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.
"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."
And you are mistaken. There is nothing about this discovery that means anything bad for the ToE. This is a paleontology issue, not an evolutionary biology one. In fact, I am not even certain that the article is saying that this EXACT species was around 11 million years ago. All I read is that the family this rodent belongs to was thought to have been extinct. This species could in fact be the descendant of a species, or a number of species, that were last found in the fossil record 11 million years ago. In other words, 11 million years ago there was a species, let's call it A. This species split to form species B, but species A went extinct eventually. Species B could be the one we see now, or a subpopulation of B could have formed species C, which could be the one we see now.
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.
The article from the AP/Yahoo does a poor job of describing this. In fact, it makes a pretty basic error by saying that the species is called Diatomyidae, which is impossible, because species names never end in *dae*. Diatomyidae is in fact the FAMILY name of the otherwise extinct group of rodents. I wish I had a subscription to Science so I could get the actual article in its entirety.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/311/5766/1456
All this discovery does is very slightly amend the Tree of Life. It requires absolutely no change to the ToE, as it goes against none of the tenets of the ToE.
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.