A quick look into web data and deep web data from SChweitzer et al shows me that the world is divided into these two camps. SChweitzer, who found the "soft tissue" in a Hell Creek T Rex, has presented evidence that the blood cells they found were nucleated, like birds. ALL THE REST of any web data, seems to link onto this guys clandestine (unpublished work on methodology). The creationists have tried to jump all over Schweitzer and have used this soft tissue experience as some kind of "proof of a young earth". ALso , by claiming to show that the rbc's are anucleate (without a nucleus) that they would most closely resemble mammalian rbc's. SO , is bewildered to be believed ? I say that he should present his data and methods for publication via some means.(not a web site chat site) And let the pebbles fall.
Schweitzers data is quite detailed as far as methodology and Bewildered only posts a brief outline of methods.
I see that, on top of bewildereds posts, his stuff has been pretty much glommed by all the Creationist networks who are claiming that Dinosaurs were mammals and that they didnt live as long ago as science claims.
I am sitting here with my pistachio breakfast wanting more detail and someone to carilfy the obvious discrepency as to who's data is correct. I see that the Creationists have spent a lot of time covering the web with insults onto SChweitzer's interpretations and theyve misrepresented it in these long ipsi dixit web sites that go around quoting each other ad nauseum in order to try to give an impression that theres a lot of controversy out there.