New Monkey Discovered!

[bonj2]

I am pretty sure you are right too Mr P in that he didn't suddenly evolve in 2007 then a scientist found him.

Well, as you know, my constant argument is that if it existed prior to it being discovered, why hadn't it been discovered before? Why has it only JUST been discovered, if it's been there all the time?
There's no corner of the land that man hasn't been to. Therefore all species, if they currently exist, should have been discovered.

 

[Wigsie]

Well, as you know, my constant argument is that if it existed prior to it being discovered, why hadn't it been discovered before? Why has it only JUST been discovered, if it's been there all the time?
There's no corner of the land that man hasn't been to. Therefore all species, if they currently exist, should have been discovered.

Seriously?

I am still entirely sure there are plenty of creepy crawlies and perhaps even larger animals that we are not aware actually exist on land (I am sure nobody could seriously make a statement like that about underwater).

 

[Arch]

Seriously?

I am still entirely sure there are plenty of creepy crawlies and perhaps even larger animals that we are not aware actually exist on land (I am sure nobody could seriously make a statement like that about underwater).

Bonj has a pet theory, that climate change isn't a problem, because animals just evolve to cope in a matter of weeks. He bases this on the fact that some new species of fish were found in the Antarctic, and that if they'd been there all the time, we'd have found them centuries ago.


Really, I advise walking away and ignoring him on this one, we've all tried...

 

[bonj2]

Bonj has a pet theory, that climate change isn't a problem, because animals just evolve to cope in a matter of weeks. He bases this on the fact that some new species of fish were found in the Antarctic, and that if they'd been there all the time, we'd have found them centuries ago.


Really, I advise walking away and ignoring him on this one, we've all tried...

er... no, my views on climate change are nothing to do with my views on evolution.
Dont' make confused guesses as to links between the two..

Wigsie you are right in that the sea does have fairly large regions that are unexplored.
However the land doesn't. If I'm not mistaken, then there were apparently until fairly recently some areas of outer borneo that were undiscovered, but they are all covered now.

 

[Wigsie]

Really, I advise walking away and ignoring him on this one, we've all tried...

Its friday afternoon and too much fun to walk away.

Wigsie you are right in that the sea does have fairly large regions that are unexplored.
However the land doesn't. If I'm not mistaken, then there were apparently until fairly recently some areas of outer borneo that were undiscovered, but they are all covered now.

Borneo? this is a very select a relatively small area to be unexplored? What about the deepest jungles in South America or one of the many remote islands in the pacific, the frozen landscapes surrounding the north an south poles. A Zoological expert would have had to venture round all these places to ensure there are no undicovered creatures. A nere explorer may not have the knowledge to say, ahhh thats a new monkey, he may just think... thats an evil b*stard looking thing, best not turn my back on him he may take me down!

 

[Wigsie]

Your right, in a couple of days it will be monday morning, and I will need cheering up!

 

[bonj2]

Borneo? this is a very select a relatively small area to be unexplored?

that's probably why it is now explored.

What about the deepest jungles in South America or one of the many remote islands in the pacific

There are lots of armchair pundits who write on the internet that there are unexplored areas of the amazon rainforest, but that is largely because that is what they would like to think.

When people think 'unexplored areas of the world', the first thing that pops into their head is what is the *least* explored area of the world. Oooh, amazon jungle springs to mind. As you have.

But what a lot of armchair pundits on the internet then do is to then make the completely uninformed leap from that, to stating as fact that it is completely UNexplored, purely because it pleases them to imagine that that is the case.
(Subconsciously, the reason that pleases them is that they imagine that THEY might be the ones to one day be the first to explore it - but that is an innate human trait, and not because they actually intend to attempt to be the first to explore it, or even would actually want to consciously if it came down to it)

The point, though, is that least explored does not equate to unexplored.

Purely based on maths, if you conducted a 'random walk' experiment with 65m people and whatever the area of the earth's land is, then it wouldn't take millions of years for it all to become covered.

