How can trace residues, scarcely visible even under high power magnification, and requiring identifification by mass spectroscopy and immunohistochemistry, possibly be considered similar to the ample and life like remains of an Egyptian mummy? There is no comparison. But that does raise the question that if there were dinosaurs before and after the flood, why are no remains in states of far greater preservation? Other animals, thousands of years old, have been found mummified. The answer, of course, is that no dinosaurs have been extent since tens of millions of years ago.
This is what happens when, in good faith, you try to be fair to YEC’s. The miniscule amounts of organic material exist on the edge of detection and identification. Although I am partial that Schweitzer’s findings will largely stand up, there is still contention that contamination, including with regards to collagen, is at play - Cretaceous dinosaur bone contains recent organic material and provides an environment conducive to microbial communities.
Why did you not mention the basis Schweitzer paper instead of quoting the hack AiG article?
Hack AiG article: #3 Soft Tissue in Fossils
Schweitzer paper in regards to collegen: Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein