156:
4155:
4130:Stephan Schulz
4083:Stephan Schulz
4063:
4060:
4059:
4058:
4020:
4019:
4000:
3989:
3986:
3966:
3960:
3959:
3958:
3940:
3893:
3890:
3889:
3888:
3847:
3846:
3827:
3816:
3813:
3797:
3795:
3794:
3791:
3782:
3781:
3778:
3777:
3775:
3748:
3736:
3735:
3730:
3719:
3716:
3692:
3689:
3674:
3673:
3668:
3667:
3663:
3662:
3657:
3656:
3646:
3643:
3642:
3641:
3603:
3600:
3565:
3564:
3524:
3521:
3503:
3500:
3489:99.226.235.171
3483:
3480:
3479:
3478:
3445:
3442:
3441:
3440:
3439:
3438:
3409:
3408:
3393:
3392:
3391:
3390:
3376:
3320:
3317:
3316:
3315:
3299:about this on
3295:I have posted
3277:
3276:
3275:
3274:
3273:
3272:
3271:
3270:
3269:
3268:
3267:
3266:
3265:
3264:
3129:
3128:
3087:
3086:
3085:
3084:
3083:
3082:
3081:
3080:
2975:
2972:
2966:
2963:
2951:68.188.165.167
2939:
2936:
2935:
2934:
2909:Andrewjlockley
2900:
2897:
2896:
2895:
2894:
2893:
2892:
2891:
2877:
2862:
2814:
2780:
2777:
2757:
2754:
2732:
2731:
2695:
2694:
2679:
2678:
2647:
2644:
2643:
2642:
2641:
2640:
2603:
2602:
2601:
2600:
2599:
2598:
2574:
2573:
2572:
2571:
2553:
2552:
2542:Robert Stevens
2522:151.151.21.105
2517:
2514:
2513:
2512:
2473:
2468:
2441:AdamBiswanger1
2427:
2424:
2398:
2395:
2394:
2393:
2366:
2365:
2364:
2363:
2352:) the various
2339:
2338:
2289:
2288:
2251:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2247:
2246:
2195:
2189:
2188:
2187:
2186:
2185:
2175:Petter Bøckman
2163:
2162:
2088:
2087:
2086:
2085:
2073:
2072:
2053:
2052:
2051:
2050:
2041:
2004:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1992:
1991:
1990:
1989:
1988:
1970:
1969:
1968:
1967:
1966:
1965:
1964:
1963:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1914:
1913:
1904:
1884:believed to be
1861:
1858:
1857:
1856:
1826:
1823:
1813:
1812:
1809:
1806:
1797:
1796:
1793:
1790:
1787:
1784:
1781:
1771:
1768:
1749:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1706:
1687:
1686:
1665:
1664:
1663:
1662:
1649:
1648:
1611:
1610:
1606:
1605:
1600:
1599:
1594:
1593:
1588:
1587:
1582:
1581:
1576:
1575:
1570:
1569:
1564:
1563:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1551:
1543:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1535:
1534:
1533:
1532:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1512:
1511:
1510:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1471:
1470:
1469:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1461:
1460:
1459:
1458:
1457:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1422:
1421:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1395:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1384:
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1331:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1327:
1326:
1325:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1283:
1282:
1281:
1280:
1279:
1278:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1274:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1224:article has a
1214:
1213:
1180:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1160:
1159:
1150:
1149:
1145:
1144:
1122:
1119:
1118:
1117:
1096:Note that the
1093:
1090:
1068:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1063:
1062:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1057:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
997:
996:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
973:
972:
971:
970:
969:
968:
950:
949:
948:
947:
907:
904:
903:
902:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
873:
872:
871:
870:
857:
856:
838:
836:
835:
834:
833:
820:
819:
779:
776:
775:
774:
755:
754:
753:
752:
751:
750:
749:
748:
727:
726:
725:
724:
723:
722:
708:
707:
706:
705:
692:
691:
690:
689:
674:User:Oldasdirt
667:User:Likearock
635:
632:
622:
621:
618:
613:
612:
609:
605:
597:
594:
584:
583:
563:
560:
542:
541:
540:
539:
485:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
427:
426:
425:
424:
412:
411:
400:
399:
388:
387:
372:
369:
357:
354:
353:
352:
325:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
305:
304:
283:
280:
279:
278:
268:
267:
233:
230:
226:Barnaby dawson
208:
205:
204:
203:
170:
169:
155:Horseshoe crab
137:
136:Horseshoe Crab
134:
128:comment added
101:
98:
76:Jurassic Coast
71:
68:
65:
64:
52:
51:
34:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
4839:
4828:
4825:
4824:
4822:
4813:
4809:
4805:
4801:
4797:
4793:
4785:
4784:
4783:
4782:
4778:
4774:
4763:
4760:parameter to
4751:
4747:
4743:
4736:
4735:
4727:
4726:
4722:
4718:
4706:
4702:
4698:
4694:
4692:
4688:
4684:
4680:
4679:
4678:
4676:
4672:
4668:
4664:
4663:
4651:
4648:
4646:
4645:
4640:
4636:
4628:
4627:
4626:
4625:
4621:
4617:
4606:
4603:parameter to
4594:
4590:
4586:
4579:
4578:
4570:
4569:
4564:
4559:
4558:
4547:
4543:
4540:
4536:
4535:
4534:
4527:
4521:
4517:
4513:
4509:
4503:
4498:
4493:
4487:
4481:
4479:
4475:
4471:
4470:
4469:
4467:
4463:
4459:
4454:
4446:
4445:
4441:
4437:
4433:
4432:fossil record
4429:
4425:
4424:
4420:
4413:
4410:
4409:
4408:
4403:
4402:fossil record
4397:
4396:
4392:
4388:
4384:
4373:
4369:
4365:
4360:
4359:
4358:
4357:
4353:
4349:
4338:
4337:
4333:
4329:
4325:
4313:
4309:
4305:
4301:
4297:
4292:
4291:index fossils
4288:
4287:
4286:
4282:
4278:
4274:
4269:
4265:
4261:
4260:
4259:
4255:
4251:
4246:
4245:
4244:
4243:
4239:
4235:
4229:
4228:
4225:
4219:
4215:
4211:
4207:
4203:
4200:Did you read
4199:
4198:
4197:
4196:
4192:
4188:
4183:
4181:
4176:
4174:
4154:
4150:
4146:
4141:
4140:
4139:
4135:
4131:
4127:
4126:
4125:
4121:
4117:
4112:
4111:
4110:
4106:
4102:
4098:
4094:
4093:
4092:
4088:
4084:
4080:
4079:
4078:
4077:
4073:
4069:
4057:
4053:
4049:
4046:
4038:
4037:
4036:
4035:
4031:
4027:
4017:
4014:parameter to
4005:
4001:
3994:
3993:
3985:
3984:
3980:
3976:
3972:
3965:is deprecated
3964:
3957:
3953:
3949:
3945:
3941:
3939:
3935:
3931:
3927:
3923:
3919:
3918:
3917:
3916:
3912:
3908:
3905:
3901:
3898:
3887:
3883:
3882:
3875:
3867:
3866:
3865:
3864:
3860:
3856:
3852:
3844:
3841:parameter to
3832:
3828:
3821:
3820:
3812:
3811:
3807:
3803:
3798:
3792:
3789:
3788:
3787:
3776:
3759:
3758:
3753:
3749:
3746:
3742:
3741:
3737:
3734:
3731:
3728:
3724:
3723:
3715:
3714:
3710:
3706:
3702:
3698:
3688:
3687:
3683:
3679:
3670:
3669:
3665:
3664:
3659:
3658:
3653:
3652:
3651:
3640:
3636:
3632:
3628:
3624:
3623:
3622:
3621:
3617:
3613:
3612:80.42.197.222
3608:
3599:
3598:
3594:
3590:
3585:
3584:Living Fossil
3580:
3579:
3575:
3571:
3563:
3559:
3555:
3550:
3549:
3548:
3547:
3543:
3539:
3534:
3530:
3520:
3519:
3515:
3511:
3510:76.232.10.199
3507:
3499:
3498:
3494:
3490:
3477:
3473:
3469:
3465:
3464:
3463:
3462:
3458:
3454:
3453:KimberlyCoast
3449:
3437:
3433:
3429:
3425:
3424:
3423:
3419:
3415:
3411:
3410:
3407:
3403:
3399:
3395:
3394:
3389:
3385:
3381:
3377:
3375:
3371:
3367:
3363:
3362:
3361:
3357:
3353:
3349:
3348:
3347:
3346:
3342:
3338:
3329:
3325:
3314:
3310:
3306:
3302:
3298:
3294:
3293:
3292:
3291:
3287:
3283:
3263:
3259:
3255:
3250:
3246:
3241:
3237:
3233:
3232:
3231:
3224:
3220:
3216:
3212:
3207:
3206:
3205:
3201:
3197:
3192:
3191:
3190:
3186:
3182:
3177:
3176:
3175:
3171:
3167:
3162:
3161:
3160:
3156:
3152:
3148:
3144:
3140:
3135:
3134:
3131:
3130:
3127:
3123:
3119:
3115:
3111:
3107:
3103:
3102:
3098:
3094:
3090:
3079:
3075:
3071:
3066:
3062:
3058:
3057:
3056:
3052:
3048:
3044:
3040:
3036:
3032:
3031:
3030:
3026:
3022:
3018:
3014:
3013:
3012:
3008:
3004:
3000:
2999:
2998:
2997:
2993:
2989:
2985:
2981:
2971:
2962:
2960:
2956:
2952:
2948:
2933:
2929:
2925:
2921:
2920:
2919:
2918:
2914:
2910:
2906:
2890:
2886:
2882:
2878:
2875:
2871:
2867:
2866:Burgess Shale
2863:
2860:
2855:
2854:
2853:
2849:
2845:
2841:
2837:
2833:
2832:
2831:
2827:
2823:
2819:
2815:
2812:
2807:
2806:
2805:
2804:
2800:
2796:
2791:
2786:
2776:
2775:
2771:
2767:
2763:
2753:
2751:
2747:
2743:
2739:
2730:
2726:
2722:
2718:
2717:
2716:
2714:
2710:
2706:
2705:76.213.130.20
2702:
2693:
2689:
2685:
2681:
2680:
2677:
2673:
2669:
2665:
2664:
2663:
2661:
2657:
2653:
2652:76.213.130.20
2646:Living Tissue
2639:
2635:
2631:
2626:
2625:
2624:
2623:
2622:
2621:
2617:
2613:
2612:12.216.60.170
2609:
2597:
2593:
2589:
2584:
2580:
2579:
2578:
2577:
2576:
2575:
2570:
2566:
2562:
2557:
2556:
2555:
2554:
2551:
2547:
2543:
2538:
2534:
2533:
2532:
2531:
2527:
2523:
2511:
2507:
2503:
2499:
2495:
2494:
2493:
2492:
2488:
2484:
2480:
2472:
2467:
2465:
2461:
2457:
2453:
2446:
2445:
2442:
2437:
2433:
2423:
2419:
2415:
2411:
2410:24.84.201.130
2407:
2392:
2389:
2385:
2381:
2380:
2379:
2378:
2375:
2371:
2362:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2346:fossil record
2343:
2342:
2341:
2340:
2337:
2334:
2329:
2328:Fossil record
2325:
2321:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2315:
2311:
2310:Pseudoscience
2307:
2303:
2298:
2294:
2287:
2284:
2280:
2279:jesus as myth
2276:
2271:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2261:
2256:
2245:
2242:
2238:
2234:
2233:
2232:
2229:
2224:
2223:
2222:
2219:
2215:
2211:
2210:
2209:
2208:
2205:
2201:
2194:
2193:fossil record
2184:
2180:
2176:
2172:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2161:
2157:
2153:
2149:
2148:
2147:
2146:
2143:
2139:
2135:
2131:
2127:
2123:
2118:
2117:
2114:
2110:
2106:
2102:
2097:
2096:
2093:
2084:
2081:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2074:
2071:
2068:
2064:
2063:
2062:
2061:
2058:
2049:
2046:
2044:
2039:
2038:
2033:
2032:
2029:
2025:
2021:
2017:
2013:
2008:
2005:
2002:
1997:
1987:
1984:
1980:
1979:
1978:
1977:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1973:
1972:
1971:
1962:
1959:
1955:
1954:
1953:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1941:
1938:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1928:
1923:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1912:
1909:
1907:
1902:
1901:
1895:
1894:
1893:
1892:
1889:
1885:
1882:"Fossils are
1880:
1877:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1855:
1852:
1848:
1844:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1833:
1822:
1820:
1817:
1810:
1807:
1804:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1794:
1791:
1788:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1778:
1777:
1776:
1767:
1764:
1763:
1760:
1756:
1743:
1740:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1730:
1724:
1721:
1717:
1705:
1702:
1698:
1697:
1696:
1695:
1692:
1685:
1682:
1677:
1676:
1675:
1674:
1671:
1661:
1658:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1644:
1639:
1635:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1625:
1620:
1619:
1616:
1608:
1607:
1602:
1601:
1596:
1595:
1590:
1589:
1584:
1583:
1578:
1577:
1572:
1571:
1566:
1565:
1560:
1559:
1552:
1549:
1548:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1539:
1520:
1517:
1513:
1507:
1506:
1504:
1500:
1496:
1492:
1491:
1490:
1489:
