Suppose a scientist found a new fossil that indicated it was a primitive mammal. Relative dating techniques place the age of this fossil at a much earlier time than mammals were thought to exist. What effect will this finding have on understanding of the history of life?
a. The split between mammals and nonmammals in the tree of life needs to be shifted
b. A new branch needs to be added to the tree of life
c. An existing branch on the tree of life needs to be removed
d. Other fossils need to be sure that the ages assigned to them are not in error
A or B.
I think a
does anybody have the answers to the whole thing?
answers anybody?
@justtryingtopass
nope.
The correct answer is d. Other fossils need to be sure that the ages assigned to them are not in error.
When a scientist finds a new fossil that contradicts existing knowledge or understanding, it prompts a reevaluation of existing information. In this case, if a new fossil indicates the presence of a primitive mammal at a much earlier time than previously believed, it raises questions about the accuracy of the dating techniques used for other fossils.
To understand the impact of this finding on the history of life, scientists would need to ensure that the ages assigned to other fossils are not in error. They might reexamine the methods used for relative dating and consider whether there are any inaccuracies or limitations in those methods. Additionally, they might seek to find other fossils from the same time period or location to corroborate the findings and further refine their understanding of the history of life.
It's important in scientific research to seek confirmation and verify findings through multiple lines of evidence. Thus, the discovery of a new fossil that challenges existing knowledge would necessitate a thorough evaluation of the dating techniques and a reexamination of other fossils to ensure the accuracy and consistency of the information.