The story really began in 1997 when a group of dinosaur diggers discovered what appeared to be traces of red blood cells in fossilized T-rex bone. Evolutionists and long age creationists alike have been skeptical of the find, because the thought of 68 million year old fresh bone marrow does not play well to the mind-set of gradual, uniformitarianism for the earth’s history. Tissue millions of years old should be completely fossilized. The researchers played down their discovery and were quite dismissive of it until “further study could be performed.”
Biblical creationists, however, correctly saw such a find as telling evidence that dinosaurs are not millions of years old and fitted perfectly with a biblical, worldwide flood. Yet, they were condescendingly patted on the head, and even old earth creationists, like the Reasons to Believe crowd, embarrassed by young earth ideas, attempted to dismiss the significance of the find by publishing a web article mocking the creationists and pooh-poohing the soft tissue as being only mistaken for soft tissue and really just remnants of blood cells.
Well, the soft tissue was much more than just remnants of blood cells, because the gist of the Newsweek article is to inform the world that protein sequencing was done on the tissue and now we know Dinosaurs are related to chickens. Well, not quite. There is a 58% similarity between the T-rex and the chicken; but similarity between organisms is not uncommon. Many biological lifeforms share similarities which is something to expect from a creator creating life to exist in a specific biosphere.
At any rate, the part of the article which caught my attention was the response by the evolutionists who claim that we now need to re-think how long protein and DNA can stay viable. In other words, they are refusing to give up their presuppositions of slow, gradual uniformitarianism and entertain wild-eyed speculative opinions as to how a fossil can have unfossilized parts after millions of years.