1488:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1484:
1483:
1482:
1481:
1480:
1479:
1478:
1477:
1476:
1475:
1456:
1453:
1449:
1448:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1435:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1417:
1414:
1409:
1408:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1398:
1397:
1396:
1383:
1380:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1351:
1348:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1336:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1319:
1318:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1313:
1312:
1311:
1310:
1297:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1289:
1288:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1284:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1253:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1234:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1212:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1199:
1194:
1190:
1189:
1184:
1172:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1151:
1147:
1146:
1143:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1128:
1116:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1103:
1099:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1074:
1056:
1053:
1050:
1046:
1045:Burgess Shale
1041:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1015:
1012:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
989:
986:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
975:
974:
967:
964:
960:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
946:
943:
938:
934:
930:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
921:
918:
914:
901:
898:
894:
893:
886:
883:
879:
878:
877:
876:
875:
874:
869:
866:
861:
860:
859:
858:
855:
852:
847:
846:
845:
841:
832:
829:
824:
823:
822:
821:
818:
815:
811:
807:
806:
805:
803:
799:
795:
794:Stromatolites
790:
786:
773:
770:
766:
765:
764:
763:
760:
747:
744:
739:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
728:
721:
718:
714:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
704:
701:
696:
695:
694:
693:
688:
685:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
675:
669:
668:
664:
658:
654:
653:
650:
646:
641:
640:Fossil record
631:
630:
627:
619:
615:
614:
610:
606:
603:
602:
601:
593:
592:
589:
582:
579:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
559:
558:
554:
550:
545:
538:
535:
531:
527:
526:
525:
522:
518:
517:
516:
512:
506:
502:
498:
493:
473:
470:
466:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
456:
455:
448:
445:
441:
437:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
423:
420:
416:
415:
414:
413:
410:
407:
402:
401:
398:
395:
390:
389:
384:
383:
382:
379:
376:
368:
367:
364:
350:
346:
345:
344:
342:
337:
335:
331:
317:
314:
309:
308:
307:
306:
302:
301:
300:
299:
296:
291:
289:
277:
274:
270:
269:
266:
263:
259:
255:
254:
253:
252:
249:
244:
242:
238:
229:
227:
222:
218:
214:
201:
197:
193:
189:
183:
182:
181:
179:
175:
167:
166:
165:
164:
160:
156:
151:
150:
149:Arco Scheepen
145:
144:
133:
131:
127:
122:
121:Arco Scheepen
118:
113:
111:
110:Fossil record
107:
106:Arco Scheepen
97:
95:
91:
87:
83:
77:
62:
58:
57:
49:
45:
41:
40:
35:
28:
27:
19:
4791:
4769:
4761:
4746:edit request
4714:
4665:
4659:
4643:
4634:
4612:
4604:
4589:edit request
4554:
4551:
4526:source check
4505:
4499:
4496:
4455:
4452:
4431:
4427:
4422:
4421:
4418:
4416:
4411:
4406:
4401:
4387:Lucaswilkins
4385:
4381:
4344:
4324:WP:NOTAFORUM
4320:
4296:Zombie taxon
4267:
4263:
4230:
4226:
4222:
4206:Index fossil
4184:
4179:
4177:
4170:
4114:accurately.
