Rodents Were Diverse and Abundant in Prehistoric Africa When Our Human Ancestors Evolved

ScienceDaily ^ | December 29, 2010 | adapted from materials by Margaret Allen of S Methodist U

[SunkenCiv]

odents get a bad rap as vermin and pests because they seem to thrive everywhere. They have been one of the most common mammals in Africa for the past 50 million years. From deserts to rainforests, rodents flourished in prehistoric Africa, making them a stable and plentiful source of food, says paleontologist Alisa J. Winkler, an expert on rodent and rabbit fossils... Rodents can corroborate evidence from geology and plant and animal fossils about the ancient environments of our human ancestors and other prehistoric mammals, says Winkler, a research professor at Southern Methodist University... Rodents -- rats, mice, squirrels, porcupines, gerbils and others -- are the largest order of living mammals, constituting 42 percent of the total mammalian diversity worldwide... review documents more than 130 formally named genera in "Fossil Rodents of Africa," the first comprehensive summary and distribution analysis of Africa's fossil rodents since 1978. The analysis is a chapter in the new 1008-page scientific reference book "Cenozoic Mammals of Africa" ...the first comprehensive scientific review of Africa's fossil mammals in more than three decades. The book comprises 48 chapters by 64 experts, summarizing and interpreting the published fossil research to date of Africa's mammals, tectonics, geography, climate and flora of the past 65 million years.

[wendy1946]

Except our ancient ancestors did not “evolve”...

Actually, there are two parts of the fairytale which don't work in real life, and not just one. Aside from evolution being a bunch of BS, there's the problem with modern man "evolving" in Africa.

By that I mean that monkeys, apes, or "proto-humans(TM)" would be clearly incapable of moving down from trees and starting to live on the African savannas for any longer than about one day, tops.

I mean, what's the most major difference between human infants and the young of all prey animals? That's right: the baby deer have the sense to keep quiet until they're old enough to run, full speed. What's gonna happen the first time a gang of 'proto-humans' starts walking around on the savannas and some human infant starts screaming his head off because something displeases him, with 500 and 1000 lb predators walking around all over the place?

Can you say "Dinner Bell"??

[BroJoeK]

allmost: "65 million years is a rather extraordinary extrapolation. Science used to be testable."

Radioactive decay rates for dozens of different materials are tested and known.
So Radiometric dating can be used to establish and confirm ages of ancient events.

The approximate age of 65 million years for the Cenozoic Era is not in doubt, scientifically.

[BroJoeK]

wendy1946: "Other than that, the thing about the 65M years has turned out to be bullshit (all the blood and raw meat turning up in dinosaur remains recently):"

Whatever that may eventually prove to be -- no dino-DNA has been recovered from it -- it only confirms that under ideal conditions, organic matter can survive a very long time indeed.

Other examples include bacteria preserved in 250 million year old salt crystals from Texas, and 40 million year old Dominican amber.

[wendy1946]

Other examples include bacteria preserved in 250 million year old salt crystals from Texas, and 40 million year old Dominican amber.

Simple explanation: the dating schemes for the salt and amber are BS too.

[BroJoeK]

wendy1946: "Simple explanation: the dating schemes for the salt and amber are BS too."

Meaning, in your not-so-humble opinion, all of science is just "bs".
I'd say that's fine, there's no law requiring anyone to believe anything they don't want to.

So, your recognized scientific expertise to pass such judgments is... what?

Right, you have none. It's your religious belief.