Slashdot Mirror


Fossil Rises From its Grave

gokulpod writes "Scientific American reports that a family of animals known as Diatomyidae thought to have been dead for 11 million years has been discovered in Laos. From the article: 'Fossilized remnants of this group have been found throughout Asia with a distinctive jaw structure and molars. It represents a rare opportunity to compare assumptions derived from the fossil record and an actual living specimen to determine overall accuracy of the techniques involved. This discovery also provides a compelling argument for preservation efforts in Southeast Asia.'"

192 comments

  1. i'm sorry by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    but i would have preferred something called a "rat-squirrel" remain extinct

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:i'm sorry by Carbonated+Milk · · Score: 1

      Would we still think squirrels are cute if we called them "tree rats"?

    2. Re:i'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just as long as its not called a rat-monkey.

      http://imdb.com/title/tt0103873/

    3. Re:i'm sorry by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      In a lot of places they are called tree rats.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    4. Re:i'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's so CUUUUUUUUUUUTE!!!

    5. Re:i'm sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but i would have preferred something called a "rat-squirrel" remain extinct

      Not to worry--give us another 10 years or so to finish destroying its environment and it will be again.

      HTH.

    6. Re:i'm sorry by MindKata · · Score: 1, Funny

      Well, I guess its like the old saying, squirrels are rats with good PR.

      --
      There are 10 kinds of people in the world... those who understand binary and those who don't.
    7. Re:i'm sorry by omega_cubed · · Score: 1
      --
      Engineers also speak PDE, only in a different dialect.
  2. Obligatory comment (Regarding title) by Drac8 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one welcome our new fossilized overlords.

    1. Re:Obligatory comment (Regarding title) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, you have to explain your joke in your title.... and the joke isn't even funny!

      Ya know.... I mean..... god! There are no words to describe my disgust for that joke.

    2. Re:Obligatory comment (Regarding title) by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jesus, you have to explain your joke in your title.... and the joke isn't even funny!

      I'm no expert here but he never claimed he was "Jesus"

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    3. Re:Obligatory comment (Regarding title) by mabba18 · · Score: 1

      Jesus won't rise from his grave for another month.

      --
      The third most important thing I have learned in life: Squeeze anything hard enough and it eventually makes a noise.
    4. Re:Obligatory comment (Regarding title) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm no expert here but he never claimed he was "Jesus"

      Surely you welcome our lazarithen Asian fossilized rodent overlords who may or may not claim they are Jesus.

    5. Re:Obligatory comment (Regarding title) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm the parent AC and I got your joke.

  3. Let's Hear it for the Dinosaurs! by justanyone · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's introduce this little guy to the TRS-80, a '59 Chevy, and the reincarnated ghost of Archie Bunker!

    1. Re:Let's Hear it for the Dinosaurs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your ideas interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

    2. Re:Let's Hear it for the Dinosaurs! by bxbaser · · Score: 2, Funny

      there goes my business plan of intergrating computers into classic cars.
      My dads gonna say "I told you so meathead."

  4. bigfoot by wesw02 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Any word on bigfoot?

  5. verifying assumptions by goldfita · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You don't have to find an animal previously believed extinct. There are millions of species around. Just put together case studies of known living animals. Then have a group unfamiliar with the species of interest try to predict its characteristics from genealogical family members.

    1. Re:verifying assumptions by Saven+Marek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You don't have to find an animal previously believed extinct. There are millions of species around. Just put together case studies of known living animals. Then have a group unfamiliar with the species of interest try to predict its characteristics from genealogical family members.

      This was done on a national geographic special several years ago. Individuals and Groups of knowledgeable biologists were given the same details they'd get from just the fossilized remains of different unique animals and given the task of reconstructing the live animal in behaviour, habitat and so on. One example was a kind of lemur I think from madagascar. The group were given a partial crushed fakely fossilized skeleton along with information on where it was supposedly found and some of the fossilized plant remains found with it in this scenario. Overall the groups working together came up with an accurate picture of the real animal where individuals had a success rate that varied from complete nonsense right up to accurate. Some other groups had bird types or reptiles and so on.

    2. Re:verifying assumptions by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you're missing the point.

      Fossils usually only provide a limited insight into the physiology of the animal being studied. Comparing the fossil records to "genealogical family members" is just more educated guessing.

      Think of this as a super-collider. Up to a certain point, physicists (fossil hunters) can play with numbers (fossils) and essentially guess at what they think is going to happen. Then they get a multi-billion dollar super-collider (or find an animal that shouldn't exist) to test their theories & see if the guess matches the reality.

      Yes, the guesses are educated and based in hard reality, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't validate your guess given the chance.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    3. Re:verifying assumptions by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I think all the monkey species are 95%+ like us humans. Yet they cover a big variety in apperance, living conditions, diet and behavior. The closest ones are 99%+ us, but they're still pretty far from being human. What you're saying just doesn't make any sense if you don't have any close genetic relatives, you can't interpolate or extrapolate from elephants and tigers and lizards to end up with monkeys.

      What these rare opportunities are is a chance to see how accurate the methods is. Normally, you do exactly the kind of logic that you do, you have a fossil and you retrofit it with characteristics of current animals which may or may not be accurate. So how much information is in the fossil itself, and how much is you simply making the theory fit the data? Which is exactly what your panel would do as well, one educated guess "validating" someone else's educated guess. Here's the chance when you haven't had any current close relatives, no bias. How accurately have they predicted this animal? That is what's interesting here, not that you can make something fit the data.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:verifying assumptions by Excen · · Score: 1

      Well, I think all the monkey species are 95%+ like us humans. Yet they cover a big variety in apperance, living conditions, diet and behavior. The closest ones are 99%+ us, but they're still pretty far from being human.

      You're missing the point. This animal has roughly the same skeleton as the fossils in question. The scientists are comparing predicted habitat to the actual habitat of a creature with nearly-identical bone structure. Last I checked, I didn't have arms that reached to my knees like an orangutan. To put it in laymans' terms, they're comparing Orville Reddenbacher to Act II, while you're comparing Creme Brulee to a dog turd.

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    5. Re:verifying assumptions by Ruud+Althuizen · · Score: 1
      It represents a rare opportunity to compare assumptions derived from the fossil record and an actual living specimen to determine overall accuracy of the techniques involved.

      I wonder how long the creatures will still be alive. Since most scientists want to know the ins and outs of a creature that they find interesting.

      --
      **TODO** Steal someone elses sig.
    6. Re:verifying assumptions by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      "If you try and take a cat apart - to see how it works - the first thing you have on your hands... is a non-working cat."

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

    7. Re:verifying assumptions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually chimps are 96% identical. 99% is an outdated guesstimate

    8. Re:verifying assumptions by breadboy21 · · Score: 1

      Bananas are 65% like us... yet noone seems rushed to declare us fruit.

  6. Coelacanth by quanticle · · Score: 1

    Is this another Coelacanth?

    --
    We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    1. Re:Coelacanth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Less annoying would have been: "I know how to spell coelacanth!" In case you really aren't sure, the answer to your question is, of course, YES!

    2. Re:Coelacanth by bigpicture · · Score: 1, Funny

      Millions of years old fossils, and then live specimens of identical genus. Does the theory of evolution have to be reworked?

    3. Re:Coelacanth by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Informative

      No.

      Next question?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    4. Re:Coelacanth by Troutrooper · · Score: 1

      The only theories that may have to be updated are those relating to extinction rates and geologic periods; that is, any theory related to what animals survived the last ice age, how animals cope with drastic changes in the weather, etc. This has nothing to do with the theory of evolution (which should be the law of evolution).

