At https://dailygalaxy.com/2026/05/dinosaur-bone-inside-collagen-intact-found/ … dinosaur remains are usually found in rock. The rocks are sedimentary in nature, muds and sands and limestones. They are in effect, made of stone themselves – but what causes the stone in the first instance? As such, scientists have never thought stone bones could preserve soft tissue – and certainly not collagen. However, an Edmontosaurus specimen has been found to differ. It was preserved in sediments dating to around the time of the Chicxulub iridium layer. This bone has been found to retain molecular traces from 66 million years ago. That is a very long time for such tissue to survive. The breakthrough comes via modern laboratory techniques unavailable to earlier paleontologists. They have allowed researchers to detect biomolecular traces once considered impossible.
The Edmontosaurus came from South Dakota’s Hell Creek Formation. You can look that up on the Wiki if you have never heard of it. Basically, it is a dinosaur graveyard with evidence of water transporting dinosaurs and leaving their remains in heaps. In this case the Edmontosaurus was not entirely left in disarticulated bits and pieces. It was a recognisable fossil. The fossil contained remnants of bone collagen. This is structured protein found in bones – as well as hydroxyproline, an amino acid. The research came from Liverpool University – using microscopes, chemical analysis, and protein sequencing. This may trigger a relook and analysis of dinosaur remains in museums around the world.
Later, it reads … ‘these findings also make us wonder how such molecules can survive for tens of millions of years …’.
At https://dailygalaxy.com/2026/05/giant-dinosaur-tracks-cave-ceiling-france/ …. a cave in southern France has an interesting ceiling. A world turned upside down. Dinosaur footprints walk across the cave roof. The prints are so well preserved that individual digits, foot pads and claw marks are still visible. How does that come about?
This is the interesting bit as it impinges on a forum piece on this web site by Robert Maximus. He claims limestone deposits were laid down quickly, from mud and sediments etc. The explanation offered at the link is that water, or moisture percoluting through what was a limestone sedimentary layer, carved out the softer mud deposit [softer limestone layer] in which the footprints were left, but did not erode the limestone layer on top as it was harder. It must also have been deposited quickly on top of the soft mud in order to preserve the footprints. We are talking here about karst formations. This one dates back to the Jurassic era and therefore the process of slow erosion of the soft limestone had plenty of time to be eked out of the harder limestone layers. Karst formations are common right across the globe. There is even a similar set of dinosaur footprints on the roof of a cave in Australia. In Queensland. Both appear to be karst systems.
Several points emerge from this explanation. The idea that a footprint in soft mud that became limestone was preserved permanently in rocks, suggests the limestone layer above was laid down quickly – thereby making a dent in uniformitarian interpretations of sedimentary layers. The same thing must also apply to other karst formations – often given a gradualist interpretation that is firmly consensus and therefore, until now, impregnable. It doesn’t mean the dinosaurs lived recently as the process of leaching out the limestone mud via the percolation of water would have taken a long time. However, some geologists do recognise that some limestone formations were laid down quickly – but this is usually tempered by sticking to the uniformitarian model by saying the layers above formed over a long time. It is only during catastrophic events, whatever their cause, that sediments can be laid down quickly. A new look at limestone formations is overdue, and in particular karsts. The idea that some limestone formations derive from fossilised coral reef may be true, for example, in Florida, but limestone deposits in general are probably not ancient reef. Sometimes it does have that look. I picked up a large slab of limestone in a field west of Aylesbury and it was full of marine fossils closely bunched up. It was too big to carry very far so I left it on a fence post and went on with the field survey in search of pottery fragments.