Dinasour soft tissues and DNA prove their recent existance

I will format my debate into a set of clauses, each clause dealing with a quote of my opponent, my rebuttal, and my counter argument. After my clause set, I will conclude each round of this debate with a short summary. REBUTTALS AND CONTENTIONS:Clause 1: "The fact that these tissues have been found is not of any dispute, but what they reveal is of hot dispute. The obvious answer is that these soft tissues reveal that these dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago. "My opponent opens this debate with a list of tissues found within fossils dating 65MYR+. I will compile the list here for easy reference. HemoglobinOsteocalcinCollagenElastinLemaninOsteocytesactinTubulinNucleic AcidVarious tissue structures including blood cells, vessels, and bone tissue. After carefully reviewing my opponents cited sources, I can confirm that these elements have all been found in dinosaur fossils dating 65MY+ with the exception of Nucleic Acid. The paper cited by my opponent does not confirm the discovery of any Nucleic Acid whatsoever, whether DNA, RNA, or any other type of Nucleic Acid dating 65MYR+. Unfortunately I cannot link to the paper here, as it is available via paid subscription only and cannot be accessed by most people outside of the scientific community. I was able to access it via restricted database. Therefore, I will establish contention 1. Contention 1: Sufficiently preserved dinosaur DNA has not been discovered. The establishment of contention 1 nullifies my opponents only supporting evidence, this quote:"This statement is supported by Morten Allentoft of Murdoch University, "However, even under the best preservation conditions at 5(degrees) C, our model predicts that no intact bonds (average length = 1 bp [base pair]) will remain in the DNA 'strand' after 6.8 Myr. This displays the extreme improbability of being able to amplify a 174 bp DNA fragment from an 80-85 Myr old Cretaceous bone "This quote applies only to DNA, and even as such it emphasises the improbability of DNA amplification of an 80MYR+ sample, and Dr. Allentoft deliberately avoids stating that it is impossible{1}. This does not support the resolution. Clause 2: "The evidence is very clear that these soft tissues could not last millions of years"Here my opponent asserts that none of the aforementioned tissues could last millions of years. He claims to cite evidence, yet provides none. A careful study of these tissues reveals a very important aspect in relation to this discussion. That is that all of the aforementioned elements form and function chemically in the exact same way. Please note the following: These proteins form in a condensation reaction, forming peptide bonds. In short, every amino acid consists of and R group, a hydrocarbon, and most important in this discussion, a negative caboxyl group at one end and a positive NHSUB3+ group at the other. During the condensation reaction, the hydroxide group of one molecule bond with the hydrogen in the amino group of the other, is discharged as a water molecule and leaves behind an incredibly powerful bond. This happens repeatedly in a peptide reaction, forming a polypeptide chain and eventually a protein. Multiple proteins make up the tissue. Unlike the bonds in some non-biological elements that decay at a steady rate and provide "Half-Life" reading that allow scientists to fix a set time limit on their life-span, these peptide bonds do not decay, and the only way to destroy them is a process known as Hydrolysis. Note the following. In what is essentially a reverse condensation reaction, Hydrolysis uses water and a significant input of energy to break the peptide bond, reattach the hydroxide to the hydrocarbon, and the hydrogen to the nitrogen, splitting the molecules and decaying the tissue. Without this reaction, the protein and tissue will remain intact{2}. With this understanding of the chemistry involved, I will establish contention two. Contention 2:When preserved in an environment completely devoid of the components necessary to initiate and maintain a hydrolysis reaction, any given naturally occurring protein will remain preserves for hundreds of millions of years. With the establishment of contention 2, I will extend this conclusion to establish contention 3. Contention 3:Since all instances of finding unfossilized tissues and proteins fit the conditions established in contention 2, they do not support the argument that dinosaurs lived 4-6000 years ago, and do not oppose the fact that dinosaurs lived 65MYR+ ago. COUNTER ARGUMENT :After establishing the previous contentions, I will now assert that this is in fact evidence in favor of the fact that dinosaurs lived 65MYR+ ago. Given the fact that the chemistry, as found above, predicts that only fossils found in certain restricted conditions would be preserved in such a manner, and that anything outside of those parameters would have decayed and fossilized, one would conclude that the vast majority of fossils found would not contain soft tissue. When compared with the established findings of palaeontologists, we see that this prediction is realised without exception. Therefore, the soft tissue found and cited by my opponent is in fact evidence against his argument. CONCLUSION:In summary, I first illustrated that my opponents only cited evidence was void. I then established the parameters of decay and illustrated that decay cannot occur without those parameters. I then asserted that none of the samples cited were found within those parameters. Finally, I illustrated that the aforementioned was in fact an argument in favor of the multi-million year timeline. I wish my opponent luck, and I look forward to an excellent reply. Sources:1. . http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...;2.Mason, Kennith A. , Susan R. Singer, Peter H. Raven, and George B. Johnson. "Peptide Bonds. " Biology. By Jonathan B. Losos. 8th ed. N. p. : McGraw Hill, n. d. 46-48. Print.