""the dino bone soft tissue argument has not been refuted as yet.""

Maybe the findings will be svientifically, refuted, maybe not. If not, that does not mean it will not be added to the scientifuc knowledge base.

But, I suspect that you still don't grasp fully how this type of science knowledge evolves, Pete7*?

Like with all science, knowledge builds on what can be proven (using standard processes) to be seen as reliab3le (aka peer reviewed) information. If new credible information becomes available, and is found to be solidly based, it is incorporated into the mosaic of existing "reliable" knowledge. Rarely does any new, (and previously seen as unlikely) knowledge come forward that cannot be accomodated within existing scientific knowledge framework. When it does, it is unlikely to totally break down the walls of all existing knowledge, as you seem to suggest should occur. The knowledge is accepted and accomodated, even if there is uncertainity as to where it fits in the science knowledge puzzle. It is not ignored, thrown away, nor will it be given meaning beyond what it can be proven to inducate. Quite often the science knowledge process is slow and methodical, to avoid error. This can frustrate those seeking a "quick and dirty" answer to the meaning if the new information..

On a similar note, you do not tear your entire solidly built house down because one brick building block seems to be different than the others. It certainly does mean it is wise to check your house out to ensure the other bricks are solid, and that the new brick does not impact the structure. But, only a nieve fellow would "run off" in all directions crying in wild speculation that this solidly built house is bound to fall because of it.