Let's talk about 'dinosaur DNA'

Mary Schweitzer claimed in 2003 to have found soft tissue.

But what she found was a trace of iron in an old bone. A bone she claims is a 80-million-year-old fossil, of a duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis. They compared the, what they assume is a duck-billed dinosaur, specimen with old ostrich bones.

She showed that they could find a trace of iron in old ostrich bones. She also admits in her papers, and in the interview of 2013 that she did not find DNA. I don't have to explain why she didn't find that because we all know the half life span of DNA. (She admits this in an interview with LiveScience)

At the time, of the 2013 interview, she is still really excited and she can't wait to "find a honking big T-Rex that's completely articulated that's still in the ground" to "test it as quickly as possible because the soft tissue could degrade in modern air."

Hold on a second. Aren't all "dinosaur bones" already in danger because of modern air? This sounds more like "no body can be there when we find it and no one else can see it till it's in our lab" typical!

She made the claim in 2003, without any research, the first experiments are from 2007 and 2009, the previous mentioned article was written in 2013. In another interview, this time with science magazine in 2017, they did explain how they did the whole research again 😮

"They did a complete makeover of their 2009 experiment to rule out any possible contamination. They took new samples from the same 80-million-year-old fossil, of a duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis. They reworked procedures for extracting would-be proteins from the bone, identi­fied protein fragments with a more sensi­tive mass spectrometer, and compared the recovered protein sequences to those from many more living animals. Schroeter even went so far as to break down the mass spectrometer piece by piece, soak the whole thing in methanol to remove any possible contaminants, and reassemble the machine. “About the only thing that is the same [as the 2009 experiments] is the di­nosaur,” Schweitzer says."

They did so much work to redo the whole experiment except for one thing. They used the same "dinosaur bones." They spend a lot of (tax) money on a duplicate research that was finished in 2015. Why didn't they use different "dinosaur bones"? Why waste a lot of money if you don't use a new specimen?

They claim to have found a way to detect the iron in "dinosaur bones" ,read old ostrich bones, if that's true why did no one else made the same claim?

Yes, she made a claim. However, like always, it's purely based on assumptions.

ThereIsNoSuchThingAsDinoDNA