Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Rat-Squirrel Not Extinct After All (Scientists off 11 Million years)
The AP via Yahoo! News ^ | March 9, 2006 | Lauran Neergaard

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: allsquirrelsarerats; bloodbath; squirrelarmy; squirrels
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-242 next last
To: Potowmack
Not really. It's interesting that this species survived longer than we thought it did, but that doesn't really "mess up" anything.

Right, no big deal. It just gives folks who hate science anyway a chance to laugh.

41 posted on 03/09/2006 3:21:06 PM PST by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Angelas; presidio9; Idisarthur; Hegemony Cricket; A knight without armor; new cruelty; SunkenCiv; ..
Image hosting by Photobucket
42 posted on 03/09/2006 3:25:52 PM PST by pcottraux (It's pronounced "P. Coe-troe.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: zipp_city
I guess some will say it re-Evolved in 11 million years.

You guess wrong, no one will say that.

But the facts are it has not changed at all.

That's a possibility, but I'd be willing to lay money on the proposition that it has changed in some respects, albeit perhaps minor ones.

43 posted on 03/09/2006 3:30:42 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned
yeah, but it sure messes up their charts. LOL

Not really, no.

44 posted on 03/09/2006 3:31:50 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

Ok ok , geesssh just trying to keep it light.


45 posted on 03/09/2006 3:35:36 PM PST by ConsentofGoverned (if a sucker is born every minute, what are the voters?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr
he stopped evolving?

If the rat squirrel adapted successfully to a particular ecological niche that remained basically unchanged, there would be no pressure for evolving.
46 posted on 03/09/2006 3:39:20 PM PST by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser; new yorker 77
For those of us who subscribe to a "young Earth," creationist view, this comes as no surprise.

Of course not, because anything can be rationalized when you don't care about actually matching the totality of the evidence.

These fossils, like virtually all others, were "dated" in accordance with their presumed place on the evolutionary tree.

This is a gross falsehood. Where did you "learn" about science, from creationist pamphlets?

(Check out the criticisms of circular fossil dating even among mainstream biologists).

Ah, right you mean "check out the out-of-context 'quotes' that creationists like to present in ways that dishonestly try to make it appear that 'mainstream biologists' have 'admitted' to circular dating methods"... You *have* been reading the creationist pamphlets, I see.

If you removed evolutionary theory bias from the dating equation, there would have been no basis for the 11 million year age of the fossils in the first place.

Utter horse manure. Here, try to learn something on this topic for once before you spout any more blatant falsehoods: Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale: Circular Reasoning or Reliable Tools? , and Radiometric Dating Resource List.

I'm only surprised that biologists didn't choose to disbelieve their "lying eyes" in favor of evolutionary dogma!

I'm only surprised you posted as few of your "lying claims" as you have -- people ignorant of science usually post giant screeds of anti-evolutionary dogma. At least you were restrained in the amount of ignorance you chose to add to the discussion.

47 posted on 03/09/2006 3:41:25 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
OK, one good weasel hairpiece deserves another. Anyone remember this guy????


48 posted on 03/09/2006 3:44:22 PM PST by Defiant (Muslim Unitarian:There is no God but Abraham's, and Mohammed said he was his prophet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bvw; zipp_city; Bingo Jerry
Obviously the little mammal hasn't read Judge Jones' Dover PA ruling!

You're babbling incoherently again. I just thought you'd like to know.

Evolution is a fact, lil' tree shrew.

True.

So you didn't bother to evolve you're breaking the LAW!

False. Are you really this ignorant of biology, or do you just enjoy using falsehoods in order to dishonestly ridicule something which doesn't actually deserve it because it doesn't actually make the claim you impute to it?

Don't plan any trips to the Middle US Judicial District of PA, Mr. Rat-Squirrel -- you may be thrown in jail.

Babbling again.

49 posted on 03/09/2006 3:44:56 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Potowmack

It's hurts evolutionist's credibility.

If evolutionists could be wrong about this. What might they also be wrong about?

Is the fossil record so sparse that this creature could survive for 11 million years without a trace? And if so, what other creatures were alive before or after their alleged dates giving by evolutionists?

Were the fossils of this creature assigned the wrong dates? Were evolutionists looking at fossils that were only a few hundred or thousand years old, and thinking because it is an extinct creature, that the fossils were much older than they are?

Was this creature used to date the strata and other fossils like like the Coelanthe was? How many other fossils are assumed to be 11 million years old because they were found in the same strata as a rat squirrel?

And did anybody ever go back and revisit the justification for dates for stata or fossils that were dated based on the Coelanthe? Does anybody even remember how many dates could be affected?

That's part of the problem that we have with the whole story that evo's keep pushing. How much of it is based on science? Is that science good or bad science? How much is based on assumptions and evolutionary bias? How much is based on false assumptions like rat skirrels being extinct?

We don't know but we suspect A LOT!!!

It's not the death knell. God showing up today with a video tape of just how he created the creatures, which ones were created unique and which ones were the result of natural selection of genetic potential in the originals, where the mistakes in our science are, and answering all of the evolutionist's objections wouldn't be the death knell of evolution.

Because tomorrow some evo is going to print a story about how mentally retarded palm walking Turkish people are proof that man evolved from apes.


50 posted on 03/09/2006 3:45:02 PM PST by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WKB; ConsentofGoverned
What's a few million years one way or the other anyway? That's like a nano second to the

No it isn't, but thanks for sharing your misconceptions with us.