4065:
4044:
4023:
4015:
4004:edit request
3968:
3943:
3903:
3902:
3899:
3895:
3892:Edit request
3880:
3873:
3855:92.40.253.72
3853:
3850:
3842:
3831:edit request
3799:
3796:
3785:
3755:
3695:I added the
3694:
3675:
3648:
3609:
3605:
3581:
3566:
3526:
3505:
3485:
3450:
3447:
3414:Enlil Ninlil
3334:
3322:
3278:
3248:
3244:
3235:
3088:
2978:(Moved from
2977:
2968:
2941:
2902:
2839:
2810:
2789:
2784:
2782:
2759:
2742:68.114.34.83
2733:
2721:Enlil Ninlil
2696:
2684:Aunt Entropy
2668:Enlil Ninlil
2662:Hyuuga-sama
2649:
2630:Badgerpatrol
2606:
2604:
2588:Badgerpatrol
2582:
2536:
2519:
2475:
2456:65.33.119.36
2447:
2429:
2400:
2367:
2349:
2314:Orangemarlin
2290:
2275:black people
2254:
2252:
2197:
2142:Orangemarlin
2119:
2104:
2100:
2099:There is no
2098:
2089:
2054:
2040:
2035:
2006:
2000:
1927:Andrewtheart
1921:
1903:
1898:
1888:Andrewtheart
1883:
1881:
1878:
1875:
1871:
1867:
1863:
1842:
1828:
1814:
1799:
1798:
1774:
1773:
1765:
1754:
1751:
1725:
1713:
1688:
1666:
1637:
1633:
1621:
1612:
1295:
1195:
1191:
1188:predictions.
1186:
1185:
1182:
1124:
1098:Paleobiology
1095:
1069:
909:
842:
837:
781:
756:
670:
659:
655:
637:
623:
599:
585:
565:
546:
543:
497:81.168.52.33
490:— Preceding
487:
463:I think the
439:
435:
406:Badgerpatrol
380:
377:
374:
359:
338:
327:
292:
285:
262:Badgerpatrol
245:
235:
232:Microfossils
210:
192:107.3.44.127
186:— Preceding
177:
173:
171:
152:
146:
139:
124:— Preceding
114:
103:
86:81.159.118.2
73:
60:
43:
37:
4804:Actualcpscm
4026:WilsonFiley
3922:carbon film
3752:copy edited
3552:examples.--
3398:Wilson44691
2945:—Preceding
2899:new article
2736:—Preceding
2699:—Preceding
2502:Wilson44691
2450:—Preceding
2333:Nowimnthing
2297:Creationism
2105:hot buttons
1832:X Sxc Haz X
1701:Nowimnthing
1681:Nowimnthing
1615:Nowimnthing
1495:Nowimnthing
1413:Nowimnthing
1154:Nowimnthing
1132:Weenerbunny
1112:Nowimnthing
1052:Nowimnthing
985:Nowimnthing
937:Lagerstätte
917:Nowimnthing
882:Nowimnthing
851:Nowimnthing
814:Nowimnthing
743:Nowimnthing
700:Nowimnthing
684:Nowimnthing
649:Nowimnthing
549:Wilson44691
465:ichnofossil
313:Nowimnthing
237:microfossil
161:beaches! --
80:—Preceding
74:Surely the
36:This is an
18:Talk:Fossil
4754:|answered=
4597:|answered=
4563:Report bug
4362:matrix."--
4328:Harizotoh9
4234:Harizotoh9
4008:|answered=
3881:KuyaBriBri
3835:|answered=
3705:Harizotoh9
3678:Harizotoh9
3589:Old_Wombat
3570:Old_Wombat
3538:Old_Wombat
3110:verifiable
3061:verifiable
2924:Mikenorton
2881:Cephal-odd
2836:Cephal-odd
2822:Cephal-odd
2241:J. Spencer
2228:Geologyguy
2101:hot debate
1958:Geologyguy
1851:Geologyguy
1641:evidence.
1208:Geologyguy
785:Chengjiang
608:fossiled :
528:Check out
440:fossilized
438:, but not
361:behaviour.
288:crazyeddie
207:Invitation
4792:Not done:
4717:Fatcock25
4546:this tool
4539:this tool
4486:dead link
4289:If using
4264:deposited
4048:RudolfRed
3975:Dracontes
3946:article.
