Even though the story doesn’t include creationists:
Genetic material is not supposed to last over such time periods—not by a long shot. DNA begins to decay at death. Findings from a 2012 study on moa bones show an organism’s genetic material deteriorates at such a rate that it halves itself every 521 years. This speed would mean paleontologists can only hope to recover recognizable DNA sequences from creatures that lived and died within the past 6.8 million years—far short of even the last nonavian dinosaurs.
Riley Black, “Possible Dinosaur DNA Has Been Found” at Scientific American
Indeed. The splinters of many lecterns pounded on this point are still floating around the universe…
But then there is the Hypacrosaurus cartilage. In a study published earlier this year, Chinese Academy of Sciences paleontologist Alida Bailleul and her colleagues proposed that in that fossil, they had found not only evidence of original proteins and cartilage-creating cells but a chemical signature consistent with DNA.
Riley Black, “Possible Dinosaur DNA Has Been Found” at Scientific American
But wait…
Hot on the heels of Bailleul’s paper—and inspired by the controversy over what the biomolecules inside dinosaur bones represent—a separate team, led by Princeton University geoscientist Renxing Liang, recently reported on unexpected microbes found inside one from Centrosaurus, a horned dinosaur of similar age to Hypacrosaurus. The researchers said that they unearthed DNA inside the bone, but it was from lineages of bacteria and other microorganisms that had not been seen before.
Riley Black, “Possible Dinosaur DNA Has Been Found” at Scientific American
Maybe, but as Bailleul points out, how hard is it to tell bacterial genetic material from dino stuff?
Bailleul’s paper. (open access) From the paper:
This story sounds like a rework of an American story from a couple of years back. See More news from the decline: Revealing responses to creationist’s wrongful dismissal over soft dinosaur tissue discovery. Presumably, creationist Mark Armitage wasn’t supposed to be the one who found that stuff. If anyone was.
Also:
Food for thought from that paywalled soft dino tissue article in Science
Is Mark Armitage’s soft dinosaur tissue work a replication of Mary Schweitzer? If so…?
Is there some reason that paleontologists do NOT want soft dinosaur tissue?
Dinosaur found with preserved skin
and
Dinosaur found with preserved tail feathers, skin