You use the word identicle, yet the science reports I see say ‘similiar’ not identicle.
As well, this goes offtopic (not that it isn’;t slightly important) from the main issue of how old the bone is- to which the scientific comunity has to make a cop-out statement that there ‘must have been a fairly remarkable preservation system inplace in Montana’ and that “geochemical and environmental factors” that could have preserved the tissues are “as yet undetermined,” Boy howdy I’ll say!
Nothing else remotely like avian medullary bone has been found in any non-bird species. This was unmistakably medullary bone. And that makes it more than slightly important. :-D
As well, this goes offtopic (not that it isn’;t slightly important) from the main issue of how old the bone is- to which the scientific comunity has to make a cop-out statement that there ‘must have been a fairly remarkable preservation system inplace in Montana’ and that “geochemical and environmental factors” that could have preserved the tissues are “as yet undetermined,” Boy howdy I’ll say!
It's only recently that we've had the sophisticated methods necessary to go searching for ancient molecules. People have been working on it for the past 30-some years with variable success. You're basing your objection upon both (it appears) a misunderstanding of the level of preservation involved and (like most people including scientists) the absence of prior evidence that such preservation is possible. We haven't had this evidence before because we haven't had the sensitive analytic methods needed nor have scientists been willing to turn over fossils to be destroyed in search of these molecules.
Science moves on, and research is ongoing in the process of molecular decay and preservation of detailed morphology over short periods of years, longer periods of hundreds of thousands of years, and up to millions of years. Mary Schweitzer (who found this fossil and has been working in molecular paleontology for years) already has proposed molecular conditions needed for preservation and that this type of superb preservation will be more likely in fossils preserved in sandstones, while not as likely in mudstones and marine environments. Future research will show if this hypothesis is correct.
Sometimes the responses to these finds make me scratch my head. Are we just supposed to give up research? Should we be happy with what we know and think we know? Or should we have a post-modern fit and say it's all unknowable, so why even bother? It almost seems like that's what creationists think people should do.