"I cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years. Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body, Bada says: "Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules." - Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego.
The Devastating Issue of Dinosaur Tissue
by Frank Sherwin, M.A. - http://icr.org/article/2033 .
Dr. Kaye labeled Dr. Schweitzer's findings as biofilm. But,Kaye's paper refers to pores in the cells that are NOT consistent with mineral origins as well as admitting that there was soft tissue(osteocytes) in it.
Here's the REASON why Kaye "found" biofilm: "as Kaye examined more fossils,he was puzzled to find similar materials in nearly every bone.Unable to reconcile the notion that so much tissue could have survived for millions of years,he turned to Zbigniew Sawlowicz." http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/
He's basically saying that since so much soft tissue would contradict evolution,it couldn't possibly be real soft tissue no matter what the evidence. That's pretty severe bias.
Kaye admits,"We are not experts in the field. We are not disagreeing with the fact that their instruments detected protein."
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/355642
Dr. Schweitzer points out numerous flaws in Dr. Kaye's dissent:
"There really isn't a lot new here,although I really welcome that someone is attempting to look at & repeat the studies we conducted. There are really several errors in wording(& spelling & grammar) in the paper by Kaye et al. that seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work,our data & our interpretations.
"Something that is not fully appreciated by the outsider is that science is a process. One makes an observation,forms a testable hypothesis about the observation,gathers data,& the data either support or refute the hypothesis. It is then refined & retested. If the hypothesis is tested multiple times,it is strengthened,& eventually moves to become a theory,one of the strongest statements in science.
"If one chooses to challenge a hypothesis & the data put forth by another researcher to support it,one is under the obligation to
1. form a hypothesis that provides an alternative to the first;
2. reinterpret the original data presented in such a way that it __better supports__ the new hypothesis than the original,&
3. produce new data that,in addition to the original,more strongly supports the alternative hypothesis than the original.
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683
"While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed,& find their own explanations for these,they do not address the considerable chemical & molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see,but we determined that based upon the data we had,microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data(see Schweitzer et al.,2007,Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B)...there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow_ tubes as we observe...Kaye et al...do not identify microbial bodies,a hallmark of biofilm....Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data,& controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al.,2008...Nor did they explain the internal,or 'intracellular' structure we report for observed osteocytes...&finally,they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist /_free floating_/ in a hollow biofilm...the structures we observed did not exhibit the microcryst structure know to characterize framboids...We continue to test the hypothesis that original material is retained in fossil bone... While we welcome the skepticism of colleagues,we hope that the reviewers & readers hold them to the standards to which we are held.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/08/01/slime-versus-dinosaur/
http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683
Schweitzer also states. "The idea that biofilms are completely & solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported," she said by e-mail from a dinosaur dig in Montana.Microscopic views of bones can't explain why the fossil tissues reacted to the immune cells of chickens,for example,& the mammoth ones reacted with elephant cells,she says.
Kaye acknowledges his study does not refute the immune responses reported by Schweitzer's team. "They have single handedly pioneered the use of sophisticated chemical analysis & have created a critical bridge between biology & paleontology," he says.