    5. Re:Coelacanth by Mahou · · Score: 1, Troll

      a species, a sexually reproducing one, going unchanged for millions of years* has nothing to do with evolution**?? WOW

      *why no, i haven't RTFM'd
      **preemptive: i'm not arguing against evolution and i don't believe in "id"

      --
      if i'm not immortal, what's the point of living?
      ...te?
    6. Re:Coelacanth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      No. It's a mammal.

      But I heard that they found one wearing a rubber coelacanth suit, complete with aqualung and flippers and pretending to be one.

      Is that the one you meant?


    7. Re:Coelacanth by Donut2099 · · Score: 1

      Well, at least we know how they don't cope with drastic weather changes. They don't become another species.

    8. Re:Coelacanth by phauxfinnish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who says it has gone unchanged? These are the descendents that just happen to be most similar to their ancestors. Its a branch that has not died out, a testament to the strength of this particular evolutionary adaptation. Or the creatures' luck in not having their habitat significantly altered. Other descendents, those forced to adapt to localized environmental changes, have likely been adapted through natural selection with different features. As far as the species in TFA, their appear to be known variations. Anyone know of variations of Coelacanth that have either died out (as far as we know) or still exist?

    9. Re:Coelacanth by Saanvik · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The linked article talks about species that have changed little over long periods of time and then poses the question, "Why have these life-forms stayed the same for all that time?". The answer is "Why not?".

      There's no explanation needed. Just because a species remains relatively unchanged for millions of years does not mean that evolution doesn't happen.

      It's like talking about black holes and then calling cosmology into question because our sun hasn't become one.

      BTW, the linked to article is a steaming pile of dung. If the rest of that periodical is written as poorly, I suggest you stop reading it. The linked article takes quotations from the New Scientist article out of context and implies that it was an article questioning evolution. It wasn't. There are lots of valid ways to question evolution, but twisting other people's words to support your point of view isn't one of them.

    10. Re:Coelacanth by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Seriously, is there an explanation to this?"

      I'm quite happy with the explanations those scientists mentioned in the Creationist article gave.

      Usually living fossils are organisms that
      - are superbly adapted to their particular environment/niche
      - have a high fecundity rates
      - are so generalised they can survive in several niches and conditions.

      And even in the case of the Coelacanth, we have to remember that those creatures were common back in their heyday. It's not like this one survived genus (Latimeria) is a wonder of unbelievable probabilities. Considering the multitudes of coelacanths before the KT extinction 65 m.y.a. it becomes actually quite probable that one genus (or the ancestors of the living genus) would survive even that cataclysm.

    11. Re:Coelacanth by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think there is a great misunderstanding about evolution at all: Evolution doesn't require livings to constantly change (and as a matter of fact it's not the single living, that changes, it's the long chain of generations which carries the change). Evolution says: If the environment changes (for what ever reason), the cards get newly shuffled, and what was a survival trait before can now be (but doesn't need to be) a disadvantage.

      Evolution theory claims that the livings best adapted to the environment survive, and that offspring always has a little variation to the parent generation, caused (for livings creating offspring by sexual contact) by recombination of the genes and mutation (which works also for parthenogenetic offspring). Thus every new generation is faced with a new challenge, and only those livings that are adapted just enough to breed will have offspring, the other lines will die out when the livings which weren't able to create offspring die (for whatever reason: old age, dropping of cliffs, being devoured by other livings, getting sick without recovery...).

      Living fossils are livings which didn't change very much since millions of years, and that could simply happen because each generation basically finds the same survival conditions than the generation before. Sharks and crocodils, gingkos and corals all have lived in environments where there was no big pressure on changing the building plan.

      "Living fossil" is just a description for a living, which is recent, but where there exists a large fossil record of similar livings, often reaching back in time for millions of years and often spawning more morphological variation than can be found today. That's nothing "anti evolutionary" or such. It just happens. And it will probably happen again that with exploring not yet fully explored habitats (like many parts of the rain forests), we will find recent livings of which until now we have only fossil records because they died out in most of their former environments due to changes they couldn't adapt to.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    12. Re:Coelacanth by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      If the other responses to your post seem, well, perhaps not detailed enough for you, I commend you to read Stephen J. Gould's magnum opus "The Structure of Evolutionary Biology".

      (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/06740 06135/104-1347749-8453522?v=glance&n=283155)

      When you get finished, get back with us.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Coelacanth by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      It's a lot less ugly then the Coelacanth. But then, most things are.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    14. Re:Coelacanth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gould is a creationist & a fifth columnist isn the science camp. He doesn't even believe in the hereditability.

    15. Re:Coelacanth by BigCheese · · Score: 1

      If it was common and now is mostly extinct rather then extinct. I don't think that would be much of an adjustment.

      --
      The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
    16. Re:Coelacanth by bigpicture · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The same answer they gave to Pons and Fleischman. The usual Scientific black or white dogma. The "maybe" answer never applies. Just ignore anything that might be contradictory. Very scientific, that's how all the new discoveries get made.

    17. Re:Coelacanth by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      The question is not about extinction rates, the last ice age was only supposed to have ended 12K years ago, not millions. The question is that if something that is supposed to be millions of years old is identical to something alive today, which is what I believe is implied. Then where is the so called evolutionary change?

    18. Re:Coelacanth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm. I guess it's possible to not evolve for 11 million years. Can anyone come up with another specific genus and species that hasn't? I think this finding creates a ripple in pure evolution?

    19. Re:Coelacanth by Trogre · · Score: 1

      Thank you for doing your part in keeping the faith.

      Your free "Evolve" fish logo and amusing "I came from nothing" postcards will be sent to your address courtesy of the Society for Preservation and Education of Evolutionary Dogma.

      Have a nice day.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    20. Re:Coelacanth by FatAssBastard · · Score: 1

      I think this finding creates a ripple in pure evolution?

      You think this because you're dying to find any flaw in evolution theory, probably because it conflicts with your religious beliefs.

      Besides, wtf is "pure evolution"?

      --
      /.: why the hell am I here?
    21. Re:Coelacanth by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      1. Nobody ignored Pons and Fleischman; quite the opposite. Every physics lab in the world tried to replicate their results. Nobody could. Ergo, they were wrong. FWIW, I don't think they were intentional frauds -- I think that they got some exciting early results, and jumped the gun on announcing them before those results could be verified. But the idea of a Sceintific Establishment Conspiracy to suppress their work bears no relation to the truth.

      2. This isn't even a P&F type case (if P&F had been right, we would have had to rethink some fundamental assumptions about how fusion works.) The discovery of this animal presents no contradiction to evolutionary theory whatsoever. There's nothing here to "ignore." Why is this hard for you to understand?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    22. Re:Coelacanth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just a suggestion, but you should review the difference between 'evolution' and 'natural selection'. After the first paragraph I could no longer allow myself to believe you really knew what you were talking about.

    23. Re:Coelacanth by Copid · · Score: 1
      The same answer they gave to Pons and Fleischman. The usual Scientific black or white dogma. The "maybe" answer never applies. Just ignore anything that might be contradictory. Very scientific, that's how all the new discoveries get made.
      No, I think it's just that you really don't understand what you're talking about. Let's use a different example: "Balloon filled with helium falls upward! Is it time to rethink gravity?"

      Answer: No.
      Reason: Observation does not in any way conflict with currently accepted theory. Only with how some people misunderstand the theory.

      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    24. Re:Coelacanth by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      But I do understand that "no" is the result of a closed mind that is open to no other possibilities. Fixed in the flat earth Dogma.

      There is recent evidence of organic life forms that have fallen from space recently. If this is so then is it not possible that so called "evolution" mat have happened quite differently than the current Dogma.

      Could this mechanism not have somehow involved with prehistoric epidemics, infections and mutations? And before the big "no" comes up again, where is the evidence that it wasn't? And for that matter what is the scientific explanation for the millions of year old fossils being identical to the present day live species? An answer that stands the test of reason is required here which is not "no".

