I wrote about Repenomamus giganticus, the Cretaceous mammal that dined on dinosaurs, a couple of weeks ago. It's cool, it's nifty, it's novel, but it doesn't shake up evolutionary biology—not that you'd know that if you read the creationist's take on Repenomamus. This is one of those articles that will have you laughing out loud as it plunges deeper and deeper into lunacy with every paragraph.

A recent fossil discovery in China has evolutionists scratching their heads over a mammal’s last meal.

The fossilized remains of a small dinosaur (psittacosaur) have been found in the belly of a dog-like mammal named Repenomamus robustus. Researchers have also found a second fossil that they have named Repenomamus giganticus. This second fossil has been described as "breathtaking" and "about the size of a modern dog."

So far, OK. Although no one was "scratching their head" over it.

This is a real surprise for evolutionists because evolutionary assumptions say that mammals living during the so-called "age of the dinosaurs" couldn’t possibly have been that big; rather, they had to be small to better avoid the huge reptiles. It has some evolutionary scientists quite concerned, for it challenges what they have believed for years.

Getting weirder. No, there is nothing in evolutionary biology that says mammals had to be small during the Cretaceous. Just as there is nothing in biology that says modern reptiles have to be small.

I can't imagine any scientists being challenged or concerned by this lovely fossil specimen.

But that won't stop Ryan McClay, who just keeps ramping up the hysteria.

While the discovery is a particular shock (from an evolutionary standpoint) because one part of the evolution model may need to be drastically changed,

What part of the evolution model must be drastically changed? There's nothing in this discovery that affects our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms at all.

it isn’t shocking for creationists. Creationists believe that man, mammals and dinosaurs originally lived at the same time.

Oh, right. Fred dined on bronto-burgers, while Wilma washed the dishes with a mammoth's trunk. I know what creationists believe. They're wrong.

The fossils of these mammals found in "Lower Cretaceous" rock helps confirm the creationist assertion that even some mammals were buried quickly in lower depths of the fossil record; mammals are usually found higher in the fossil record (i.e. many mammals and humans would have retreated to higher ground during the beginning of the global catastrophe of Noah’s Flood—see Where are all the human fossils?).

Um, guy? The fossil is 130 million years old. You don't get to jump up and down and get all excited because a scientific specimen violates your misconceptions about how evolution works, while ignoring the scientific data that says your 6000-year-old earth and world-wide flood are a bunch of bunkum.

One interesting thing about the article is that it is on a site called "The Conservative Voice", and most of the other articles are the usual wingnut nonsense. I almost gave in to my biases and figured this article was representative of conservative stupidity, but then I saw the comments: a bunch of people seem to be ripping into this dufus. Unless this wingnut site has been flooded with liberal critics, it may be there is some hope after all, that conservatives can also oppose the Genesis literalists.