The discovery of collagen in a Tyrannosaurus-Rex dinosaur femur bone was recently reported in the journal SCIENCE. This is an outstanding find because collagen being a soft tissue present in most animals is supposed to decay in a few thousand years. Collagen is the main protein found in connective tissue of animals.
Finding tiny chunks of collagen proteins (just a few amino acids long if memory serves) is not the same as finding intact tissue. They may have very well found small peptides that bound to the apatite matrix of the bone and were therefore preserved. Same for heme proteins. This, in now way, puts the age of the fossil in doubt. The fossil is 65 million years old as determined by the radiometric dating of the rocks above and below the fossil itself. What these fossils are showing is that small amounts of biological material could be preserved over millions of years.
Recently Triceratops and Hadrosaur femur bones in excellent condition were discovered in Glendive Montana and our group received permission to saw them in half and collect samples for Carbon 14 testing. Both bones were tested by a licensed lab for presence of collagen. Both bones did in fact contain some collagen! The best process ( Accelerator Mass Spectrometry ) was used. Total organic carbon and dinosaur bio-apatite was then extracted and pretreated to remove potential contaminants and concordant radiocarbon dates were obtained, all of which were similar to radiocarbon dates for ice age megafauna such as Siberian mammoths, saber tooth tigers of the Los Angeles LaBrea Tarpits, sloth dung and giant bison.
Can you dig up the original references for these claims?
I agree they are not very trust worthy, Im not on their side. Im just looking for a rebutal. Thats it.
We need the original references for a rebuttal. All we have is the claims being made as to what those references actually say. Given the track record of creationists, I don't think we should accept these claims at face value.
For example, Kent Hovind used to claim that pieces of the same mammoth had very discordant dates:
"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years old. Another part of the same mammoth carbon dated at 44,000 years old."--Kent Hovind
When people actually checked his references they found that the dates were from different mammoths, not the same one.