Posted on 03/09/2006 2:46:21 PM PST by new yorker 77
It has the face of a rat and the tail of a skinny squirrel — and scientists say this creature discovered living in central Laos is pretty special: It's a species believed to have been extinct for 11 million years.
The long-whiskered rodent made international headlines last spring when biologists declared they'd discovered a brand new species, nicknamed the Laotian rock rat.
It turns out the little guy isn't new after all, but a rare kind of survivor: a member of a family until now known only from fossils.
Nor is it a rat. This species, called Diatomyidae, looks more like small squirrels or tree shrews, said paleontologist Mary Dawson of Pittsburgh's Carnegie Museum of Natural History.
Dawson, with colleagues in France and China, report the creature's new identity in Friday's edition of the journal Science.
The resemblance is "absolutely striking," Dawson said. As soon as her team spotted reports about the rodent's discovery, "we thought, 'My goodness, this is not a new family. We've known it from the fossil record.'"
They set out to prove that through meticulous comparisons between the bones of today's specimens and fossils found in China and elsewhere in Asia.
To reappear after 11 million years is more exciting than if the rodent really had been a new species, said George Schaller, a naturalist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, which unveiled the creature's existence last year. Indeed, such reappearances are so rare that paleontologists dub them "the Lazarus effect."
"It shows you it's well worth looking around in this world, still, to see what's out there," Schaller said.
The nocturnal rodent lives in Laotian forests largely unexplored by outsiders, because of the geographic remoteness and history of political turmoil.
Schaller calls the area "an absolute wonderland," because biologists who have ventured in have found unique animals, like a type of wild ox called the saola, barking deer, and never-before-seen bats. Dawson describes it as a prehistoric zoo, teeming with information about past and present biodiversity.
All the attention to the ancient rodent will be "wonderful for conservation," Schaller said. "This way, Laos will be proud of that region for all these new animals, which will help conservation in that some of the forests, I hope, will be preserved."
Locals call the rodent kha-nyou. Scientists haven't yet a bagged a breathing one, only the bodies of those recently caught by hunters or for sale at meat markets, where researchers with the New York-based conservation society first spotted the creature.
Now the challenge is to trap some live ones, and calculate how many still exist to tell whether the species is endangered, Dawson said.
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained in the AP News report may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.
Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Excuse me, you are supposed to let Someone post "200". Since he or she has been denied her landolinks, he or she likes to count and he or she is good at it.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. And if you're going to refer to another Freeper, isn't it proper etiquette to ping them?
My point was they never dis-appeared in the first place for them to re-appear. They simply were never found.<<
I would disagree only slightly. Evidently the locals found them to be a tasty snack.
Depending on observations doesn't work well, if the phenomenon is observed only occasionally. Darwin's birds interbred. The fossil record is incomplete to a major degree.
"Evolution" is a theory and a fact. "Evolution" is the underpinning theory behind all biology, and has no MAJOR applications.
Evolutionists lost by allowing broad defitions, misdefinitions and obervational errors to abound. Ask anyone how species apply to bones? Morphology only. Guesses. Then apply leaps of faith to promote transitions, and you have...
Overpromoted, and underperforming "theory".
I like the thread though, the dino info was great.
DK
My point was they never dis-appeared in the first place for them to re-appear. They simply were never found.<<
I would disagree only slightly. Evidently the locals found them to be a tasty snack.
Depending on observations doesn't work well, if the phenomenon is observed only occasionally. Darwin's birds interbred. The fossil record is incomplete to a major degree.
"Evolution" is a theory and a fact. "Evolution" is the underpinning theory behind all biology, and has no MAJOR applications.
Evolutionists lost by allowing broad defitions, misdefinitions and obervational errors to abound. Ask anyone how species apply to bones? Morphology only. Guesses. Then apply leaps of faith to promote transitions, and you have...
Overpromoted, and underperforming "theory".
I like the thread though, the dino info was great.
DK
"The discovery that this species did not go extinct, like the discovery of the coelcanth, doesn't actually help or hurt the theory of evolution."
You have got to be kidding! This information (total extinction of a species ll million years ago) is being widely disseminated by evolutionists in public schools. To find that this information is erroneous doesn't affect the theory of evolution??
Anyway, you're always going to lose the debate if you try to prove religion using facts.
The good part is I don't have to PROVE anything
to anybody.
"You have got to be kidding! This information (total extinction of a species ll million years ago) is being widely disseminated by evolutionists in public schools. To find that this information is erroneous doesn't affect the theory of evolution??"
Are you joking?
First off nothing says any organism must evolve. If there is no reason to evolve then the theory then states that they won't evolve. Also evolution doesn't work by an entire species evolving into a new one, a new one branches off from the old one. So now there are two different species. So its possible that other species evolved from this species, but that has no reason to destroy the old one.
BTW doesn't the very fact that its 10.995 million years older than the earths supposed to be fly in the face of creationism?
"when a wrong date is given it almost always turns out to be far older than the carbon dating suggested"
Wow, that really instills confidence in evolution theory! (sarc)
Why should it? Just because some believe in a 6,000 years old earth, why do evolutionists automatically presume that ALL creationists have to? Usually it's just brought up as a point to ridicule and try to discredit creation by making it look silly because it doesn't fit with the lastest scientific findings. Besides, I seem to recall references to *if we ever found a rabbit skeleton from *X* number of years back, it would cause some wuestions about the ToE.* Well, here we have a situation where we have a current *modern* mammal that has fossils from 11 Million years ago, and instead of saying that it causes problems with the ToE, they label the animal as a *living fossil*. Interesting what a difference the perspective makes.
Or in Loch Ness. It would certainly be cool. Unlikely, however.
I'm basing my statement on the issue of credibility. It's like saying, "The earth is flat." Ooops! The earth actually turned out to be round. Kind of hurt the credibility of all the flat-earthers at the time. In fact, they are parodied to this day.
Evos claim a species became extinct ll million years ago, then Ooops! there it is. It has happened time and time again. IMO, it's a credibility issue, another nail in the coffin of evolution.
Why do you think it would be unlikely? Like I said, every inch of this earth has not been explored, and every species of plant and animal life has still not been discovered.
Just curious as to why you say it is unlikely.
"Every time you post the ToE becomes clearer and clearer."
Yep.
"DC2K you don't have to bother to ping the
Evil ones(EVOS) they read every word of every post
hoping to find something they understand."
I stand corrected.
My apologies, DK.
Let's be sure not to confuse them. ;o)
"It must be sad to be that lonely."
I wouldn't know, but I bet you do.
The niche didn't change for 11 million years? If the niche did change then the rat squirrel wouldn't have been so well adapted for it, and would theoretically, therefore had to change to fit the new niche.
It is?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.