    25. Re:Coelacanth by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      But that is the whole point here, have you checked into what is happening with cold fusion recently? There are even private companies trying to commercialize cold fusion products. So Pons and Fleichman were not "WRONG" the phenomenon does exist, I'm not sure that they know what the mechanism is yet. But they have used fire in the past, even before they scientifically understood how it works.

      The tokamak crowd saw their funding dollars slipping away, the gravy train was coming off the tracks. So they did some back stabbing and character assassination. But did they ever apologize to Pons and Fleichman? I don't think so.

    26. Re:Coelacanth by Copid · · Score: 1
      But I do understand that "no" is the result of a closed mind that is open to no other possibilities. Fixed in the flat earth Dogma.
      I really think that the original response was a deadpan way of pointing out that you're wrong to imply that this new piece of data somehow didn't fit with evolutionary theory. If the data point was in conflict, I'd be right there with you. It's not in conflict, though, so you can hardly chalk somebody pointing that out up to "dogma." In fact, the word "dogma" gets thrown around way too frequently by people who are not familiar with the material. They get upset when their armchair notions of the way things seem to be don't match up with the results of careful study, and when the experts point it out, it's not ignorance on the part of the layman. It's always "dogma" on the part of the experts. Not every idea is a ground shaking notion that turns current theory on its head. Some ideas are just wrong. Like the idea that old, nearly unchanged organisms are somehow a problem for evolutionary theory.

      There is recent evidence of organic life forms that have fallen from space recently. If this is so then is it not possible that so called "evolution" mat have happened quite differently than the current Dogma.
      Sure, it's possible. It's also possible that the AES encryption algorithm may be broken tomorrow, and that would really shake up the crypto world. It has nothing to do with the original point, though, and it's not what you were shot down for saying. I think that the original subject was a rat-squirrel and whether it had any implications for evolutionar theory. If you can think of any, I'm all ears.

      Could this mechanism not have somehow involved with prehistoric epidemics, infections and mutations? And before the big "no" comes up again, where is the evidence that it wasn't? And for that matter what is the scientific explanation for the millions of year old fossils being identical to the present day live species? An answer that stands the test of reason is required here which is not "no".
      You've gone off on a complete tangent. Lots of biologists would be fascinated by the idea of organisms from space and how they might have affected the history of life's development on earth. Those same biologists would simply answer "no" to your original question. It was thought about, discussed, and put to rest long ago. The fact that you were dismissed for bringing it up is less of a reflection on the scientific establishment's "dogma" factor than it is a reflecton on the fact that you popped up with the biology equivalent of a newsgroup FAQ. Lots of us saw it coming and just had to shake our heads sadly when it was asked.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
    27. Re:Coelacanth by bigpicture · · Score: 1

      The point that you are missing is the air of absolute certainty about something when it is just not that absolute or certain. All of the known evidence does leave room for other interpretations. When I mean certainty I mean something where there can be absolutely no dispute. Then a "yes" or a "no" answer is appropriate. But not for the level of uncertainty about some aspects of the evolutionary "theory".

      Will the sun rise somewhere tomorrow, that is a "yes" answer, and the odds are pretty astronomically small that it won't. My issue is with your unsupported level of certainty (the "no" answer) and not with any theory, because in reality there are relatively few questions to which a "yes" or "no" answer is appropriate. I call it Dogma because it was this level of certainty about the sun revolving around the earth, that almost got Galileo burned.

    28. Re:Coelacanth by Sique · · Score: 1

      Natural selection is one of the aspects of evolution. So what?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
  7. "extinct" by Dark+Fire · · Score: 4, Funny

    "You keep using that word. I do not think that it means what you think it means..."

    1. Re:"extinct" by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Troll

      Damn, does this mean that Richard Nixon will be back? (Weasle-rat hybrid?)

  8. Evolutionary Highway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stuck in the slow lane?

  9. 11 Million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    Diatomyidae thought to have been dead for 11 million years

    Or 3,900 years...depending on whether you are wrong or not. Jesus saves!

    1. Re:11 Million? by HermanAB · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hmmm, I thought the general American consensus was 6000 years?

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    2. Re:11 Million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an Anon American Coward, I'd like to know how the age of this "mythical earth" stays constant as we move forward in time. Seems that such an age would increase over time. Silly Christians, Trix are for Philosophers.

    3. Re:11 Million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and takes half damage

    4. Re:11 Million? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's enough to pin it down to the nearest millenium :D

  10. It most have seen this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
  11. ......hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    .....you say fossil rising from the grave.....

    I call her my wife...

    1. Re:......hmmm by Mistshadow2k4 · · Score: 1

      About what I was thinking. Christ, the zombies weren't bad enough, now we have fossils rising from the grave too? I guess I need to go buy more bullets. Lots more.

      --
      I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
  12. Yes it's risen from the grave.... by SynapseLapse · · Score: 2, Funny

    But has it POWERED UP yet?
    Sorry, couldn't resist....

    1. Re:Yes it's risen from the grave.... by chembro84 · · Score: 1

      RIIIISEEE FROM YOUR GRAVE

  13. bob by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Much like Bob the dinosaur, the Diatomyidae has simply been in hiding.

    And also

    The reports of Diatomyidae's extinction have been premature. To correct this, the Museum of Natural History has offered $1000 for every dead Diatomyidae brought to them, as this is cheaper than correcting the records of Diatomyidae's extinction. And would make the scientists right again.

  14. "think smaller, more legs" by The+Waxed+Yak · · Score: 5, Funny

    Does this mean I can finally have my Ribwich again?

  15. March 11 at 11:11 by eyebits · · Score: 1

    You posted on March 11 at 11:11PM. That is impressive.

    1. Re:March 11 at 11:11 by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      no, what would be really impressive was if he posted on november 11th at 11:11PM. Bonus points if it was in the year '11.

    2. Re:March 11 at 11:11 by Cheapy · · Score: 1

      Is Armistice Day really that special?

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    3. Re:March 11 at 11:11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're on! See right here in 5 and a half years, mofo!

    4. Re:March 11 at 11:11 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bonus points if it was in the year '11.
      Shit - real bonus points for the year 1111.

    5. Re:March 11 at 11:11 by jericho4.0 · · Score: 1

      Only in your time zone.

      --
      "A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
    6. Re:March 11 at 11:11 by BootNinja · · Score: 1

      yeah, because armistice rhymes with solstice, and everybody knows that the charmed ones are most powerful on the day of the solstice. :)

    7. Re:March 11 at 11:11 by eyebits · · Score: 1

      What? I am not the center of the Universe?

  16. No but will you settle for Nessie?? by technoextreme · · Score: 1
    Any word on bigfoot?
    Aparently, everyone was making a big deal over an elephant??
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  17. Cthulhu saves... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    ... incase he's hungry later.

  18. Correction by brian0918 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Knowledge of the Laotian rock rat has been around for about a decade now, but it was originally classified in a new family, prior to its connection to the 11 million year old family.

  19. Carbon dating methods... by dantheman82 · · Score: 0

    A burning question... does this call into question the carbon dating methods that "proved" this creature was 11 million years old? Or does this finally prove that these creatures have resurrected from their fossilized remains?

    --
    This sig donated to Pater. Long live /.
    1. Re:Carbon dating methods... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Informative
      A burning question... does this call into question the carbon dating methods that "proved" this creature was 11 million years old? Or does this finally prove that these creatures have resurrected from their fossilized remains?

      Animals which died 11 million years ago can have their remains dated to 11 million years. Some of their descendants are still alive today, which doesn't change the fact that their ancestors died a long time ago.

    2. Re:Carbon dating methods... by DeathFromSomewhere · · Score: 1

      Hardly, carbon dating isn't useful at 11 million years.

