“..I don’t think the author understands just ..”
disagree
How can the soft tissue survive 65 million years?
a fair question
It is a fair question - too bad Lyons didn’t look for any answers. Basically you are citing as a source a fellow with a degree in theology who apparently, because he can’t fathom the science, disagrees with the scientists who actually study and experiment with the material in question. Why didn’t he bother to ask Schweitzer about how old her discovery is? Why didn’t he explore the literature that seeks to answer the questions surround this material like “Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms” Kaye, et al, or Schweitzer’s own paper, “Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival”? Lyons is simply unqualified to intelligently comment on the subject - he doesn’t understand the processes involved and apparently hasn’t sought information that will counter his preconceived notions of Earth’s biological and geological history. Typical apologetics - long on rhetoric, short on fact.
It wasn't soft tissue, it was hard, dried out, but not petrified.
The scientific term is dessicated.
They had to rehydrate the tissue (repeatedly) to actually produce soft tissue.
NOW, let's simplify.
No one seems to have a problem with this mosquito being completely preserved for 40 million years.
