[Sopater]

The reason the original article was posted was to cast doubt on the age of the duckbill by implying it had soft tissue. That is the subject of the thread right?

Actually, the reason that the original article was posted was to expose the common fallacy that it takes thousands (or millions) of years for fossils to form, and that a great deal of scientific (looking) articles are in fact, very poorly written, implying something that is not really true (i.e. presence of actual soft tissue).

[dynoman]

What about the accuracy of the National Geographic article I posted then?

What does "where you still have original flexibility and transparency" mean?

We know it can't mean the t rex was less than 70 million years old right?