Dinasour soft tissues and DNA prove their recent existance

Con and I agree on the presented findings except for DNA, and we obviously do not agree that these findings disprove a 65Myr old extinction for dinosaurs. You say, "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+." Dr. Schweitzer"s team detected DNA in three independent ways: one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double"stranded form. This shows that it was very well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don"t form stable duplexes. The stain DAPI lodges in a groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp. They also detected a special protein called histone H4, which is a specific protein for DNA. In more complex organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is wrapped (Segal, E. et al. "A genomic code for nucleosome positioning." Nature 442(7104):772"778, 17 August 2006). "Furthermore, antibodies to DNA show localized binding to these microstructures, which also react positively with DNA intercalating stains propidium iodide (PI) and 4R42;,6R42;-diamidino-2-phenylindole dihydrochloride (DAPI). Each antibody binds dinosaur cells in patterns similar to extant cells. These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals. . . These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells" (Schweitzer, M. H., et al. "Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules." Bone, 17 October 2012). You say, "Sufficiently preserved dinosaur DNA has not been discovered." Its presence and endogenous probability were well established by Dr. Schweitzer and her team. So this does not "nullify" my quote of Dr. Allentoft. You say, "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." Any scientist avoids saying things are impossible I'm sure you aware of that. About the strongest statement an honest scientist could make is that something is "extremely improbable." The reason for his statement is more important than the statement itself; under the "best" conditions (which are extremely improbable themselves) DNA would not be detected after 6.8Myr. I used this quote because it was the most conservative. Other scientists have yielded much lower age estimates. Using the kinetics of DNA depurination, Dr. Smith, et al, have conducted a comprehensive estimate of the limit of DNA survival; In dinosaur bone, a concentration of 0.001% DNA, at a constant temperature of 0 degrees C would yield a detection limit of 125,000 years, a temperature of 10 degrees C would yield a detection limit of 17,500 years, and a temperature of 20 degrees C would yield a detection limit of 2,500 years (Smith, C., et al. Nature 410: 771"777, 2001). You say, "Here my opponent asserts that none of the aforementioned tissues could last millions of years. He claims to cite evidence, yet provides none." Here is my evidence for the other soft tissues: at 0 degrees C, a bone concentation of 22%collagen would not be detactable after 2,700,000 years, and at a more realistic temperature of 20 degrees C, collagen would not be detectable after 15,000 years. As for osteocalcin, a bone concentration of 0.2% at 0 degrees C would not be detectable after 110,000,000 years, but again, at a more realistic temperature of 20 degrees C, osteocalcin would not be detectable after 580,000 years (http://www.google.com...). I believe the other soft tissues can fit within the ranges of both collagen and osteocalcin. You say, "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." Hydrolysis is not the only reaction which causes tissue degradation. Bacterial degradation, thermo-degradation, radiation, oxidation, and enzymatic degradation all play roles in the degradation of soft tissues. This is why Dr. Schweitzer says, in the previously provided video, "When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it [soft tissues] should be gone, it should be degraded completely." You say, "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." Are you implying that hydrolysis could not have taken place for the cited examples? Can you provide evidence that the conditions in which these specimens were preserved were in fact "devoid of the components necessary to initiate and maintain hydrolysis?" Are you saying that the environment remained anhydrous for millions of years? That's very hard to believe. It should be noted that these specimens were all partly fossilized, and water is a key element in permineralization. Am I missing something here? In conclusion, your first contention is false, evidence of the presence of DNA in Dr. Schweitzer's specimen is very strong; your second contention ignores other potential degredating factors such as bacterial degradation rendering your statement moot; and your third contention is unsubstantiated as it is quite implausible to think that ubiquitous ground water, or water of some source, was not present in the fossil's environment for millions of years. Since your three contentious statements are not substantiated, your counter argument is moot. I maintain that since there is no potential way for soft tissues to last 65+ million years, these tissues found in dinosaur bone reveal that they are much younger and fit just fine within the Biblical Creation model which places these fossils at the time of the Flood ~4,000 years ago.