      --
      -1 overrated isn't the same thing as "I disagree".
    3. Re:Carbon dating methods... by Aardpig · · Score: 1

      No. The fossilized remains were from species within the same genus, but not the same species as found today. Because we have found ancient homo erectus fossils, yet Man lives today, does not mean that carbon dating is wrong, nor does it mean that we were resurrected from homo erectus remains.

      --
      Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
    4. Re:Carbon dating methods... by SEE · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see you carbon date anything 11 million years old, given that carbon dating is only able to date things less than 0.06 million years old.

      But the answers are no, and no. Coelocanths are a previous example of "only known from millions-of-years-old fossils until found alive". And plenty of living creatures strongly resemble ancestral creatures that existed 11 million years ago. Sharks and turtles are the classic "evolved hundreds of millions of years ago, and then stopped because they were so well-adapted" animals, and there are vastly more if we drop the timeframe to a mere 11 million years. See, for example, the genus Canis, which dates back to the Miocene.

    5. Re:Carbon dating methods... by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · · Score: 5, Informative
      A burning question... does this call into question the carbon dating methods that "proved" this creature was 11 million years old? Or does this finally prove that these creatures have resurrected from their fossilized remains?

      It's important to realize that radio carbon dating can't be used to date anything that much older than around 50,000 - 60,000 years old. After that period of time, there simply isn't enough C14 left in the samples to measure. Another important thing to notice is that the amount of radioactive CO2 in the atmosphere varies with time, depending on cosmic radiation, so you have to use a reference to calibrate your result against, like dendrochronology or air captured in glaciers.

      In other words, this animal DEFINITELY wasn't dated with radiocarbon dating... the age was probably based geology - ie. how deep the animal was found. (But I'm not a paleontologist)
      --
      "I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
    6. Re:Carbon dating methods... by thedletterman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the nagging assumption behind this question is, if the carbon dating is in fact accurate, then why hasn't this species evolved in the last 11 million years? Survival of the fittest certainly has eliminated a large majority of their population, and if the current species had no significant variation from an 11,000,000 year old fossil.. It doesn't seem the two theories co-habitate well in this situation.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    7. Re:Carbon dating methods... by HotmanParisHiltonKam · · Score: 1

      Other radioisotopes are often used for dating fossils, along with location in the strata etc.

      E.g.: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

    8. Re:Carbon dating methods... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Interesting
      if the carbon dating is in fact accurate, then why hasn't this species evolved in the last 11 million years?

      More to the point, why have crocodiles not changed much in 100 million years?

      Perhaps it has something to do with the way creatures live. An organism which lives on the edge, so to speak, like a cheatah or a falcon, will experience selective pressure because there are so many ways for an individual in that species to fail at what they do.

      Crocs just float into the water until their prey happens to come along: doesn't matter what really, then they eat it.

      So maybe the answer is they they don't experience much selection pressure because of the (relatively) shit existance they live.

      Another possibility is that the Crocodile lifestyle is a kind of local mininum for which they are well suited. Any change would make them less fit and their environment (creeks, estuaries, ditches) aren't going away any time soon.

      I don't know about Diatomyidae, though.

    9. Re:Carbon dating methods... by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      "A burning question... does this call into question the carbon dating methods that "proved" this creature was 11 million years old?"

      Geez...

      Carbon dating can't be used to date anything older than some 40 000 years. It becomes too inaccurate after that. So the question to your, hmmm, uninformed question is a resounding No.

      And even IF we could use C-14 dating to date fossils older than 40 000 years, the answer would still be No. The fossil relatives of this new rodent species were just that - relatives - of the living creature, not the same animal. They belong to the same family, Diatomyidae. In short: the fossils would still be 11 million years old, the living individuals of the rodent species would be recent. Duh.

      My burning question is, when will Creationists start reading so that they'd actually know what they're talking about?

    10. Re:Carbon dating methods... by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      "Wouldn't you expect to see major differences between the descendents and their forbears?"

      Not necessarily.

      "If you say 'no' - how long DOES it take for something to evolve then!?!?"

      It depends. If an organism is well-adapted to its environment (check out the example of crocs in a post further below), selective pressures keep it the same way even during millions of years. Evolution doesn't occur at a fixed rate. Seems like you heard it here first.

      "Evolution is a glorified hoax."

      Sorry to burst your ideological bubble, but it isn't. It's a fact, a natural phenomenon happening out there all the time, no matter if you pull off the "lalalala-not-listening" creationist trick.

    11. Re:Carbon dating methods... by thedletterman · · Score: 1
      "Crocs just float into the water until their prey happens to come along: doesn't matter what really, then they eat it."

      That's a pretty simplistic view really isn't it? For example, doesn't the crocodile use river banks to lay their eggs? Don't you think over 100 million years, there must have been a point where natural selection would have evolved the ability to lay their eggs underwater to avoid prey or harsh climates?

      I mean if we're talking a hundred million years, there's got to be at least a few deficiencies in a cold-blooded reptile that could be tweaked or improved, given the chaotic changes the Earth has undertook in the last 100 million years.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    12. Re:Carbon dating methods... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > A burning question... does this call into question the carbon dating methods
      > that "proved" this creature was 11 million years old?

      No. There are issues with the radioactive dating, but this isn't one of them.

      What this *does* demonstrate is that the absense of any evidence (for instance, no known fossils, or no known living specimens) does *not* mean a creature is extinct; it just means there's no evidence. It is possible to know that a type of creature is *not* extinct, if you find living specimens, but it's generally not possible to know for certain that one *is* extinct, and it's *certainly* not possible to know that a particular thing was extinct X number of years in the past.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    13. Re:Carbon dating methods... by eln · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're assuming that the goal of evolution is to produce the best of all possible species, and that's simply not true. Evolution has no goal. Evolution is a series of random mutations. If a particular mutation happens to give an individual some sort of advantage as far as having offspring, that mutation will be carried on in successive generations. If not, it won't.

      Crocodiles have survived virtually unchanged, but that doesn't mean there hasn't been some mutations. Until we find some DNA from a crocodile from millions of years ago and compare it to a crocodile of today, we can't say that the croc has not changed at all in all this time.

  20. Fossil Record Accuracy vs Evolution by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 1

    "It represents a rare opportunity to compare assumptions derived from the fossil record and an actual living specimen to determine overall accuracy of the techniques involved. This discovery also provides a compelling argument for preservation efforts in Southeast Asia.'" Flawed statement for two reasons: a) If you could compare million years old fossils with today's living creatures of the same species to determine the accuracy of the technique, why not do it for animals known to have existed that far back (e.g crocodiles, some iguanas etc) b) Most importantly, if they find inaccuracies in the conclusions extracted from the fossil record of the thought to be extinct animal, how can they be sure that it is not evolution that caused the differences? In other words, the species in question involved a little, so that it does not match the fossil record. Point (b) also counters my point (a).

    1. Re:Fossil Record Accuracy vs Evolution by HankB · · Score: 1

      The problem with the crocodile is that anyone examining fossilized croc bones already knows what a modern croc looks like and what it does. They can't really speculate about what the fossils mean without considering the modern equivalent. Modern science has no knowledge of this animal so the interpretation of the fossil record is not tainted by that.

      Regarding evolution since then... That's not really an issue. They can look at what's similar with the modern animal vs. the fossil and see what it means in terms of the modern animal. Then they compare that to what they thought it meant in the fossil and they can critique their methods for interpreting the fossil. They can ignore any differences that have cropped up in the mean time as there is nothing to directly compare with that. (Of course examining the changes is interesting for other reasons, like investigating evolution.) -hank

    2. Re:Fossil Record Accuracy vs Evolution by slashdotmsiriv · · Score: 1

      "The problem with the crocodile is that anyone examining fossilized croc bones already knows what a modern croc looks like and what it does. They can't really speculate about what the fossils mean without considering the modern equivalent. Modern science has no knowledge of this animal so the interpretation of the fossil record is not tainted by that."

