Neanderthal baby attacks evolutionary dogma. . . .
In a just published study, scientists extracted mtDNA from a Neanderthal infant skeleton found in the northern Caucasus near the Black Sea and laid to rest any question of whether Neanderthals could have been our ancestors.
There has always been doubt that Neanderthals were a direct ancestor of modern humans. New data supports previous interpretations. No surprises here.
In a huge setback for evolutionists, scientists have discovered a true crustacean in early Cambrian strata from Shropshire, England. In a recent issue of Science, Drs. Siveter, Williams, and Waloszek. announced the discovery of a fossil phosphatocopid ostracod, which is preserved extraordinarily well, including all its delicate limbs cast in calcium phosphate, clearly allowing it to be classified as a crustacean. Very few fossils of this great antiquity reveal so much detail or can be interpreted with such certainty. Although the discovery is clearly at odds with evolutionary theory, an analysis in the same issue by Dr. Richard Fortey comes to the remarkable conclusion that this discovery explodes the Cambrian explosion.
What setback? Crustaceans (Phylum Arthropoda) have been around for a long long time. If this crustacean is older than those previously found, all this means is that ostracodes have been around longer than we previously knew. No effect on any theory.
For example, the gene that encodes superoxide dismutase has 5 times the base pair substitution rate in certain species of Drosophila (fruit flies) compared to other multicellular organisms. Another gene, "Odysseus," has "evolved" more in the last 500 thousand years than the preceding 700 million years (1000 times faster rate now than in the past). Although evolutionary theories are unable to explain or predict these variations, creationary science does explain these discrepancies. God designed living organisms, reusing and modifying some of the genetic designs, but not necessarily in a way that would be consistent with a molecular clock.
If the reported data is correct or if it is incorrect, there is no discrepancy between the reported data and the theory of evolution.
Flaherty - above are just a few examples from your link. The findings and data discussed in these brief articles may indeed be accurate - I didn't check. The interpretations are consistently either deliberately silly or just plain wrong out of ignorance. You are right, it appears to be more of the same. It might be fun to track down the original reports to see how accurately the GodAndScience.org people reported the data.
