Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fossil Rises From its Grave

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the eek-eek-brains-eek dept.

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.'"

9 of 192 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  3. Scrat? by mastagee · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6736485077 799381484

  4. 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.

  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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.