Rat-Squirrel Not Extinct After All (Scientists off 11 Million years)

The AP via Yahoo! News ^ | March 9, 2006 | Lauran Neergaard

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It is?"

The extinction of this family of rodents was a central theme in all my biology classes, from grammar school all the way to college. I don't know what kind of backwater education YOU received.


:)

[Virginia-American]

Yeah, in Virginia we tend to fixate on the 'possum.

[Coyoteman]

"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)

Radiocarbon dating is only good back to about 50,000. Most of evolution relies on other forms of radiometric dating.

In general these methods are quite accurate, but as always, you need to exercise care in sample selection and avoid contamination. Even so, there is always an occasional wrong date. Doesn't mean a thing.

[Dark Knight]

I'm not saying it is, but if you read the abstract from the actual Science article, it only says that the discovered species is a surviving member of the thought to have been extinct FAMILY, not that it is the same SPECIES as one from 11 million years ago. There is nothing that says this SPECIES has been around for 11 million years.<<

Thanks for the link. What you say is extremely telling. We have a live example of a fossil, but we cannot determine it's species, just family.

The locals are toasting 'em on a stick, have been for years, biologists wouldn't go there, even though that was it's habitat but were willing to claim extinction.

I would also make the wild guess that if you looked in the area that this tasty morsel was found, you might find some fossils of it. It is common enough to be food.

I don't expect biologists to prove a negative. I do expect them to look first.

DK

But of course I fully expect this spicy little number to be declared a different species than the bones, something catchy like "Laonastes aenigmamus"...oops those pesky scientists did it already.

[Dark Knight]

It took you half an hour to come up with that?

Could be because I don't hang on line, waiting for replies. It must be sad to be that lonely.<<

But you do perfessor. I've had you so hopping mad, you whined to the mods I was stalking you. You said an incredibly dumb thing, I called you on it, and you defended the position to the point of idiocy.

Arrogance has a few drawbacks, and egos your size hate being proven wrong, even on a minor point.

Epistemology is not important in science.

LOL.

That'll keep you up tonight.

DK

DC 2000

Bullies are always insecure, and never want you to pierce their veil of bravado. I wonder if he will be able to wait three hours before replying?

[Reddy]

"when a wrong date is given it almost always turns out to be far older than the carbon dating suggested"

"Even so, there is always an occasional wrong date. Doesn't mean a thing."

OK, if you say so.

Credibility.

[Coyoteman]

"Even so, there is always an occasional wrong date. Doesn't mean a thing."

OK, if you say so.

Credibility.

You challenge my credibility in dating? I have done hundreds of radiocarbon dates, and have been studying the field for many years. And your expertise is... ?

The reason I say that an occasional wrong date doesn't mean a thing is that these things sometimes happen. There are always slight chances of sample contamination, collection mistakes, or even (rare) laboratory mix-ups. Anytime humans are involved there is the potential for error.

What we do when this happens is run more dates, to see if it can be repeated or if it is an isolated occurrence. On a site I am currently working on there was a gap between the two oldest dates of about 1200 years. That made me question the accuracy of that older date, so I submitted some more samples and got one right in between the two oldest ones. This gives that old date a lot more confidence.

By the way, this site has 18 radiocarbon dates currently, with 9 more being processed. That will be a total of 27 dates. This lets us establish the regularities of the occupation, identify any breaks in the occupation, and identify any problem dates.

Credibility? Yes, I think I have some.

Your turn.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"We have a live example of a fossil, but we cannot determine it's species, just family."

No. I am saying that the species alive today is not one of the species of this family alive 11 million years ago. If you look at what the scientists are saying, there is no indication from them that this is an 11 million year old SPECIES; it's the FAMILY that is at least 11 million years old. It was not expected that a member of this family would still be alive. At least one apparently is. It's a taxonomic footnote. Nothing more.

"But of course I fully expect this spicy little number to be declared a different species than the bones, something catchy like "Laonastes aenigmamus"...oops those pesky scientists did it already."