      A scientist doing a serious job evaluating the fossil analysis techniques would use the exact same methodology used to examine the fossils of extinct animals to examine the fossils of the crocodile. His speculations would be derived using that established methodology and he would directly compare it to the actual facts. If he can't get over the psychological factor that he already knows the actual facts then he wouldn't be a good scientist.

      "Regarding evolution since then... That's not really an issue. They can look at what's similar with the modern animal vs. the fossil and see what it means in terms of the modern animal. Then they compare that to what they thought it meant in the fossil and they can critique their methods for interpreting the fossil. They can ignore any differences that have cropped up in the mean time as there is nothing to directly compare with that."

      This makes no sense. It may be hard to tell which differences are due to bad fossil analysis and which are due to evolution.

      "Of course examining the changes is interesting for other reasons, like investigating evolution."

      This is already being done with non-extinct animals (including humans ) and their predecessors fossils.

    3. Re:Fossil Record Accuracy vs Evolution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A scientist doing a serious job evaluating the fossil analysis techniques would use the exact same methodology used to examine the fossils of extinct animals to examine the fossils of the crocodile. His speculations would be derived using that established methodology and he would directly compare it to the actual facts. If he can't get over the psychological factor that he already knows the actual facts then he wouldn't be a good scientist.

        I think you mean "then he would be a human being." We use double-blind methods for a reason, smartass. Telling a scientist to extrapolate from this ancient fossil that's obviously a crocodile, but without using his knowledge of the current crocodile is a lot like saying "Don't think of elephants." Go ahead, try not to think about elephants. If you do think of elephants, even for a second, even subconsciously, then you've contaminated your results and some internet dude will declare that you're "not a good scientist."

  21. Why... by AWhiteFlame · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it that a species thought to be extinct for 11 million years has now just been found, but somehow we seem to think we know the exact number of panda bears and such?

    --
    "Everything worth innovating today will go to court tomorrow."
    1. Re:Why... by brian0918 · · Score: 4, Informative

      "Why is it that a species thought to be extinct for 11 million years has now just been found, but somehow we seem to think we know the exact number of panda bears and such?"

      RTFA. The species wasn't just found. It's been around for at least a decade, but was originally classified in a new family, rather than being connected to the ancient family.

    2. Re:Why... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Pandas are a lot easier to spot, and therefore to count, than rats.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    3. Re:Why... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      Easy. Pandas are cute, herbivore, peaceful - gentle giants, with child-like features that make you want to hug them and go "awww, that's so cute".

      Rat squirrels, on the other hand... that doesn't exactly sound like a terribly attractive species. And even when they're really just another kind of small rodent (not necessarily terribly rat-like), they don't stand out in any way.

      Pandas, on the other hand, do. So call me cynical, but I think that yes, there is indeed a reason why we know the exact number of big pandas on the planet, while other animals go completely undetected for 11 or even 390 million years.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    4. Re:Why... by Smauler · · Score: 1

      Pandas, on the other hand, do. So call me cynical, but I think that yes, there is indeed a reason why we know the exact number of big pandas on the planet, while other animals go completely undetected for 11 or even 390 million years.

      Since homo sapiens is has only been around about 200,000 years, there is one one good reason why these animals went undetected by homo sapiens for 390,000,000 years or so.

    5. Re:Why... by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      You'd still think that a species that has been around for that long would catch our attention, though.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    6. Re:Why... by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 4, Funny

      It has, and the Laotians seem to think it's delicious. It's only caught the attention of Western Biologists recently. Laos has always been remote to the west, then you add in the unpleasantness of the 60s and 70s, and the problems to get funding for fauna inventories of faraway places, and you begin to get the picture.

      Meanwhil the Laotians are saying, "how inefficient of you Americans, having separate Rat and Squirrel species, rather than one integrated Rat-Squirrel, to take care of your rodentia needs."

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    7. Re:Why... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's been around for a bit longer than a decade.

    8. Re:Why... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember that Pandas live in the most remote areas of the great bamboo forests of china.. which are very dense and difficult to navigate and that we have had every difficulty in finding them to date. I'm fairly certain that their actual numbers are far from certain.. though still very low (course we can't be certain that this hasn't always been the case since they each require huge amounts of food and therefore territory).

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    9. Re:Why... by Anthony · · Score: 1

      There are many reasons I can think of for this. Size; economic importance of the creature and its habitat along with the habitat's accessibility; size of their egesta (easier tracking larger animals). Large creatures usually have a larger range because of the greater food needs. Or they live in highly productive areas which are often attractive to humans for economic reasons. And finally, Pandas are extremely well-recognised around the world. A small rodent with a tail to a casual observer looks like a rat.

      --
      Slashdot: Where nerds gather to pool their ignorance
  22. Moderator note Re:Obligatory comment by Stephen+Samuel · · Score: 2, Informative
    The "Jesus, you have to explain your joke in your title.... and the joke isn't even funny!" is quoted from an AC troll, which Bad D.N.A. was unfortunate enough to respond to (and quote).

    This is why the moderation guidelines (used to) suggest moderating at -1 -- so that you don't confuse a quoted response with a off-topic/troll original comment. If in doubt as to why something is posted, you can always click on the 'parent' link to make sure you know what is being responded to.

    --
    Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
    1. Re:Moderator note Re:Obligatory comment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what? the AC wasn't a troll, people who have to explain their jokes shouldn't make them, especially lame ones like what was posted. and i'm pretty sure bad d.n.a. got modded down because the AC never said that the original poster claimed to be Jesus. the AC was using "Jesus" as as an interjection, completely in vain but bad d.n.a. 'corrected' him. so really his post was kind of a troll, although not necessarily worthy of getting modded down.

    2. Re:Moderator note Re:Obligatory comment by Bad+D.N.A. · · Score: 1

      what? the AC wasn't a troll, people who have to explain their jokes shouldn't make them, especially lame ones like what was posted. and i'm pretty sure bad d.n.a. got modded down because the AC never said that the original poster claimed to be Jesus. the AC was using "Jesus" as as an interjection, completely in vain but bad d.n.a. 'corrected' him. so really his post was kind of a troll, although not necessarily worthy of getting modded down.

      And I do thank that one moderator that understood I was trying to make a joke.

      I think I'll change my sig to something like...

      the difference between a joke and a troll is /. subjective.

      --
      "Truth is much too complicated to allow anything but approximations"
    3. Re:Moderator note Re:Obligatory comment by JaxWeb · · Score: 1

      You made me laugh in any case =P

      --
      - Jax
  23. aaahhhhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thx, that was goood

  24. funny by idlake · · Score: 1

    Millions of years in the grave and it didn't even notice.

  25. Thank God... by tktk · · Score: 4, Funny
    I thought we were going to discuss the clothing line.

    A few of their watches are nice though.

    1. Re:Thank God... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Fossil is better known for their industrial design...

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  26. Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Israfels · · Score: 1, Insightful
    This discovery also provides a compelling argument for preservation efforts in Southeast Asia.

    Why preserve it? It's obviously been doing just fine for 11 million years.

    Also, why should we? I had evolution beat into my brain by every single environmental science teacher I've had since grade school. "Survival of the fittest", natural selection, and all that jazz. Then in the very same classes, and by the very same teachers, I'm told how nothing should ever go extinct and that if anything does that's a bad thing. Extinction is not a bad thing. Over 90% of the animals that ever existed are extinct and thanks to those animals going away, we now have the exotic animals we have today, including humans.

