But it is the same bone.
As to your statement But if soaking means it was mummified, then all bones, including fresh bones, are mummified:
, I'll admit I'm a little confused. Why would that mean all bones are mummified?
Soaking the fossil doesn't mean it was mummified. Soaking the fossil meant all the minerals were dissolved but the protein stayed, which is exactly the same thing that happens if you were to use a fresh bone.
The interesting thing about this fossil, obviously, is that no one expected there to be any proteins in something 64 millions years old.
This was the claim:
“The mummified material was soaked for seven days to bring it back, so to speak, to life.”
The claim is not true. The bone was treated the same way a fresh bone wd be treated, if the purpose was to study the soft tissue.
The following quote summarizes the bottom line:
“This find calls into question not only the nature of the fossilization process, but also the age of these fossils. How such soft tissue preservation and detail could be realized after 68 million years is more than miraculous - - It is unbelievable! Schweitzer herself comments that, “We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think.” 54 Now, if that is not an understatement I’m not sure what is.”
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
The point of it all being, no evolutionist alive will question the validity of their theory. They treat their theory as objective truth. Therefore nothing ever calls the theory itself into question, & nothing ever will. In that sense, it’s not a scientific system at all, but rather a belief/faith system. That is how its true believers treat it.
Again I cite Thomas Kuhn’s signal thesis: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn describes evolutionists & their religious commitment to their theory to a T. Read the book if you haven’t; it’s priceless.