Rodent speciation and Noah's Ark.

The idea that this newly discovered rodent species (family actually, it's a pretty big find) didn't exist until it was "discovered" by the scientific community is so frankly Euro-centric that it borders on being racist.The fact that the animal was "discovered" in a meat market kind of implies that someone local found it first and brought it there.This is a lot like Columbus "discovering" a land populated by 90 million people.I understand that in the discover magazine article it's talking about an animal which has not been described in modern science. And I'm not pointing any fingers at anyone here on the board.Just the idea that the species don't exist until white people find them makes me a little nuts.

Buz,Let me ask you this - do you believe that there was a Black Plague in or around 1350 in Europe? Do you believe that it was primarily transmited by fleas and rats?Why haven't the rats changed in 700 years? Did they some how stabalize after the Flood?Are these the same rats that the Chinese have in their calendar (ie the year of the rat)?That dates to 2500+ years ago. That means that Noah's son or grandson had to start the Chinese calendar. Are rats already rats at that point?Give us some sort of time line for when each of the different rodent types emerged and split off from the other groups.

Is the premise of this theory that there we just 2 "genetically flexable" rodents on the Ark?So instead of 2 beavers and 2 muskrats and 2 gerbils and 2 field mice... there were just 2 "rats"?

So, is it your position that your hypothesis is on equal standing with Evolution? Better than evolution? Less than evolution?Are we to teach your hypothesis in schools?Do you have a better explaination about the Flood?

Oh, Buzz, thought you were the one who launched the original post.I see it was notsoblindfaith, my bad.