Rodents (Talk.Origins)

Response to Rodents

CreationWiki response:

General rodents
This entire description is vague and filled with evolutionary assumptions with no hint of even attempted objectivity. Traits are refer to as rodent like and rabbit like with out any details. Despite being classified as different in families it is still possible that they are varieties of the same kind of animal. The fact that these animals are classified based only on skeletons and incomplete ones at that, makes the likely hood the same kind of animal would be classified as more than one family even greater.

The similarities with Barunlestes suggest that Heomy and Barunlestes are both the same kind of animal. The fact that the both Heomy and Barunlestes are classified as from the mid-late Palaeocene strengthens this possibility. Besides Heomys is not actually considered an ancestor so all it proves is that this kind of animal had some rodent and rabbit like traits. Since Anagale, Barunlestes and Heomys are classified as from the mid-late Paleocene they would all be contemporaries with no objective order. They were simply places in the order most favorable to evolution.

First off all three of these are dates as late Paleocene, making them contemporaries and making the order arbitrary, so once again they are the order on this list is 100% evolutionary assumptions.
 * Tribosphenomys minutusin known from just a single jaw.
 * Acritoparamys was once classified as Paramys suggesting that they are the same kind of animal. Also Paramys' skeleton is described as mostly squirrel like suggesting that it was a variety of squirrel.

What we have here are two kind of animals possible a third in two contemporary sets are by Evolutionary dating methods. Thus the order is that each set is arbitrary and based on only Evolutionary assumptions.

Squirrels:
Paramys is classified as late Paleocene and Protosciurus is classified as early Oligocene, so where is the Eocene? Besides both Paramys and Protosciurus are clearly varieties of squirrel.

These are modern squirrels

All we have here is evidence of variation among the squirrel kind, no evidence of macro evolution.

Beavers:
Paramys is classified as late Paleocene and Paleocastor is classified as Oligocene, so where is the Eocene? Thus there is no real evidence of a relationship between Paramys and Paleocastor. Talk Origins claims a transition to modern beavers but it is unsubstantiated. No intermediate fossils are presented so that the claim can be evaluated. The implication is that there are no intermediate fossils between Paleocastor and Beavers so the claim seems to be based purely on the evolutionary assumption that Beavers evolved from  Paleocastor. All though there are vague similarities between Beavers and Paleocastor, they do not seem to be related. In the absence intermediate fossils there is no real evidence for a relationship between Beavers and Paleocastor.

Rats/mice/voles:
Paramys is classified as late Paleocene and Eomyids is classified as later Eocene, so where is the early and mid Eocene? Thus there is no real evidence of a relationship between Paramys and Paleocastor.

All are indications that Eomyids seems to be a rodent with a few squirrel like traits in it teeth and eye socket. This does not prove any connection to Paramys or other squirrels, such similarities are not unexpected, particularly when people are looking for any similarity that can be claimed as evidence of decent. Further more the decription is some what vage and sounds rather subjective.

Given the similarites between these Geomyoids sugests that they arre the same kind of animal, though ironicaly it jaw seems to have been more squirrel like than that of Eomyids. Furthermore Talk Origins conventely leaves out the fact that like Eomyids these Geomyoids are date to the later Eocene making them contempararies.

Talk Origins claims to have intermediate fossil forms between these Geomyoids and mise but they list no type or anything else that could be used to check out their claim. The most they would show is that these Geomyoids are varieties of mouse, which would not be to surprizing since madern mice and rates are clasified as Geomyoids. It has already been shown that the created kinds do occasionaly extend to the order level so even if a clear connection can be shown it would still fit the creation model.

Most of this is nothing but 100% evolutionary interpretations without any objective substance. Since the created kinds most often extend to family level, these cross genus " transitions" are not a problem for created kinds.

With the possible exception of Paramys all of the types on this list may be the same created kind. But this is assuming that Talk Origins' unsubstantiated claims are accurate. The most this shows it that rats, mice and voles are the same created kind.

Cavies:
All they have here is a gap. This one is a joke. Evolutionsits have absoluty nothing here, even by their standards.

Known species-species transitions in rodents:
These are cases of species within the same genus, as such it is not a problem for created kinds.
 * Not presented in the order presented at Talk Origins.

These descriptions are too vague for analysis, however there is nothing that presents any difficulty for the concept of created kinds.
 * Not presented in the order presented at Talk Origins.

Since created kinds most often extend to at least the family level, this is to be expected.
 * Not presented in the order presented at Talk Origins.

This is vague, but it simply sugests that mise and voles are the created kind.
 * Not presented in the order presented at Talk Origins.

Conclusion:
Once again, we see vast variety with distinct kinds of animals. The supposed relationships with others kinds are highly questionable. The differences between many of these "links" are too great to supposed any real relationship. There are cases where Talk Origins has just placed types that are dated as contemporaries in the order that favors evolution and there are also significant gaps in theoretical time that Talk Origins makes no mention of. As is typical this list is based more the the assumption of Evolution than on reality.