After you explain soft tissue inside of Dino bones and a carving of a Dino from 1000AD.
So hapless excuses for why you can't show us that the samples contained 'living DNA'?
Color me shocked yet again. It doesn't take much to run you off.
And if you wanted explanations for soft tissue, all you had to do was look around for a moment or two. But since you lack the intellectual curiosity to do 20 seconds of google work, I'll gladly do the hard work for you, baby bird.
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.
So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.
And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.
Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.
Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.
"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "
Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained
Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.