Say, that’s a good point:
“Not one “blood cell” has been found.....but they did find FOSSILIZED blood cells.”
Or to put it another way, “No dinosaur bones have found. Not one, only FOSSILIZED BONES.”
See this article from the Smithsonian Magazine.
That’s just fine. What I can’t stand is the sensationalist headlines and misleading claims that a “soft” “tissue” was found, like they cut into a bone and found marrow or actual freakin blood cells. It’s a play on the ignorance of those that don’t know the difference between a “soft” “tissue” and a “soft tissue”, one being a spongy to the feel tissue, the other being a medical term for any one of a dozen types of connective tissues....in this case, fossilized ones.
Doesn’t bother or surprise me in the least that when they dissolve the mineral content in a few fossils, there is “something” there any more than them grinding fossilized ink in an ammonia compound to make something that is inky.
It depends on context. If someone wrote, "The dinosaur bones were 50 million years old," no problem. But if someone wrote, "We've found dinosaur bones, mammoth bones, and human bones buried in the ground, so I don't know why they say the dinosaur bones are older" -- which is essentially what Brian's arguing -- then it's worth making the distinction.