    Let the animal be, if it dies then that makes more room for some other animal that can fill the gap. If it lives and flourishes then so be it. Stop pretending to be God and control the natural evolution of animals. For people that don't believe in God, liberal extremists sure do think they are one.

    1. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Pinkoir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All good but for one thing. A large number of the species going extinct these days are not doing so as a result of Natural Selection wher-in they are out-competed and replaced in an ecological niche by some fitter successor. They are being killed off by us as we carpet-bomb the ecology. We don't replace any of the things we kill off (except for the large predators we offed early on in our rise to bad-assitude). Thus we are not a happy part of the happy circle of life. We're not pruning the evolutionary tree; we're chopping it down. -Pinkoir

    2. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Forbman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well, in a way we do replace what we nuke, but inadvertently or despite our best intentions. Think starlings, rock pigeons, Norway rats, gray squirrels, California sea lions, Himalayan blackberry, Cane toads, etc.

    3. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Frumious+Wombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because our role in extinction is closer to "Asteroid Impact" than "Sorry dude, you got out-competed". Being as we drove much of the North-American ice-age macrofauna into extinction, followed by the Auroch (17th century), Dodo (ibid), Passenger Pigeon (19th), almost got the Bison, Cod, and Whales, and are now probably going to finish off our genetic cousins, the Bonobo, for lunch, it would behove us to not casually slaughter something that has survived 11 million years mostly by our absence.

      We are the most effective predator ever, with the capability of destruction on a scale unachievable by all but the most extreme natural disastors. That's why we have to make a conscious effort to leave things be, and let nature take their course, rather than our current system "whoops, it doesn't do well in suburbia, guess it just deserves to go."

      --
      the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
    4. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. We humans outcompeted the animals with our technology then.

    5. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by russellh · · Score: 1

      Why preserve it? It's obviously been doing just fine for 11 million years.

      Preserve is used here in contrast to actively destroy.

      Extinction is not a bad thing. Over 90% of the animals that ever existed are extinct and thanks to those animals going away, we now have the exotic animals we have today, including humans.

      I highly doubt you know anything about conservation efforts in asia since you made such an abstract argument. You clearly have no interest in it either, because the answer is so simple to you. You managed to turn an interesting anecdote about the finding of an animal thought extinct into an occasion to blast your ideological enemies from your ethical high horse. You must be on the lookout for those liberal extremists everywhere.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    6. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it's been my experience that the "natural selection rules all" types and the "save the whales" types have been separate people who just happen to be in similar fields. That is, until you get into grade-school education, at which point all bets are for the most part off.

    7. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by thedletterman · · Score: 1

      I'll 'casually slaughter' all the rats I damn well please.

      --
      Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
    8. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forget that even without human intervention the past few hundred years, on a larger scale (10 000 years), we are witnessing one of the largest extinction events in world history, and no one knows why.

    9. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are three reasons for preservation, that should have been obvious to you (perhaps you didn't pay enough attention in class?), that probably appeal to your human-centric viewpoint:
      1) We are part of the ecosystem, just as other organisms are. Affecting an ecosystem by extinction of various populations can have unknown consequences that could potentially threaten human populations. For example - if bees were wiped out tomorrow, a very large number of plant species, including crop species would cease to be fertilised, and we would face massive food shortages.
      2) Preservation attempts for all species allows us to see what works and what doesn't. In the future, this could be vital if we have some other species that are directly necessary for human populations - consider it practice and refinement, so that we aren't caught short at some future point.
      3) Every species kept alive today is another species that may just have that protein, or medicinal compound that will cure a type of cancer, or a viral infecton like HIV etc.

      These are all reasons to try and preserve species for our own benefit. There are of course other reasons such as trying to reduce our negative impact on the world, increasing our scientific knowledge etc., but you obviously don't give a damn about anything that doesn't help you personally. Your only problem is that you are so short-sighted that you can't see that the world is altogether more complicated than you believe it to be.

      For example - preserving fish species is a good example on unintended consequences. Look at the economic downturn of the fishery industry and loss of jobs that resulted when Canada overfished cod fish stocks. Look at what's happening with all the fish stocks being depleted with no care for preservation. These species aren't even extinct, but the commercial decimation of their numbers has already resulted in huge losses for countries and industries as well as negative impacts on many villages, towns and human populations.

      Preservation of species is a good idea. If you don't think so, you just haven't learnt enough about the subject.

    10. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by BungoMan85 · · Score: 1

      My theory is that species these days have been far too specialized for their own good. They "adapt" themselves into extinction. If you can only survive in one specific environment you're not really all that well adapted now are you? That's why humans have dominated the shit out of earth. We can survive and flourish anywhere. Let's see the spotted owl do that!

      --
      Bungo!
    11. Re:Great, hypocrisy in action yet again. by Bazzalisk · · Score: 1
      No extinction is not a bad thing per se, anymore than turning the earth's atmosphere into a 90% CO2 hyper-greenhoused hellohole like venus is a bad thing in of itself - what we have to ask is: would it be a bad thing for us?

      Survival of the fittest is a statement of fact, not morality. It's simply what happens without any outside interference. Morality steps in when we have the capability to change it.

      Now certainly mass extinctions on the scale of teh current (human-created) one appear to have happened on earth before - and each has inevitably led to a boom in new species over the couple of million years that follow ... which is of no help whatsoever to the short-lived beings like us which have to live out their lives during those couple of million years (and by teh looks of it this mass-extinction won't end and the subsequent repopulation begin until humans stop killing things off or become extinct ourselves).

      --
      James P. Barrett
  27. Not at all by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    This discovery also provides a compelling argument for preservation efforts in Southeast Asia.

    I would say definitely this does not provide such an arguement at all.

    Obviously, these animals have done fine without scientists meddling around in their habitat. I read an article (possibly the linked article) about these animals a few days ago, and the scientists were 'eager' to trap a few live.

    Uh... I guess they'll need 'further funding' for the effort as well, we can figure.

    Habitat preservation is a serious issue, and I am not going to pretend it isn't important. But let's be real, the animals did fine without it up to this point, so this is hardly an instance where the evidence shows a 'compelling arguement.' It's just a newly discovered species.

    1. Re:Not at all by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Oh, I don't know. Up until now, no one has wanted to plow down a bunch of this animal's presumed habitat for a palm oil plantation.

    2. Re:Not at all by oldstrat · · Score: 1

      Until now no one could have been concerned about protecting a habitat for an animal that had in been wiped out - would have never been known.
      It sound pretty compelling to most thinking people.

  28. Oh, THAT Fossil... by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

    I thought my watch was coming back into style.

    1. Re:Oh, THAT Fossil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought my watch was coming back into style.

      What do you mean "coming back?"

  29. Funny... by rwven · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Funny how it mysteriously hasn't evolved at all over the last 11 million years...

  30. Ice Age by Koohoolinn · · Score: 2, Funny

    So Scrat really did survive the Ice Age.

    --
    Deze sig is in 't Nederlands geschreven.
  31. Wow. by baudbarf · · Score: 0, Redundant

    After 11 million years, I'd expect the descendants of those fossils to have evolved considerably... and yet, apparently, they haven't. It's like 11 million years of relative evolutionary stasis.

    --
    You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
    1. Re:Wow. by raoul666 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things don't evolve just for kicks. They evolve when there's pressure on them, and it's either survive or evolve. (And sometimes they don't survive, of course.) So if these guys found a niche that worked for them, why would they evolve anymore?

      --
      When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
    2. Re:Wow. by baudbarf · · Score: 1

      It's not just pressure - it's a mutation that gives a survival advantage BEFORE reproduction occurs. In 11 million years, I'd expect SOMETHING to happen to make it easier for those guys to survive!

