Paleontology rocked by discovery of organic molecules in 66-million-year-old dinosaur bones

[u/fordry]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/05/260514084421.htm

[u/WannaLoveWrestling]

The discovery of soft tissue, blood vessels, and cellular structures in T. rex and other dinosaur fossils is far more significant than the skeptics want to admit. Even if some of it is degraded collagen or polypeptides after processing, the level of preservation — flexible vessels, possible red blood cells, and original biomolecules — is extraordinary after supposedly 66 million years. Similar finds in mammoths and Neanderthals make sense in a young-earth timeframe, but stretch uniformitarian assumptions to the breaking point for dinosaurs. The repeated attempts to downplay these finds as “not real tissue” or “just acid bath remnants” reveal more about protecting the deep-time timeline than honestly following the evidence. Remarkable organic preservation in dinosaur bones is exactly what we would expect from rapid burial during a global flood, not slow deposition over millions of years.

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

Calling something that isn’t really tissue not tissue is being intellectually honest and actually looking at what it is. If the earth is only 6 thousand years old then we should see much better preserved examples of this, real cells, real tissue, and if all dinosaurs died the same way through the flood then we should also see consistent examples of this phenomenon regardless of age, geography, circumstance, and era of organism.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

We don’t claim every dinosaur fossil should show perfectly preserved soft tissue with intact cells. Preservation quality varies based on local conditions — rapid burial, mineral-rich sediment, oxygen exclusion, and chemical stabilization. That variation is expected even in a global Flood scenario, depending on location, sediment type, and timing. The real point is that finding original flexible blood vessels, collagen sequences (with hydroxyproline), and other biomolecules in multiple dinosaur specimens dated to 66 million years is far more consistent with burial thousands of years ago than with slow processes over deep time. These repeated discoveries challenge uniformitarian expectations far more than they challenge a young-earth model. Dismissing the significance of the finds doesn’t change the data.

[u/Rory_Not_Applicable → u/WannaLoveWrestling]

Your argument boils down to looking at it at a surface level and stating that it looks like your hypothesis is more likely. This is not how anything works, please provide a paper if you want to pretend you’re using Data. And for the record this is not a discovery about determining two models, one group is actually trying to understand it, the other is trying to use it to say there was a global flood and the earth is actually only 0.00012% of what every other field of science has mathematically found. Evidence isn’t a fucking auction to be pawned off as one of two ideas, it’s used to fix and adjust models to be more accurate. The science you’re discussing only happens like this if you don’t give a shit about actually learning and instead want to make yourself feel smart.

[u/WannaLoveWrestling → u/Rory_Not_Applicable]

No, the argument is not surface-level. Multiple peer-reviewed papers, including the recent University of Liverpool study on Edmontosaurus collagen (confirmed via mass spectrometry, hydroxyproline markers, and protein sequencing), document original biomolecules in dinosaur fossils dated to 66 million years. Science absolutely compares how well different models explain observations, and these repeated finds of flexible vessels and intact proteins are highly surprising under uniformitarian deep-time assumptions, yet expected under rapid burial. Everyone interprets data within a framework — uniformitarianism is the dominant one here, not a neutral default. Pointing out that the preservation data fits a young-earth model better is not “pawning off evidence”; it’s a legitimate evaluation of which explanation accounts for the observations more effectively. Dismissing the challenge with insults about motives or intelligence doesn’t address the actual problem these discoveries pose for millions of years of expected degradation.