A proportional geologic time scale

[Fred]

Virtually every book on paleontology includes a picture or table on the geologic time scale of some sort. But have you ever noticed that virtually none of them is drawn in true proportions? As a result, many of us have no good, from the top of the head insight in the true propotions of the geologic periods and epochs. Who truly realizes that the Cretaceous for example, represents a larger time span than the whole of the Cenozoic? In any case, for a long time I did not, and the drawings I devoured as a kid did not really help me to grasp the true dimensions of each of the geological periods. Obviously, drawing such a chart poses quite some challenges in terms of layout. In 2015, admittedly a bit frustrated by the lack of such diagrams in literature (I might simply overlooked them), I made a first effort to overcome these challenges and draw a truly proportional infographic of the geologic timeline. It was published in a simplified form in a Belgian book on local geology. Still I kept finetuning it and adding some basic information and then it was resting on a digital shelf for over a year. Today I decided that was rather pointless, so I translated the infographic to English and shared it under the creative commons license for all to use: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Geologic_Time_Scale.png

I hope it can be useful for educators. Feel free to provide me with feedback so I can further improve it. From the moment I'm completely satisfied with the infographic, I plan on releasing the original layered vector file, so everyone can use, edit, adapt and reshare the work in complete freedom.

[Fruitbat]

You might want to check out the efforts of Wrangellian so you can compare his version to yours!  Here's a LINK.

 

-Joe

[Shellseeker]

Thanks for the link!!  I have seen this picture in a 10 foot tall display at the University of Florida Museum of Natural History entrance in Gainesville, but you are correct.  We have little understanding of proportional spans of time.

 

Almost all on my personal finds are "in the yellow".. I have to beg, borrow, trade, conjole, buy older fossils like this one

@Fruitbat  Adding my thanks to you Joe,  I had not Wrangellian's version. It is Impressive!!!!  Jack

[Tidgy's Dad]

If you do it to scale, certain periods or eras just disappear. 

Anyway, people can't actually picture these numbers. 

We can visualize 2 or 12 or even 20

200 we're struggling. you have only a vague idea of what 2,000 actually is and in reality, for us, a million equates to 'lots', we can't actually mentally see this. It's a word that means a really big number.

Interestingly, i read somewhere that dogs can count, but only to three. 

Dogs count "One, two, three, lots."

 

[Kane]

6 minutes ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

If you do it to scale, certain periods or eras just disappear. 

Anyway, people can't actually picture these numbers. 

We can visualize 2 or 12 or even 20

200 we're struggling. you have only a vague idea of what 2,000 actually is and in reality, for us, a million equates to 'lots', we can't actually mentally see this. It's a word that means a really big number.

Interestingly, i read somewhere that dogs can count, but only to three. 

Dogs count "One, two, three, lots."

 

Descartes used the example of a chiliogon (a 1,000-sided object) as proof that some geometric objects can exist outside of our (or an evil demon's) brains. This was in his 6th meditation, if I'm not mistaken.

[Tidgy's Dad]

11 minutes ago, Kane said:

Descartes used the example of a chiliogon (a 1,000-sided object) as proof that some geometric objects can exist outside of our (or an evil demon's) brains. This was in his 6th meditation, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes, i think you are right. Distinctions between mind and body and the existence of corporeal things, or something. Descartes was never brave enough to go as far as he wanted, in my opinion. 

Of course 'Cogito ergo sum' actually didn't mean quite that or what he meant. 

I think he should have said, " Cogito cogito,ergo cogito sum" !  

[Kane]

1 minute ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Yes, i think you are right. Distinctions between mind and body and the existence of corporeal things, or something. Descartes was never brave enough to go as far as he wanted, in my opinion. 

Of course 'Cogito ergo sum' actually didn't mean quite that or what he meant. 

I think he should have said, " Cogito cogito,ergo cogito sum" !  

Yeah, and I doubt he actually ate the wax, too! His distinction between mind and body locates the pineal gland as the "seat of the soul." Trust me, I am no Cartesian - far too much assumption and logic toe-chopping.  If you're going to read the Rationalists, Spinoza is far more interesting due to the implications. 

[Tidgy's Dad]

Just now, Kane said:

Yeah, and I doubt he actually ate the wax, too! His distinction between mind and body locates the pineal gland as the "seat of the soul." Trust me, I am no Cartesian - far too much assumption and logic toe-chopping.  If you're going to read the Rationalists, Spinoza is far more interesting due to the implications. 

Indeed. 

Far better for me. 

Though i hark back to Socrates, or rather Aristotle's early words on Socrates for my philosophy of life.  

[Kane]

Just now, Tidgy's Dad said:

Indeed. 

Far better for me. 

Though i hark back to Socrates, or rather Aristotle's early words on Socrates for my philosophy of life.  

No! Aristotle was notorious for intentionally mis-representing other philosophers to create straw-people. That Plato-Aristotle relationship was not without its... bumps!

[Tidgy's Dad]

2 minutes ago, Kane said:

No! Aristotle was notorious for intentionally mis-representing other philosophers to create straw-people. That Plato-Aristotle relationship was not without its... bumps!

Only later. 

Aristotle's early works are marvelous, before it all went to his head, so to speak. And i regard Plato's early stuff on Socrates as the best, though again he starts to use Socrates as his own mouthpiece later on. Not sure they were good at fossil id though. 

[Kane]

Some of Ari's insights are quite spot-on about human behaviour ("when we look up, we think of the future; when we look down, the past"). Do not trust him on his rendering of the Pre-Socratics, of course. And certainly not on stuff regarding mass/gravity or the (non)existence of a vacuum (turned out the Atomists like Democritus were right all along!). 

 

Too much to say about Plato using Socrates in those dialogues as a sock-puppet, but likely best kept to PM so as not to risk putting our fellow TFF'ers to sleep over ancient Greek thought!

[Max-fossils]

2 hours ago, Tidgy's Dad said:

Anyway, people can't actually picture these numbers. 

We can visualize 2 or 12 or even 20

200 we're struggling. you have only a vague idea of what 2,000 actually is and in reality, for us, a million equates to 'lots', we can't actually mentally see this. It's a word that means a really big number.

Interestingly, i read somewhere that dogs can count, but only to three. 

Dogs count "One, two, three, lots."

 

 

Well humans aren't that much better. It's a little different, but according to an article I read our brain can only immediately recognize up to 4 objects.

o o o o

 

But as soon as there are 5 or more objects, our brain actually has to count to see how many there are. 

o o o o o o

 

So normally, you should have had to count the little circles above (probably just briefly, but still) to realize that there were 6 o's. While you didn't have to do that for the 4 above. 

Now I don't know if this article is completely true, but it seems to be correct with me at least. Probably with you too. Still very interesting to learn more about how our brain works I find 

 

 

 

Oh, and sorry @Fred for having gone off-topic... But that is a wonderful time-scale, thank you!

 

Max

[Fred]

No worries Max!

Thanks @Fruitbat to point out the table made by Wrangellian! It's certainly an interesting approach. I think the Time Scale I made now aims a bit more at younger people and educators who work with kids. The design allows to answer basic questions like 'where do the dinosaurs fit in?' and 'where are the major extinction events?'

But it's an interesting thought to make a big one with indications of mayor events, evolutionary milestones, lagerstätten and the likes, aimed at the serious amateur and (under)graduate students.