[magneticnorth]

This is an interesting way to think about plants and animals.

I'm finding it surprisingly hard to find sources for known age of species - is that information collected somewhere? Or is it something we often just don't know because of how sparse the fossil record is?

Wondering because of trying to look up the age of fern species I do eat (no cinnamon fern near me) and I can't find out.

[cogman10]

That's because when something becomes a new species is a surprisingly difficult and contentious debate in biology.

That's simply due to the nature of evolution. It's nearly impossible to look at one past generation of chicken to the next to figure out when the ancestor was no longer a chicken. Yet, go back far enough and you'll find T-Rexes in the mix.

Every generation is a new missing link. It's an extremely fuzzy process.

[usrnm]

> Yet, go back far enough and you'll find T-Rexes in the mix

Afaik, T-Rex was never a direct ancestor of modern birds, including chicken. T-Rex and birds are theropod dinosaurs, but it was a very large and diverse group of animals.

[thaumasiotes]

But as soon as you've gone up from a chicken to the ancestor of a T-Rex, you do indeed find that T-Rexes are in the mix. They look different from what you'd normally think of as a T-Rex, in the same way that they also look different from what you'd normally think of as a chicken.

[stevage]

I'm trying to imagine this creature that is only somewhat different looking from a t rex and a chicken.

I get your meaning, just a funny phrasing.

[technothrasher]

This is because "species" is a taxonomical category that we invented, but that does not actually map cleanly to reality.

[b112]

Greg Bear and his fancy pants radio says otherwise.

[b00ty4breakfast]

turns out evolution is analog

[vardump]

T-Rex nuggets. Mmmm...

[throwup238]

> I'm finding it surprisingly hard to find sources for known age of species - is that information collected somewhere? Or is it something we often just don't know because of how sparse the fossil record is?

It depends on what you mean by the age of the species. You can find the oldest known fossil occurrence at the Paleobiology Database [1] and the divergence time from molecular phylogenies via TimeTree [2].

[1] https://paleobiodb.org/

[2] https://timetree.org/

[andrewflnr]

It's pretty tricky to find out, yeah. And new evidence is coming in all the time. All the methods are either floors (a fossil at X date proves a species existed then, but lack of fossils found yet might be inconclusive) or estimates (like molecular clock techniques). Dating fossils themselves (or rather the rocks they're buried in) isn't always easy or possible. For more out-of-the-way species, if anyone has bothered trying to figure out the age it's likely buried in scientific sources that are tricky for novices to find or search, and maybe under debate.

[psychoslave]

That make wonder, how many fossils there might be at total on earth, and with current trend, how much time would humanity should continue to survive before those remaining will approach zero, if fossil formation as a known rate.

[throwup238]

> how many fossils there might be at total on earth

The number is both incalculable and vague - is a shark tooth enough to count as a fossil? How about diatoms and other microfossils?

Diatomaceous earth alone contains around 10^6-10^7 frustules (the shell of a diatom) per gram. If you count them as fossils then the lower bound is 10^18 fossils per year just in diatomaceous earth production (the fossils are ancient but we produce nearly a million tons a year in diatomaceous earth).

[TurdF3rguson]

> is a shark tooth enough to count as a fossil

No, but a fossil of a shark tooth counts as a fossil..

[throwup238]

What does that mean though? Shark teeth are already mineralized (fluorapatite) so you can find two million year old Megalodon teeth at the Earnst Quarry in Bakersfield that exist just as they did in the mouth of the shark without any extra “fossilization”

[TurdF3rguson]

Hmm, my understanding is that fossil refers to the impression of the original object not the object itself.

[hnlmorg]

If you have a fossil, and break it in half, then do you now have two fossils?

[bubblewand]

Immense numbers. Quarries destroy them by the (enormous) truckload all the time, unexamined, god knows what cool unknown stuff has been ground up. Entire kinds of rock are basically made of fossils, not even always the really tiny kind (note: fossils can be microscopic!)

Then consider what's buried under the sea, totally inaccessible. Or under the ice at the poles.

It's a lot of fossils. And that's without even getting into questions like "what counts as a fossil for these purposes?", just any halfway sensible answer is going to leave you with an unfathomably big number, no need to even dig (ha, ha) into the specifics.

The places scientists go to dig up fossils are mostly where a particular stratum happens to exist (the crust gets recycled, so much of the oldest stuff is simply gone in most of the world) and happens to be exposed near the surface. Those same kinds of (for the more common strata, anyway) exist all over the place, just buried too deep to get at except, sometimes, during commercial excavation for things like mining (and then most of it's just gonna be destroyed without a look).

[jasonwatkinspdx]

What you're looking for is the phylogenetic tree. Here's an explorable one: https://www.onezoom.org/

Keep in mind that the further you go back the bigger the error bars on these date estimates, and that a tidy split is an abstraction over a more messy reality (example: we know the hominid groups interbred, giving people with european ancestry some fraction of neanderthal dna).