51 posted on 03/09/2006 3:45:47 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Elpasser; ConsentofGoverned
I'm only surprised that biologists didn't choose to disbelieve their "lying eyes" in favor of evolutionary dogma!

This has nothing to do with evolution, because evolution says nothing about how long a species must exist before it becomes extinct.

Your problem WRT the rat-squirrel is soley with geology and physics (which together have built up a mountain of evidence for an old Earth), not evolution.

52 posted on 03/09/2006 3:47:09 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Life and Solitude in Easter Island by Verdugo-Binimelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
[To reappear after 11 million years is more exciting than if the rodent really had been a new species]

This from a supposedly well educated naturalist!!! No reappearance or discovery involved.

Oh, relax -- you know what he means.

53 posted on 03/09/2006 3:48:21 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
Was this creature used to date the strata and other fossils like like the Coelanthe was? How many other fossils are assumed to be 11 million years old because they were found in the same strata as a rat squirrel?

And did anybody ever go back and revisit the justification for dates for stata or fossils that were dated based on the Coelanthe? Does anybody even remember how many dates could be affected?

I think you're woefully mixed up about the coelacanth, Danny.

54 posted on 03/09/2006 3:49:34 PM PST by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Life and Solitude in Easter Island by Verdugo-Binimelis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: R. Scott; wallcrawlr

So then wouldn't everything in that niche have reamined the same then, if there were no pressure to change. And if there was pressure to change, then why did this one stay the same?


55 posted on 03/09/2006 3:49:58 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: ConsentofGoverned; zipp_city
["I guess some will say it re-Evolved in 11 million years. But the facts are it has not changed at all."]

but but that means the evolutionists were wrong about this rat.. P>} No, it doesn't. You folks are fond of misrepresenting evolutionary biology, aren't you?

dang I thought evolution was well THE TRUEST THEORY OF ALL,

More misrepresentation -- it's an overwhelmingly well-established theory, yes, but no one's goofy enough to say that it (or any other theory) is "THE TRUEST THEORY OF ALL", because that's rather a nonsensical way to describe things.

HOW COULD THEY BE SO WRONG.

They weren't. This discovery poses no problems whatsoever for evolutionary biology. Why do you hallucinate that it does?

lets not bring it up in class the kiddies need not know.

Are you always this wild-eyed, or did I just catch you on a bad day?

56 posted on 03/09/2006 3:51:28 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DannyTN
If evolutionists could be wrong about this. What might they also be wrong about?

What, if anything, did the continued existence of this species have to do with the TOE?

Is the fossil record so sparse that this creature could survive for 11 million years without a trace? And if so, what other creatures were alive before or after their alleged dates giving by evolutionists?

Dunno. What, if anything, does this have to do with the TOE?

Were the fossils of this creature assigned the wrong dates? Were evolutionists looking at fossils that were only a few hundred or thousand years old, and thinking because it is an extinct creature, that the fossils were much older than they are?

None of the above. This species lives in an isolated part of the world where few scientists have ever gone. Maybe, in the past, it was more wide-ranging.

Was this creature used to date the strata and other fossils like like the Coelanthe was? How many other fossils are assumed to be 11 million years old because they were found in the same strata as a rat squirrel?

What makes you conclude that the fossils of this species that scientists have concluded are 11 million years old are actually newer?

And did anybody ever go back and revisit the justification for dates for stata or fossils that were dated based on the Coelanthe? Does anybody even remember how many dates could be affected?

What makes you think the old coelcanth fossils were not, in fact, as old as scientists think they are?

57 posted on 03/09/2006 3:51:30 PM PST by Potowmack ("Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Defiant

Trafficant looks better than usual. Didn't he just get out of prison?


58 posted on 03/09/2006 3:52:32 PM PST by dynachrome ("Where am I? Where am I going? Why am I in a handbasket?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Bubbatuck; wallcrawlr
Not sure what "theory" you're talking about. I know of no "niche" theory. Is it your assertion that animals MUST keep changing, absent any reason to do so?

Even Darwin postulated that some species might undergo long periods of little or no evolutionary change -- apparently wallcrawlr is at least 147 years behind on his science reading. But then this comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed his posts.

59 posted on 03/09/2006 3:53:30 PM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
You are more than welcome Itchy

Over bridge of sighs
To rest my eyes in shades of green
Under dreamin' spires
To Itchycoo Park, that's where I've been

What did you do there?
I got high
What did you feel there?
Well I cried
But why the tears there?
I'll tell you why
It's all too beautiful
It's all too beautiful
It's all too beautiful
It's all too beautiful

I feel inclined to blow my mind
Get hung up feed the ducks with a bun
They all come out to groove about
Be niceand have fun in the sun

Tell you what I'll do (what will you do?)
I'd like to go there now with you
You can miss out school (won't that be cool)
Why go to learn the words of fools?
What will we do there?
We'll get high
What will we touch there?
We'll touch the sky
But why the tears then?
I'll tell you why

It's all too beautiful
It's all too beautiful
It's all too beautiful
It's all too beautiful

I feel inclined to blow my mind
Get hung up feed the ducks with a bun
They all come out to groove about
Be nice and have fun in the sun

It's all too beautiful
It's all too beautiful
It's all too beautiful
Ha! It's all too beautiful
60 posted on 03/09/2006 3:56:40 PM PST by WKB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 241-242 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson