[tacticalogic]

There's a fair amount of evidence out there, some of it contradictory. These "soft tissue" finds are very rare, and statistically would qualify as "outliers" within the entire body of data.

Can I ask what it is that makes this "extremely compelling", while the vast body of contradictory evidence is just "intriguing"?

[dangerdoc]

I haven’t gone back to see my exact wording but I think I may not have communicated my thoughts well.

This is both intriguing and compelling. Some aspect of established science is going to have to give way. Either it’s 65 million years old and our understanding of protein entropy is flawed or it’s younger and our timeline is flawed.

You don’t find that terribly interesting, compelling, intriguing? This is the kind of stuff that makes science fun.