3874:Not done:
3802:Lfstevens
3701:talk page
3451:Thanks,
3196:Smokeybjb
3166:Smokeybjb
3097:Brentidae
3045:article--
2844:Bricology
2818:Taphonomy
2795:Bricology
2561:Mindstalk
2432:Aristotle
2302:Evolution
2293:Evolution
2270:evolution
2130:Evolution
1716:Markuelia
1499:Likearock
1452:Likearock
1347:Likearock
1249:Likearock
1222:holocaust
1198:Likearock
1168:Likearock
1084:bdpatton2
1076:Bdpatton2
1011:Likearock
963:Likearock
959:Theropoda
942:Likearock
933:Theropods
897:Likearock
676:- Jul 20
663:Taphonomy
530:Taphonomy
241:Omegatron
143:Belltower
61:Archive 1
4821:Category
4644:aboideau
4639:Hq03xq79
4616:Hq03xq79
4552:Cheers.—
4096:subject.
3971:Cenozoic
3963:Tertiary
3907:WikiAlto
3800:Cheers.
3718:Copyedit
3531:and the
3529:Platypus
3482:Avicenna
3114:reliable
3065:reliable
2947:unsigned
2766:Desoto10
2738:unsigned
2701:unsigned
2608:fossils.
2452:unsigned
2406:unsigned
2358:Uncle Ed
2350:describe
2204:Uncle Ed
2152:Ref ward
2080:Uncle Ed
2057:Uncle Ed
2037:Zephyris
2024:contribs
2016:Zephyris
2012:unsigned
1900:Zephyris
1843:how much
1632:Why not
1493:I think
802:User:SNP
588:DanielCD
521:DanielCD
505:contribs
492:unsigned
419:DanielCD
394:DanielCD
363:Ketrovin
341:DanielCD
334:DanielCD
330:dendrite
273:Htaccess
248:Htaccess
188:unsigned
163:Dmerrill
82:unsigned
4490:tag to
4462:my edit
4436:Kintaro
4426:"?? Is
4364:Mr Fink
4304:Mr Fink
4277:Paul H.
4268:deposit
4210:Mr Fink
4145:Cpsoper
4116:Cpsoper
4101:Cpsoper
4068:Cpsoper
3554:Mr Fink
3533:Echidna
3352:Mr Fink
3305:Crum375
3297:a query
3282:Crum375
3254:Abyssal
3211:Crum375
3181:Crum375
3151:Crum375
3143:WP:NORN
3118:Crum375
3070:Crum375
3021:Crum375
2988:Crum375
2879:Cheers,
2874:calcite
2870:crinoid
2790:minimum
2436:Geology
2384:fossils
2306:Fundies
2067:JPotter
1937:JPotter
1847:Geology
1720:fossils
1503:WP:NPOV
1142:Encarta
568:Ciacchi
436:fossils
159:Florida
126:undated
39:archive
4750:Fossil
4683:Vsmith
4593:Fossil
4482:Added
4458:Fossil
3948:Vsmith
3930:Vsmith
3631:Vsmith
3468:Vsmith
3428:Sladew
3380:Sladew
3366:Sladew
3337:Sladew
3301:WT:NOR
3245:really
3236:really
3226:Robin?
3147:WT:NOR
3047:Kevmin
3041:, and
3003:Kevmin
2483:Wetman
2324:Fossil
2260:Vsmith
2126:Vsmith
2113:Vsmith
1739:Vsmith
1691:Addhoc
1657:Addhoc
1643:Vsmith
1634:casual
1624:Addhoc
1516:Addhoc
1379:Addhoc
1230:Addhoc
626:Vsmith
534:Vsmith
386:stone.
295:Alisyd
180:part.
4758:|ans=
4744:This
4601:|ans=
4587:This
4012:|ans=
4002:This
3839:|ans=
3829:This
3627:WP:RS
3487:edit.
