Migration was achieved during the closing stages of the Pleistocene, when sea levels were much lower than they are today. Repeated episodes of extended glaciation during the Pleistocene epoch, resulted in decreases of sea levels by more than 100 metres in Australasia. The continental coastline extended much further out into the Timor Sea, and Australia and New Guinea formed a single landmass (known as Sahul), connected by an extensive land bridge across the Arafura Sea, Gulf of Carpentaria and Torres Strait. Nevertheless, the sea still presented a major obstacle so it is theorised that these ancestral people reached Australia by island hopping. Two routes have been proposed. One follows an island chain between Sulawesi and New Guinea and the other reaches North Western Australia via Timor.
wikipedia
The sharing of animal and plant species between Australia-New Guinea and nearby Indonesian islands is another consequence of the early land bridges, which closed when sea levels rose with the end of the last glacial period. The sea level stabilised to near its present levels about 6000 years ago, flooding the land bridge between Australia and New Guinea.
It think the 3000 years between when the OP article says the mangroves are dated (9000 years ago) and the time when the sea 'stabilised' to it's current level(6000 years ago) is plenty of time for mangroves to at least thrive and potentially fossilise. Is it?
Potentially a meteor couild have caused this, but my feeling is that is is just natural longer cycle tidal influence rather than a single event.
I remember when the big tsnami happened in asia that in south australia the tide went out for a good three days before it came back. I think to get fossils there would need to be a longer sea level change than a meteor shockwave.
[edit on 26-6-2009 by ivycutler]