Yes, they named it Laonastes aenigmamus and it was thought it was part of a new family of rodents, but they were mistaken. It is the last known survivor of the family Diatomyidae. The scientists who originally named it thought it was an example of a new family. Then it was examined by other scientists and compared to the fossil record and it was determined that it was actually a member of Diatomyidae (which the sloppy AP/Yahoo News writer erroneously called it's species name).

[dixiechick2000]

Thank you, DN. ;o)

It will be interesting to see what
the answer to your question will be.

[mysterio]

Because for a large lizard to survive unchanged for millions of years where it is extinct everywhere else, there would have to be a warm climate (much warmer than the norm) and a large food supply. That's unlikely on some undiscovered island. I think dinosaurs exist. They are called alligators, chickens, and pigeons now.

[Dark Knight]

This rat was in Laos. It has been cooked up for supper for generations. Many large habitat areas are not being studied by naturalists rigorously. It's a tough job, no doubt. But they are to busy talking about evolution, rather than studying it.

DK

[UCANSEE2]

"They are called scientists."

Yes. But they have been known to have been as wrong as they have been right.

I am not trying to argue this case. I was just having fun with the idea that (according to scientists) rats were here before us. I don't follow this, but that doesn't matter.

Rats are pretty smart, ya know???????

I fought one over a bag of chips, and I had a knife, but he had a semi-auto. (sarcasm : )

Seriously, the rats were stealing various crackers from the tavern I was working in.

In the back room, below the flooring, we found the rats had stacked the crackers up in piles, unwrapped, BY TYPE.

I kid you not.

[R. Scott]

The niche didn't change for 11 million years?

There are several areas that haven’t changed much in 11 million years – that’s not a long time in geologic terms.

[S0122017]

"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)

SIGH Well it definately doesnt instill condifence in creationism and "a young earth" :) Besides only in those cases when the dating is IN ERROR is the true age older. Most datings really are good.\

If you know of a better way to date, why don't you write about it in nature?

[mysterio]

In the back room, below the flooring, we found the rats had stacked the crackers up in piles, unwrapped, BY TYPE.

I have always had kind of a zoo when it comes to animals. So when I got to college and lived in the dorms, I wanted to get a pet, but I was restricted to small animals that could live in a small tank. I went to the pet store and started checking out the rats they had for sale. There was one off by itself that said "trained pet rat" on the tank. I asked what it was trained to do, and no one seemed to know. I bought her for $6.

Well, she was a smart little bug. I found first off that she was trained to ride around in the sleeve of her owner. Freaked me out when she bolted up my sleeve, but I got used to it. She would ride in my sleeve everywhere and poke her nose out. Also, if you let her run around, she would only use the bathroom on a piece of newspaper in the corner of the room. Litter trained. She would also clean up the trash. I came back to the room, and she had found every crumb and stray scrap of paper and had moved it to the corner of the room by the trash can. The carpet was basically spotless. I had her as a pet for 4 years, and she was one of the best pets I've ever had.

[Potowmack]

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.

(Shrug) Science is self-correcting. Up until this species was re-discovered, all the evidence supported the claim that it went extinct 11 million years ago. We now know that it didn't.

Certainly interesting, but wholly irrelevant to the question of whether or not the TOE is correct.

[kinsman redeemer]

Anyone can quote the Bible to prove anything.

Prove it.

LOL

[curiosity]

Can you please cite me the chapter and verse where Our Lord says that rejecting evolution is a requirment for spiritual rebirth?

[WKB]

Can you please cite me the chapter and verse where Our Lord says that rejecting evolution is a requirement for spiritual rebirth?


John 17:24 “Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world."

Then:
Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created....

Because God The Father and God The Son were here BEFORE the creation of the world, I see no wiggle room for
"little wiggly things" on their own for no apparent rhyme or reason to have been the beginning of life forms.
Rejection of evolution is not a requirement for salvation
but salvation is a rejection of evolution.

[WKB]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1593422/posts?page=239#239