      --
      You can run but you can't hide, except, apparently, along the Afghan-Pakistani border.
  32. Just to say this. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 4, Funny
    Until last year, the guy who's posted this story to Slashdot used to live in the very room I am posting from. In all my interactions with him, he didn't quite strike as a person who'd be looking up fossil-ized rat-squirrels, and seeing if they were indeed alive, much less pick them from the local wet-market and make kebabs out of them.

    So, gokulpod, while it's a known fact that I've dirtied the room more than you could ever imagine, should I nevertheless investigate the nether regions of your old wardrobe and really find out what's inside? Now that your true inclinations are out of the closet, I foresee a few skeletons dropping out of that cupboard.

  33. Arrrrrgh. by The+Cydonian · · Score: 1

    There's a 'that' missing somewhere.

  34. The world is a big place. A VERY big place. by jd · · Score: 5, Interesting
    And the habitable niches of a lot of living animals is extremely small. Due to urbanization and habitat destruction, there are only really two types of region left for animals - the virtually surrounded and the utterly remote.


    Panda bears, polar bears, African elephants, all of the surviving Great Apes etc, fall into the former category. This makes the territory easy to explore. It also means that the region will likely be heavily surveyed by both corporations and environmentalists, each trying to win concessions to their perspective.


    (Having said that, even well-studied populations aren't necessarily as well-understood as thought. At least one species of dolphin off the coast of New Zealand has turned out to really be two distinct species - drastically reducing the population of the first group. A group of Right Whales off the coast of Australia has also been demonstrated to really be multiple, genetically distinct species.)


    Extremely remote locations aren't as well-studied. It's much harder to send undergraduates to remote islands around Papau New Guinea. No beer. Very remote locations are extremely difficult and expensive to study, so they generally aren't. This is where the bulk of "new species" and "rediscovered species" are found. These locations are generally under much less pressure, which means that amateur and semi-professional researchers are unlikely to take the time and effort to go - they're generally needed much more elsewhere.


    Then, you've the problem of extremely small animals. The rediscovered woodpecker in North America is not the biggest bird on Earth, is highly mobile (duh!), blends in well with the environment, and is very probably terrified of people - the only people who go into that particular woodland being hunters. This rat-squirrel is likely smaller still, probably bleds in a lot better, and has had 11 million years of practice at running away.


    Finally, numbers are very important. If you mis-count by 10 out of 1000 elephants, the number is basically still the same. If you mis-count by 10 the number of Yahtzee River dolphins (of which there are somewhere between 0 and 33 left), it is somewhat more significant. The scientists have not seen any of these rat-squirrels alive and only the one that was caught. As far as anyone is concerned, that may have been the last one alive - at present, we have no evidence to the contrary. If populations have been extremely low and highly localized, which is likely the case, then it was sheer chance that it was ever seen at all. See the story behind the discovery of the Wollemi Pine for other such discoveries.


    (Numbers are absolutely critical when it comes to observing small species. It's easier to see one rhino from a mile off than ten dormice from a hundred feet, or a hundred fairy shrimp from five paces. As such, you need comparitively VAST numbers before you are likely to ever see anything at all.)


    I don't completely trust the population counts (see my comments about genetically distinct species) but the observations I've seen would imply the counts may be far too high in some cases, NOT the other way round. There will unquestionably be more "living fossils" discovered over time, but the numbers will remain insignficant compared to the number of species that have genuinely been driven extinct - by "natural causes" or by human activity. This find ADDS to the urgency of efforts to save what there is, not the other way round.


    (For a start, if its nearest cousin died off 11 million years ago, the population is likely genetically very similar, leaving it vulnerable to disease and genetic disorders. There is also no possibility of bolstering numbers through cross-breeding efforts - a rescue tactic used by some conservationists when "pure" populations are simply not possible any longer, as there's nothing left on Earth that will be even remotely close enough.)

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:The world is a big place. A VERY big place. by kfg · · Score: 1

      Due to urbanization and habitat destruction, there are only really two types of region left for animals - the virtually surrounded and the utterly remote.

      You left out a group:

      The thoroughly urbanized. Pigeons,sparrows, squirrels, rats, mice, cockroaches, etc. I actually had to deal with a racoon infestation inside the walls of my commercial building once upon a time. Urbanized animals tend to be overlooked because they're "just part of the scenery," but I think you should think about meat locker mice; and think about them really hard.

      KFG

    2. Re:The world is a big place. A VERY big place. by jc42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, but sometimes size isn't everything ...

      One of the interesting "living fossils" is the Metasequoia, known from fossils, but believed to have been extinct for tens of millions of years. The only known living sequoia species were the two in North America. Then, back in the 1940s, a single stand was discovered in western China. Botanists mailed seeds to other botanists, and now there are millions of them living all over the world.

      A metasequoia isn't tiny. A full-grown individual is one of the largest living things on Earth. Here in Boston, Harvard's Arnold Arboretum has a stand of them, and at about 55 years old, they're already spectacular trees. By the time they're mature, in a thousand years or so, they'll tower over everything in their vicinity.

      Of course, this is a case of a species not being "known to science" because it's sole remaining habitat was so remote and inaccesible to most scientists. There could well be more such unknown large species.

      Several nurseries around here sell metasequoias. I've been thinking of getting one and planting it in the front yard, as a gift to residents a few millenia in the future. I figure it'd be at least 200 years before it started pushing the house aside.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  35. less annoying source by mrmeval · · Score: 1
    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  36. Furthermore this has nothing to do with C14 dating by aepervius · · Score: 2, Informative

    TO GP : Because C14 dating goes only so far as a few 10 of thousands of year this is not even in question. Google for yourself, or go to wiki, I am tired to provide the link each time an evolution/carbon dating/fossile question pop up. For period of time this big other radio element with longer half-life or other method are used. This bring me to this rant : in these day of age with a wiki and google why is it so difficult to check fact for yourself ?

    --
    C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
    visit randi.org
  37. Spiced Rat (SPRAT) by Ichijo · · Score: 2, Funny
    "Why preserve it? It's obviously been doing just fine for 11 million years."
    Nonono, preserve, as in sausage. Save-it-for-later sort of thing.
    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  38. After 11 million years ... by Macka · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... why isn't this thing walking on two legs, wearing glasses and solving quadratic equations ?

    1. Re:After 11 million years ... by Saanvik · · Score: 1, Troll
      Maybe because those things wouldn't help it survive in it's current habitat? Evolution doesn't lead to all species becoming more similar, quite the opposite. Just because standing on our hind legs is a good trait for humans in our particular ecological niche, doesn't mean it's a good trait for every other species that inhabit other niches.

      Is this article linked from some anti-evolution website, or what? I don't think I've ever seen so many posts by people that misunderstand evolution in one place.

    2. Re:After 11 million years ... by jonadab · · Score: 1

      > why isn't this thing walking on two legs, wearing glasses and solving quadratic equations ?

      Because rodents only do that sort of thing in children's literature and cartoons. HTH.HAND.

      --
      Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
    3. Re:After 11 million years ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is good proof that evolution is false or that dating methods are inaccurate. There can't be no changes in a mammal that is barely getting by, if the animals really is 11 million years old, if evolution is true. Either evolution is false or the animal is alot younger than 11 million years.

    4. Re:After 11 million years ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

    5. Re:After 11 million years ... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Shark. Crocodile.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  39. Damn! It turns out Netcraft was wrong! by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Next thing you know, some one will discover a BSD installation in the wild.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  40. and provides compelling ... by thephydes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    argument for preservation efforts in Southeast Asia. And if you believe in Intellgent Design, it provides compelling argument that the earth is very young, or how could they have survived.

  41. That's just silly by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    Pandas aren't spotted.

    They're black and white and red all over.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  42. YAHTZEE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    If you mis-count by 10 the number of Yahtzee River dolphins (of which there are somewhere between 0 and 33 left)


    The Yahtzee river dolphins are freaks of nature developed by Hasbro entertainment as a stunt of genetic engineering, and should be removed from the natural cycle.

