I’m hoping sakic is just temporarily busy, & will get back to me as time permits. I’m really curious as to whether he/she believes we might ever discover soft tissue from T-Rex. Wooly mammoths you can kind of understand; they were supposedly late in the ‘evolutionary cycle’, correct? But T-Rex reputedly goes back a long time...what is it—a million, two million yrs?
Cd it actually be closer to 68 million yrs? Seems a long time for soft tissue to survive. I wonder if it’s possible for blood & other soft tissue to survive that long?
What say you, sakic? Will scientists ever discover 68 million yo soft tissue? Odds seem low to me; how do you see it?
Seems pretty improbable to me, but who knows what will happen.
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.