This hilarity is what happens when you learn science FROM MSNBC AND WALT BROWN.I really hope bob is compelled to respond this.
I'm going to quote the research paper by the scientists themselves, and then I'm going to quote Bob Enyart. I want to ask Bob Enyart or one of his followers to tell me what the difference is (but Bob Enyart would be more enjoyable).
Quote Original Paper: "Whether preservation is strictly morphological and the result of some kind of unknown geochemical replacement process or whether it extends to the subcellular and molecular levels is uncertain."
Quote Bob Enyart: "Inside that dinosaur bone, this huge T-rex, they had soft-tissue, blood cells, blood vessels, they had tissue that was flexible."
Notice the scientists uncertainty. Notice Bob Enyart's certianty. I did not see Bob Enyart's name on the research team--did he do further research that we don't know about? By the way, reading the MSNBC sensationlized report does not count as research. Not to downplay the hard work done by Mr. Enyart.
So why were the scientists uncertain? Well, for one, scientists actually follow science in their field. They've heard of the reports of nucleated cells being preserved in 220 million year old amber. They heard the follow up report that said although the cells looked preserved, and even had what appeared to be a preserved nucleus, resin had replaced all of the organic material. They've read the reports of flexible fossilized graptolites that retained none of the original organic material. So in the past we'e seen what appears to be organic material found in really old fossils, but upon closer analysis it turns out to be non-organic.
Here's three more questions for Bob:
(1) Were the organic materials flexible before or after they hydrated them?
(2) Why was DNA not recovered? DNA has been recovered from remnants as old as 10,000 years ago. Please provide your best speculation as to why it was not recovered.
(3) What is the researh team's position?