, the frozen landscapes surrounding the north an south poles. A Zoological expert would have had to venture round all these places to ensure there are no undicovered creatures.

The "frozen landscapes surrounding surrounding the north and south poles" are technically sea.
You do know that the 'land' of the north pole is different from the land of, say, britain, in that the 'land' of the north pole has sea under it, while britain doesn't?
It is quite thick in parts, but it is still just floating ice.
That said, there are probably parts of that that are still undiscovered, if you go by kilometre squares rather than radially.

Even so, if there were undiscovered creatures they would probably be discovered by planes flying over going to and from the weather station and observation stations that exist at the poles and other operations such as polar bear monitoring.

A nere explorer may not have the knowledge to say, ahhh thats a new monkey, he may just think... thats an evil b*stard looking thing, best not turn my back on him he may take me down!

er, that's possible - but then again there would probably also be explorers who DO know one monkey from another.
You've got to remember that new monkeys don't just get discovered randomly by someone going for a walk who happens to be in the know, they are discovered by people who really WANT to discover them, because it makes them famous. These people are constantly scouring the jungle for new ones.

 

[Arch]

The "frozen landscapes surrounding surrounding the north and south poles" are technically sea.
You do know that the 'land' of the north pole is different from the land of, say, britain, in that the 'land' of the north pole has sea under it, while britain doesn't?
It is quite thick in parts, but it is still just floating ice.
That said, there are probably parts of that that are still undiscovered, if you go by kilometre squares rather than radially.

On the other hand, (or the other pole), Antarctica is a huge, great, rocky, real, continent.

Bonj, if you walked across a field in Britain, even if you looked about you quite carefully, what proportion of our native wildlife would you see, do you think? All of it? Even if you walked the length of the country, over months, you wouldn't see it all, you'd probably not even see all the mammals, let alone all the birds, fish and insects. Certainly you'd be very lucky to see all the native reptiles - I think that's something like 5 species - or amphibians.

And now, I walk away, because I know you aren't really that thick, and you're on a wind up.

 

[bonj2]

On the other hand, (or the other pole), Antarctica is a huge, great, rocky, real, continent.

yes, sorry antarctica is genuine land.

Bonj, if you walked across a field in Britain, even if you looked about you quite carefully, what proportion of our native wildlife would you see, do you think? All of it?

No, not all of it in a FIELD, no.
You would see a small percentage of it.
If you also walked through a forest, over a moor, up a mountain, and through some more fields, you would increase the percentage of it that you would see.
If you stood quietly in one of those black observation boxes, then you would probably also increase the percentage of it that you would see some more.
But you are only one person.

Even if you walked the length of the country, over months, you wouldn't see it all, you'd probably not even see all the mammals, let alone all the birds, fish and insects. Certainly you'd be very lucky to see all the native reptiles - I think that's something like 5 species - or amphibians.

But I repeat my point that not everyone just walks around randomly. Some people are actually TRYING to discover species, so they take steps to maximise the chance of them discovering species! And they are using advanced observation techniques in order to do so. Not just walking through fields, going 'oooh look ! there's a rabbit'

These people comb the areas where the conditions are ripe for evolution to take place, such as rainforests, and to a greater (but more difficult) extent - under the sea. The undiscovered nature of a lot of the sea means that it is possible (but not as likely as you may like to think) that species discovered under the sea may have been there for a lot longer than we have known about them.

 

[Arch]

<chews own foot off in an effort not to respond any more>

 

[Mr Pig]

I think there is a difference between being seen and being discovered. Other people might well have seen this little guy but not realised that they were looking at something not documented. If you saw a strange monkey would you assume you were the first to see it? Naa, needs someone who's actually very familiar with the things to see it before it gets itself discovered. Either that or it just pisses off when it sees humans coming so doesn't get discovered until faced with a human who is both conversant with all things monkey and a sneaky b******.

Guess he's just happier now to know that he's discovered eh?

I'm sure animals adapt to environmental changes, I think that's exactly what happens. Not in a couple of weeks though ;0)

 

[Wigsie]

Cheers Bonj, some amazing responses!