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.
I’ll go with their description of what they did since what they found was indeed “soft tissues” not just something squishy to the touch.
In other words it was actual blood cells not just a mineral filled space.
And that is just how the caption with the picture described it: “A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed”.
So no need to get all tied up over the word “fossil”. It doesn’t mean replaced with mineral just as the dried out ink was still ink and was ink when mixed with a solvent.