Human evolution timeline | big bang to present

Timeline of human evolution over the last 13.7 billion years.

History of timeline
The seed of the timeline (video above), began to take root with a circa 1995 effort to understand how human chemical reproduction reactions:

A + B → C

where A is a man (male human molecule), B is a female (female human molecule), and C is child (product molecule of the chemical reaction), could be understood (or rather predicted) using the standard Gibbs free energy change criterion of physical chemistry:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Libb+Thims+%28history%29

This effort eventually resulted in a prolonged 2-6 month attempt to calculate the molecular formula for a single human (2002):

http://www.eoht.info/page/Human+molecular+formula

which evolved naturally into the calculations of other molecular formulas in the form of a molecular evolution table (2005), showing the ascendancy from the hydrogen atom to a human molecule:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Molecular+evolution+table

which after discovering sideways scrolling webpages, evolved into the online evolution timeline (2009) and hence this video, scrolled to the beat of Sam Sparros 2008 song Black and Gold:

http://www.eoht.info/page/Evolution+timeline

Feel free to view this last link online, a page which links to more information and references.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Evolution
• human evolution
• timeline
• big bang
• human molecule
• walking fish
• homo erectus
• homo habilis
• kenyanthropus platyops
• chimpanzee
• old world monkey
• lemur
• shrew
• triconodont
• reptile
• fish
• flatworm
• choanoflagellate
• cyanobacteria
• myoglobin
• coenzyme a
• nadh
• urea
• methanol
• water
• carbon
• hydrogen
• neutron
• proton
• boson
• lepton
• quark
• black and gold
• Sam Sparro

[ciaobellakate]

What a great presentation. Thank you for making it.

[HumanChemistry101]

@ciaobellakate Thanks. There's about 14-years of precursory developmental and conceptual intellectual stepping stones behind the construction of this timeline video (see summary and links in the pull down). The modern physical chemistry view that humans evolved "not" from Darwin's warm pond, but from the hydrogen atom, and before that from subatomic particles, via a contiguous number of chemical reaction mechanism steps, is a huge eye-opener, to say the least.

[Eyes8577]

@HumanChemistry101 I think it is very interesting that you showed the chemical composition for complex organisms. I always tell people we are just really really big and complex talking molecules LOL. This is the first time I have seen someone attempt to estimate the real chemical composition of an organism. Very neat.

[HumanChemistry101]

@Eyes8577 Re: "I always tell people we are just really really big and complex talking molecules", you might well then enjoy reading my 2008 book The Human Molecule, a history of this point of view: from Humphry Davy's 1813 view of man as a "point atom", to C.G. Darwin's view of people as "human molecules", up through the present, including the Sterner-Elser 2002 calculation of a human molecular formula.

[TheLightedDarkness]

@Eyes8577 [Part2] Macro-Evolution has not been proven to exist, or have happened.

As a matter of what you think is a fact*, archea and bacteria ruled the world 3.5 billion years before complex life developed.

Also, bacteria are more complex than humans.

You're utterly stupid for calling humans more complex than bacteria; We're not more complex than bacteria.

Natural Selection selects, it does not create.

Please try again, and this time learn to know what you're talking about.

[TheLightedDarkness]

@Eyes8577 I've not touched the subject of Macro/Micro Evolution, I was discussing Irreduceable Complexity, which suggests that they MUST have been made IN WHOLE from the BEGINNING. Irreduceable Complexity proves Macro Evolution wrong, it's not part of Evolution.

Furthermore, I have never stated that adaptive changes aren't evolution, I'm merely saying that it's Micro-Evolution, and Micro-Evolution does exist, and is proven.

However, a chimpansee turning human is Macro-Evolution.

[Eyes8577]

@Eyes8577 Secondly, your theory for life... intelligent design...is inherently non-falsifiable and is therefore incapable of being subject to scientific scrutiny. So no matter how you twist it we can always say...maybe, maybe not...to your story. It cannot be a theory as theories are testable. Anyhow I don't care what you believe in really, just trying to lay the truth out there for you no matter how much it may hurt your ego. We arn't the center of the universe, we were not created by a fairy.

[Eyes8577]

@TheLightedDarkness Dude, the culmination of billions of years of adaptive changes IS evolution. Just because life on Earth has culminated into complex organims doesn't mean it was an inevitability. As a matter of fact, archea and bacteria ruled the world for 3.5 billion years before complex life develop. IC arguments such as the eye, flegellum, etc have been debunked by showing how they could form just fine by themselves through natural selective forces. Read a biology text.

[TheLightedDarkness]

@Eyes8577 Changing and replacing parts is adaptation, it's not evolution.

They're seperate from one another.

Please show me a source of where IC is ''debunked''.

[Eyes8577]

@TheLightedDarkness IRREDUCIBLE complexity arguments are lame. Behe's argument is logically false because observations in nature, such as the evolution of microbes, directly falsify his first premise that evolution ONLY adds parts. It also changes and replaces parts (randomly) in a sytem and then makes them necessary to the function of that particular protein, structure...whatever. My point is, IC was debunked almost a hundred years ago by H.J Muller. You don't know what your talking about.

[MrTimJr]

Excellent video. Props for showing REALITY and not FICTION. Yes, that is a direct attack on religion.

Didn't see Jesus riding on a dinosaur though, and you forgot to show Chuck Norris kicking the Big Bang into existence.