Did you look at the slides? There were actual blood vessels w blood inside. Here’s a quote:
“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 “
Does that really sound like a 65 million yo specimen to you?
The info on the ‘68 million’ yo specimen is even more astounding. Read the actual account it. What you described doesn’t match what was found at all:
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
Fantasywriter:
"Did you look at the slides? There were actual blood vessels w blood inside. Here’s a quote:"
Yes, I read the site you gave, and the original articles describing the finds.
The remains found are proteins. The proteins can still hold the shape of the structure they came from helping to indicate where they came from.
Shweitzer, for instance, believed that some of the remains were those of red bloods because of the shape of the remains.
Here's a quote from the site you linked:
"Several analytical techniques were used to characterize the material to include nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), Raman resonance and Raman spectroscopy (RR) and electron spin resonance (ESR). These techniques did identify the presence of heme group molecules ranging in size from between 5,000 and 30,000 daltons (between 35 to over 200 amino acids in size), but the detection limits of these methods were not able to rule-out or rule-in the presence of hemoglobin or myoglobin proteins due to the small amount of specimen available."
What they are looking at are proteins. And note that the amount found was so small that it was difficult to analyze, even with the latest technology.
They then had the clever idea of testing for an immune response in rats.
This worked because, as Shweitzer explained on the site: "Immunogenicity is not dependent on fully intact protein, and even very small peptides are immunogenic when complexed with larger organic molecules . . . even after extensive degradation has occurred."
We're not even talking about whole proteins here, just bits of protein.
"Does that really sound like a 65 million yo specimen to you?"
It depends what you're comparing it to. If mammoth CARCASSES are found with which one could hold a mammoth BBQ, that are tens of thousands of years old - then how old do these massive fossilized bones with microscopic protein bits protected deep inside them appear to be?