Home > Yahoo Questions > Your Questions About How To Discover New Species

Your Questions About How To Discover New Species

David asks…

What could be the social outcomes in case we discover intelligent life on another planet?

Social outcomes like effects on religions, social fabrics, economics, and on… How our current society would react to this news?
I ask this question, as at the rate we discover new planets, we should expect to find something pretty soon, especially when we will be capable to observed smaller telluric planets in the next few years. So such news could happen anytime in the near future.

New Niche Finder answers:

Truthfully, the first outcome would be wonder. Wow, there really IS life somewhere else! Followed closely by fear. We’ve had decades of “alien” movies, nearly always portraying otherworlders as villains. It would be a natural reaction to see fear, suspicion, worry in our culture. Next would come the fanatics, crying woe and doom. Religions would literally fall apart, seeing as humanity here believes in its own supremacy…”male and female, He created them in his own image….” While some groups would advocate contact, others would advocate defense. Socially, the planet would be in upheaval. You’d find families against families before too long.
I know, this is a really negative view, but, theres good reason for it. We can’t even seem to find a way to get along where we are ALL human, never mind trying to get along with another intelligent species…….

Maria asks…

In evolution science, is there some fossil evidence of a particular species showing signs of it evolving?

I mean from it’s particular species into another. If so can you provide a source for me to study. Thank you.

New Niche Finder answers:

It’s hard to answer this without some clarification of what you are *EXPECTING* to see.

How many fossils would be enough (to you) to show this “moment” of transition?

Remember that evolution is something that happens to a *population* of thousands to millions of individuals, over the course of thousands to millions of years. A fossil is a *single individual* … A rare snapshot of a long continuous process.

So, if you are expecting to find thousands of fossils that document the exact “moment” when one species ‘transformed’ into another, then sorry, the fossil record is not that generous. We are lucky if one or a dozen individuals, every 5 million years.

So what the fossil record shows us is that 55 million years ago there was species A. Then 5 million years later we find two species B and C that are different enough that we call them separate *species* but have enough in common with A that we conclude we are looking at two descendant species of the same ancestor. Then over the course of the next 5 million years we find a handful of individuals from many other species D, E, F, G, H and we start to reconstruct a plausible family tree. As we find more fossils of these species this solidifies our evidence … Or if we find new species I, J, K then the tree fills out even more, sometime finding what appear to be ‘transitional forms’ that give us a clearer picture.

But at no point do we EXPECT to find so many fossils that we can watch the exact “moments” of progression from A to B, or from A to C. Fossils don’t work that way.

So paleontology is like filling in a jigsaw puzzle … Not like reconstructing a movie.

So with all that in mind, I point to the rather well-documented evolution of the horse.

Start with an overview of the ‘family tree’. Start at the base with Hyracotherium (55mya), and then two species Orohippus and Pachynolophus that we find 5 million years later (50 mya). If you are expecting to find *THOUSANDS* of Hyracotherium fossils showing the exact moment at which they “transformed” into Orohippus, then sorry, that is not a reasonable expectation.

Or look at this version from the Florida museum of natural history:
It is less detailed, but provides a better illustration of the relationship of these species as we find them in the layers of soil … You can also click on the different species to look at their fossil skeletons.

——- @Alex ————

Creationists love to focus on the “frauds”, as if this forms a significant part of science.

The actual number of true “frauds” can be counted on one hand, compared to the hundreds of thousands of fossils that are real, documented, and support the evolutionary conclusions of the scientific community.

In other words, scientists concentrate of the evidence we *do* have. Creationists avoid that evidence like the plague. Scientists strutinize every piece of evidence, and occasionall discard things into the trashbin of history when they are discovered to be false.

Creationists only focus on the trashbin.

All Alex “proves” with links to these dismally dishonest and anti-scientific sites like this, is that Creationism is built largely from lies.

——— @iceveelastronomy —————

>”not a single fossil is found in the transition process”

How can a “single fossil” be “in the transition process” when evolution is something that happens to *POPULATIONS*, not individuals?

>”there are fakes like Lucy and ardi which have no skulls”

1. Neither one is a “fake”.
2. Both are just *specimens* of a species … Other specimens have been found, confirming the species.
3. Both have skulls.
4. You don’t need a skull to know if a species was bipedal, how tall it was, whether it was “ape” or “man” (these were neither), etc.

So all you have “proven” is that you don’t know much about these fossils.

William asks…

What eye color, hair color and skin did the first people of our species have?

What eye color, hair color and skin did the first people of our species have?
Did they have straight and long hair?

What kind of face features and nose did they have? Is there a picture? did they have freckles?

New Niche Finder answers:

Nobody has ever been able to confirm what it was, but I imagine they were black people with dark skin, hair, and eyes. The reason I say this is because the oldest known fossils of modern day humans were discovered in the Dry Rift Valley in East Africa. Scientists believe as they travelled to higher latitudes, their skin produced less melanin, they developed ectomorphic bodies, and their hair became straighter so they would become more accustomed to colder temperatures and less sunlight.

Michael asks…

What percentage of the Earth’s ocean have we visited, what percentage of land?

http://species.asu.edu/Top10 I ask the second question because it seems we discover new species of animals regularly.

New Niche Finder answers:

I know that Earth’s ocean is 97% and the percentage of land is 30%. I didn’t open the link you suggested, sorry.

Lisa asks…

What are the benefits of cloning for preserving endagered species or advancing livestock or agriculture?

Consider the benefits of cloning for preserving endagered species or advancing livestock or agriculture. Weigh this against the risks or problems you have come to understand about the technique.

Take a position on whether or not cloning should be encouraged in Canada. Defend your position and back it up with facts and information with cloning.

Describe a societal issue and an ethical issue associated with cloning.

Describe 2 technologies that could have been used during the cloning of Dolly.

New Niche Finder answers:

So basically you want someone to do your homework for you? I’ll help you out a little. I’ll explain both cloning ES and advancing livestock/agriculture.

I can say there are many species of both flora and fauna we have yet to discover. Even those we do know of, we don’t know everything about them. Let’s say there is an endangered species of frog in the Amazon that scientists discovered has pharmacological properties and may even cure certain diseases. In this case, preserving this species would be very beneficial to us. However, cloning would only be necessary when the population has decreased significantly. The same support could be given for an rare flower known to cure ailments.

Genetically modified organisms (GMO) are present in the markets of the US. Certain soy products (those produced by Mosanto) are used alongside other products. We already use pesticides and antibiotics to protect and extend the life of livestock/agriculture. When the animals and plants are healthy, it’s better for the bottom line of the farmers.

The reasons against this argument are just as intriguing.

Hope this helps!

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

I love hearing from you so please post a comment. All I ask is that you contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way. If your comment is unrelated to the post or is solely self-promotional, your comment will not be approved.

Comments are closed.