Red Rodentia (rodents) should enable evolutionists one group of animals ideal for evolutionary studies. By the number of species and genera, rodents surpass all other orders of mammals together. They succeed in almost all conditions. Certainly, if any group of animals could provide transitional forms, then it would be this group.
Regarding their origin, Romer says:
“The origin of rodents is unclear. When they first appear in the late Pliocene, in the genus Paramys, we already have to deal with a typical, although quite primitive, true rodent, with body characteristics – well developed. They probably, of course, originated from some basic, insectivorous, placental ancestor, but transitional forms are not known.”1
Meanwhile, transitional forms between basic rodent types have not been found in the fossil record. For example, Romer says:
“Beavers likely originated from some primitive sciuro-morphic ancestor, but there are no connecting forms between such forms and the oldest Oligocene castorids to prove a direct link.”
Speaking about Hystricidae, the Old World spiny pigs, Romer says:
“There are several fossil forms, back to the Miocene or perhaps late Oligocene, but they do not provide indications of a relationship between the hystricids and other rodent types.”
Commenting on the “rock rat”, Petromus, Romer says: “Almost nothing is known about the ancestors of Petromus.” On the superfamily Theridomyoidea, Romer says: “For now, we know nothing about their ancestors or possible descendants.” About lagomorphs (hares and rabbits), once placed in the suborder of rodents, but now placed in a separate order Lagomorpha, Romer must admit that: “Lagomorphs show no close affinity to other placental groups, and their body characteristics are well developed, even in the oldest known forms.”
Thus, we see that the order Rodentia, which should provide excellent evidence for evolution, if evolution really took place, offers powerful evidence for creation.
- Literature
- A. S. Romer, Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1966, p. 103.