sakic responding post #50: "Seems pretty improbable to me, but who knows what will happen."
Fantasywriter post #51: "Sakic, it’s not improbable. It’s impossible.
Protein, blood, soft-tissue—they cannot & do not remain intact for even one million yrs.
This is a fact.
65-68 million yrs is so far out of the realm of possibility, it’s beyond description.
Blood just doesn’t last that long under any circumstances."
We know for certain that organic material can survive inside amber for many millions of years, but no DNA was confirmed as recovered from such samples.
Might some other conditions mummify small bits of organic material to survive so long?
That is the claim -- as yet not "proved", and no DNA alleged -- regarding tiny samples found in one or two dinosaur fossils.
Is it possible that these tiny samples -- if confirmed by future discoveries -- could somehow overthrow the scientific understanding of Earth's age and life's evolution?
No. It would simply demonstrate that long-term mummification can occasionally happen in nature.
"A well preserved Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton had been found in 1990 and brought for analysis to Montana State University. During microscopic examination of the fossilized remains, it was noted that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone. Upon closer examination it was noted that within the vascular system of this bone were what appeared to be red blood cells (note retained nucleus in the center of the apparent RBCs and the fact that reptiles and bird generally retain the RBC nucleus while mammals, like humans, do not). 50 Of course, this did not seem possible since the survival of intact red blood cells for some 65-million years seems very unlikely if not downright impossible."
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
No. It would simply demonstrate that long-term mummification can occasionally happen in nature.
I'm afraid the error of the the above sentences is to confuse the Theory of Evolution with science.
As it has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, evolution's tenets and parameters are a matter of belief, a religious concept, not a science. Like the theory of phlogiston, facts never overcome science, although correct interpretation of facts might overcome a misconception, such as the creeping gradualism of "evolution" as forced on the concepts of origins.
In your thoughts above, you've just invented a new term to uphold the shaky foundations of evolutionary theory based on misunderstanding of sedimentary geology. By coining the phrase "prolonged mummification" you beg a lengthening of the fossilization supporting historical geology, as currently taught.
Getting back to science, I can confirm Ohm's Law by conducting the experiment, thus reproducing the observation codified by Georg Ohm. It is not possible to claim evolution as explaining speciation, because it has never been seen, and it has not yet been reproduced. To force this belief exclusively on mankind as the only explanation is to suffocate healthy curiosity, criticism, experimentation; and, yes, well-founded religious thought.
Wit all respect, my estimate is that your approach falls short of academic acceptance, IMHO.
"Millions of years" is postulated, not proven. The primordial occurrence of amber is estimated from the sediment layer in which it is found.