3139:WP:OR
2811:start
2583:think
2374:Filll
2326:with
2283:Filll
2255:built
2218:Filll
2122:Filll
2120:What
2092:Filll
1299:(UTC)
789:amber
510:WHOIS
16:<
4808:talk
4777:talk
4721:talk
4701:talk
4687:talk
4671:talk
4635:Done
4620:talk
4440:talk
4391:talk
4368:talk
4352:talk
4332:talk
4326:. --
4308:talk
4298:and
4281:talk
4254:talk
4238:talk
4214:talk
4204:and
4191:talk
4149:talk
4134:talk
4120:talk
4105:talk
4087:talk
4072:talk
4052:talk
4045:Done
4030:talk
3979:talk
3952:talk
3934:talk
3924:and
3911:talk
3859:talk
3806:talk
3709:talk
3703:. --
3682:talk
3635:talk
3616:talk
3593:talk
3574:talk
3558:talk
3542:talk
3527:The
3514:talk
3493:talk
3472:talk
3457:talk
3432:talk
3418:talk
3402:talk
3384:talk
3370:talk
3356:talk
3341:talk
3309:talk
3286:talk
3258:talk
3215:talk
3200:talk
3185:talk
3170:talk
3155:talk
3122:talk
3112:and
3074:talk
3063:and
3051:talk
3043:this
3039:this
3035:this
3025:talk
3017:WP:V
3007:talk
2992:talk
2955:talk
2928:talk
2913:talk
2885:talk
2848:talk
2826:talk
2799:talk
2770:talk
2746:talk
2725:talk
2709:talk
2688:talk
2672:talk
2656:talk
2634:talk
2616:talk
2592:talk
2565:talk
2546:talk
2526:talk
2506:talk
2487:talk
2460:talk
2414:talk
2356:. --
2344:If "
2295:and
2237:link
2179:talk
2156:talk
2132:and
2124:and
2043:Talk
2020:talk
2001:must
1906:Talk
1729:Loco
1670:Loco
1102:Loco
1080:talk
810:bold
553:talk
501:talk
469:Kris
349:Rama
221:NPOV
196:talk
90:talk
4756:or
4748:to
4599:or
4591:to
4520:RfC
4476:to
4208:?--
4010:or
3837:or
3145:or
2559:--
2388:SNP
2216:?--
1983:SNP
1816:SNP
1759:SNP
865:SNP
828:SNP
324:Pic
4823::
4810:)
4779:)
4762:no
4723:)
4703:)
4689:)
4673:)
4641:!
4622:)
4605:no
4533:.
4528:}}
4524:{{
4488:}}
4484:{{
4442:)
4393:)
4370:)
4354:)
4334:)
4310:)
4302:--
4283:)
4256:)
4240:)
4232:--
4216:)
4193:)
4175::
4151:)
4136:)
4122:)
4107:)
4089:)
4074:)
4054:)
4032:)
4016:no
3981:)
3954:)
3936:)
3913:)
3861:)
3843:no
3808:)
3711:)
3684:)
3676:--
3637:)
3618:)
3595:)
3576:)
3560:)
3544:)
3516:)
3495:)
3474:)
3459:)
3434:)
3420:)
3404:)
3386:)
3372:)
3358:)
3343:)
3335:.
3311:)
3288:)
3260:)
3217:)
3202:)
3187:)
3172:)
3157:)
3124:)
3076:)
3053:)
3037:,
3027:)
3009:)
2994:)
2957:)
2930:)
2915:)
2887:)
2850:)
2828:)
2801:)
2772:)
2748:)
2727:)
2711:)
2690:)
2674:)
2658:)
2636:)
2618:)
2594:)
2567:)
2548:)
2528:)
2508:)
2489:)
2462:)
2416:)
2181:)
2158:)
2111:.
2026:)
2022:•
555:)
514:)
507:•
503:•
198:)
141:--
119:--
92:)
4806:(
4775:(
4719:(
4699:(
4685:(
4669:(
4618:(
4565:)
4561:(
4548:.
4541:.
4438:(
4417:"
4389:(
4366:(
4350:(
4330:(
4306:(
4279:(
4252:(
4236:(
4212:(
4189:(
4147:(
4132:(
4118:(
4103:(
4085:(
4070:(
4050:(
4028:(
3977:(
3950:(
3932:(
3909:(
3877:—
3857:(
3804:(
3760:.
3707:(
3680:(
3633:(
3614:(
3591:(
3572:(
3556:(
3540:(
3512:(
3491:(
3470:(
3455:(
3430:(
3416:(
3400:(
3382:(
3368:(
3354:(
3339:(
3307:(
3284:(
3256:(
3213:(
3198:(
3183:(
3168:(
3153:(
3120:(
3072:(
3049:(
3023:(
3005:(
2990:(
2953:(
2926:(
2911:(
2883:(
2846:(
2824:(
2797:(
2768:(
2744:(
2723:(
2707:(
2686:(
2670:(
2654:(
2632:(
2614:(
2590:(
2563:(
2544:(
2524:(
2504:(
2485:(
2458:(
2420:.
2412:(
2177:(
2154:(
2030:.
2018:(
1078:(
551:(
499:(
194:(
88:(
50:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.