    I believe you mean Yangtze river dolphins.
  43. Sooo funny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Lol, you really have to feel bad for the evolutionists and their 'theory' when news like this gets out.

    You have the coelecancth, several marine corals, and now this. All thought to be exitinct. All found living. It's freaking hilarious. The end of evolution as a viable theory widely accepted cannot come soon enough, in order for a reexamination of evidence to provide the way to the truth - which is supposed to be the goal of scientific inquiry. We cannot automatically rule out a Creator if the evidence validly points to one.

    1. Re:Sooo funny by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, this is wonderful news for "us evolutionists". If you had actually RTFA, you'd know that we can now compare those reconstructions we had of the fossil relatives of this animal to the living creature. Great!

    2. Re:Sooo funny by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      Actually, this is wonderful news for "us evolutionists".

      Actually, I think the wonderful news is instead for paleontologists, whether they agree with theories of evolution or not. Regardless of whether you feel the world was created billions of years ago or only a few thousand, you have to admit that reconstructing what a species looked like from its fossilized remains requires quite a bit of guess work. Techniques have been developed to make such guesses as accurate as possible, but the discovery of an actual living representative of the fossilized species allows validation (or invalidation) of those techniques.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    3. Re:Sooo funny by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I happen to be a paleontologist myself, so you are indeed very correct. I was just being sarcastic about "us evolutionists" since, strictly speaking, "evolutionists" in the ideological way creationists mean it only exist in the minds of creationists. (Unless you want to define 'evolutionist' as somebody working in the field of evolutionary biology.) And I'd honestly like to see a serious paleontologist who doesn't accept evolution as a fact.

      In case of creatures of which we have no recent examples (dinosaurs, for instance), the reconstruction does include lots of speculating. Up to the musculature and such everything is fine and dandy (muscles can be reconstructed on the basis of comparative anatomy and bones), but the actual look of the critters is mostly based on educated guesses.

    4. Re:Sooo funny by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      reconstruction does include lots of speculating. Up to the musculature and such everything is fine and dandy (muscles can be reconstructed on the basis of comparative anatomy and bones), but the actual look of the critters is mostly based on educated guesses.
      How they looked is the least important thing though. Isn't it?
      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    5. Re:Sooo funny by Conanymous+Award · · Score: 1

      Dunno about the 'least', but yes, it is more important to know how a creature's bones looked like instead of knowing whether it was grey on purple when it lived. (Colors do often play a role in the behavior of animals, though.)

    6. Re:Sooo funny by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1
      Just an odd thing that I've noticed - being obvious beats being important every time. Work out everything else spot on, right down to how its farts smelled (and sounded), but conclude that it was orange when in fact it was purple and it's "Bah! So-called experts...".

      I've come across similar things with requirements gathering - the users had specified the exact pantone shade for button foo's background, and the exact pixel position field bar should be at - but ask them what they want the sytem to do and they look at you like you're talking Klingon. Disclaimer: I am one of that minority here that do not speak Klingon.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  44. Farmers market...hunters market...meh by thc69 · · Score: 1
    From TFA:
    When wandering through a hunter's market in Laos, Robert Timmins of the Wildlife Conservation Society happened upon a previously unknown rodent.
    Why do these always start with a scientist in a street market in Laos or Korea, and then go on to "The locals call it {whatever}, which translates as {whatever}"? Does anybody else remember the fish (or whatever sea creature it was) that was found this way a few months ago?
    --
    Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    1. Re:Farmers market...hunters market...meh by thc69 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah, and one more thing -- maybe it's time for biologists to stop spending time in labs, on boats, and in the forest; and instead, go to Laos and Korea and wander around in markets...since that seems to be the most productive way of finding stuff worth studying.

      --
      Procrastination -- because good things come to those who wait.
    2. Re:Farmers market...hunters market...meh by jc42 · · Score: 1

      [M]aybe it's time for biologists to stop spending time in labs, on boats, and in the forest; and instead, go to Laos and Korea and wander around in markets...since that seems to be the most productive way of finding stuff worth studying.

      Actually, biologists doing such field research often do hire locals and use them as expert consultants. It usually turns out that the locals know and correctly distinguish most of the species in their vicinity, while only occasional merging closely-related species. They can usually also tell you a lot about a species' habitat (and culinary uses ;-). This speeds up the work considerably.

      Of course, the locals usually won't know much about the scientific record. So it still takes a bit of work to decide whether a critter is something new, or a local variety of something already documented. But even there, you'll sometimes find a bright local kid that finds the topic interesting, and you can start him (or her) on the path toward becoming part of the next generation of scientists.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
  45. Article title misleading... by jpellino · · Score: 1

    Really, now - I think you meant "Rat Not Dead Yet"

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
  46. it must be some kind of Altered Beast! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A headline with the phrase "Rise from the grave" and not one reference to Altered Beast out of hundreds of comments?! You guys are really falling off. That is just terrible.

  47. Re:verifying assumptions ... DNA percentages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Aren't we something like 60% like a potatoe in terms of DNA?

  48. Retard by Da+Masta · · Score: 1

    The GP said they are EASY to spot. It doesnt matter what colour they are now.

    If one wanted to paint spots on animals, a big panda would be a much easier target than some small Laotian rock rat which one probably wouldn't even be able to chase.

    1. Re:Retard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have that mental illness that totally saps your sense of humor. Please see a doctor and get pills (lots of pills) for it.

  49. Evolved by buswolley · · Score: 2, Funny
    ! 11 million years!! and no change? And what, was evolution doing all this time, twiddling its thumbs?? It just happened to be the perfect genetic fit for its environment for 11,000,000 years, as well as fooling the rest of the world in thinking it no longer existed? What gives? I know its not 30,000,000 , or 50,000,000 years, but hey!

    You'd think that after 10 million years that they'd get tired of being a stinkin rat squirrel.

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    1. Re:Evolved by buswolley · · Score: 1

      oh never mind. ITs a family, not a species...... I Take it back.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  50. 3-dimentional fool by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... why isn't this thing walking on two legs, wearing glasses and solving quadratic equations ?

    It is, but we only see the part of the creature that protrudes into our 3-dimensional understanding of space/time.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  51. Stop it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hate it when people keep on necromancing long-dead species. I'm short on Turn Undead spells already without having to spend them on zombie rock rats...

  52. More living fossils by Trogre · · Score: 1

    It represents a rare opportunity to compare assumptions derived from the fossil record and an actual living specimen to determine overall accuracy of the techniques involved. This discovery also provides a compelling argument for preservation efforts in Southeast Asia.

    It also provides a compelling argument that the world might not be as old as we think it is.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    1. Re:More living fossils by Copid · · Score: 1
      It also provides a compelling argument that the world might not be as old as we think it is.
      Indeed. With only nuclear physics and such on one side and the full weight of a newly discovered squirrel-rat on the other, it's easy to see that the balance of evidence has just tipped decisively.
      --
      An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
  53. Fossil Rises From its Grave by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

    Anyone for rat pudding !?....

    --
    You never catch me alive
  54. oh my rock rat! by taff^2 · · Score: 0

    kha-nyou believe it?

    --
    Karma: Bad. (As in Good?)
  55. Not the Korean Camoflauge Panda by elrous0 · · Score: 1
    He remains safely undiscovered.

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  56. Extinct animals by Kittie+Rose · · Score: 1

    This got me thinking. I bet the first thing that scientist do when they reach an advanced state of genetic engineering is resurrect the Dodo, just to shut people up who use that annoying phrase.

    --
    EpiAdv - if you like Pokey the Penguin, try this comic!