'Extinct' Rodent Found Alive and Well

Fox News ^ | Friday, March 10, 2006 | Bjorn Carey

[Sopater]

A few months after researchers on one team thought they had discovered a new family of rodent, another group snatched their glory by identifying the critter as a member of a family thought long extinct.

Last year, scientists described the body of a squirrel-like rodent found for sale in a meat market in Laos. They believed it belonged to a previously undescribed family and named it Laonastes aenigmamus. [Locals call the rodent kha-nyou, according to The Associated Press.]

But they failed to fully inspect the fossil record. Upon closer analysis of the creature's teeth, a second group of researchers determined it was a member of the previously known rodent family Diatomyidae.

So a family thought to have died out 11 million years ago is still alive and kicking, the scientists report in the March 10 issue of the journal Science.

[Sopater]

Another "living fossil" bringing further evidence that the fossil record cannot be reliably used for determining when a species "appeared" or "dissappeared", nor can they be used for "indexing" other fossils.

[GQuagmire]

“Biologists need to get out there and find some living ones,” Dawson said.”

Pass.

[WorkerbeeCitizen]

Global warming - Bush’s fault.

[Puppage]

[ClearCase_guy]

Found Alive and Well

Well, strung up and for sale at a local meat market, really.

[mysterio]

Another "living fossil" bringing further evidence that the fossil record cannot be reliably used for determining when a species "appeared" or "dissappeared", nor can they be used for "indexing" other fossils.

Let me see if I have this straight.

a. a species we thought was extinct is not extinct.
therefore
b. the fossil record can no longer be used to index because of (a.)

That's quite a logical leap.

[mewzilla]

[N. Theknow]

Headline #1

'Extinct' Rodent Found Alive and Well

Headline #2

HILLARY COUGHING, WHEEZING AT COMMENCEMENT (Hillary the Wheezer Geezer)

[Coyoteman]

Another "living fossil" bringing further evidence that the fossil record cannot be reliably used for determining when a species "appeared" or "dissappeared", nor can they be used for "indexing" other fossils.

You seem to report with such glee any new finds by science which either revise or extend existing information.

One could get the impression that you actually hate science, and the results of scientific investigations.

Hmmmm. That reminds me of something:

Creative author: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Charles Lutwidge Dodgson, Alice in Wonderland

Evolutionist: "Why, sometimes I've seen new evidence explaining as many as six formerly unexplained things before breakfast."

Creationist: "Bah! I will never believe those six recently explained things, and besides, Darwin, Hitler and Stalin ate breakfast."

[Stolen from the now-banned PatrickHenry]

[Ciexyz]

ping

[Red Badger]

Kill it & Grill it!..........

[Osage Orange]

Snuff it...& Stuff it!

[Sopater]

Many species thought to be extinct have been discovered to infact not be extinct.
source: http://www.newcreationism.org/Living_Fossils.html

Each unto itself, is evidence that the fossil record cannot be reliably used as an index to date other fossils.

This is not a logical leap, friend. What this shows is that it may be "scientific" to state that species 'A' shows up in the fossil record from 'here' to 'there', and does not show up in the fossil record below 'here' nor above 'there'. However, it is NOT "scientific" to say "Therefore, species 'A' evolved at time 'x' and became extict at time 'y'." That bold statement is a logical leap of faith.

[ClearCase_guy]

Seems pretty clear to me. Look at the Coelacanth. It had been thought to have gone extinct 65 million years ago. Picture a (hypothetical) fossil being found in 1937 which shows Homo Sapiens and a Coelacanth together. Whoa! Humans are either 65 million years old, or the fossil record is made somewhat questionable.

But wait! In 1938 a living Coelacanth was discovered, so the odd (hypothetical) fossil found in 1937 can now be explained.

But if we find living fossils, how much faith can we put in using extinct species for indexing of other fossils? Sure we don't have a fossil with humans and Coelacanths together, but -- as evidenced by this rodent -- some of the extinct animals are not extinct. Or did not go extict when we think they did.

[dfwgator]

Richard Gere rejoices.

[Theo]

No, Sopater loves science. That’s why he enjoys pointing out the flaws in the “fossil record,” something evolutionists embrace in their crusade to discount the relevance of a creator.

[Sopater]

One could get the impression that you actually hate science, and the results of scientific investigations.

Wrong Coyoteman. I love science and the results of science. What I hate is a senseless defense of ideology despite the evidence and calling it science. Wouldn't you agree?

Perhaps you can explain how this new evidence "supports" any claim that the time that a species came into existence or extinction can be determined from the fossil record.

[PierreLegrand]

Perhaps some doubt is in order regarding certain assumptions regarding the fossil record. After all:

Fossil Record: Prior to 1938 coelacanths were known only from fossils and were thought to have gone extinct approximately 65 million years ago (mya), during the great extinction in which the dinosaurs disappeared. The most recent fossil record dates from about 80 mya but earlier records date back as far as approximately 360 mya. At one time coelacanths were a large group comprising about 90 different valid species that were distributed around the world in both marine and freshwaters. Although Latimeria is a genus distinct from the fossil forms, all coelacanths share numerous features and are easily recognized by their distinctive shape and lobed fins.

65 Million years is a sort of long time...

[Ditter]

LOL! That poor man is ugly enough without you making him uglier.

[Coyoteman]

No, Sopater loves science. That’s why he enjoys pointing out the flaws in the “fossil record,” something evolutionists embrace in their crusade to discount the relevance of a creator.

"Loves science"? HA!

It is scientists who are correcting the "flaws" in the fossil record, not creationists.

Creationists are the ones who dance and cavort with glee when science either makes a mistake or corrects a mistake. That is definitely anti-science.