bill= my point is still being skirted around, not addressed.
no-one believed soft stuff could survive 68 million yrs, even under the most favourable conditions.
according to evolutionism they must have.

Who 'didn't believe' that? Some researchers have found some quite old DNA... but claims of many million year old DNA have NOT been authenticated. So far, we agree that 68,000,000 is unlikely.
Now... the issue is this: your assertion that "according to evolutionism" "soft stuff" must have survived. I don't know where you find such a claim. Did I miss some link you made? The real point is that evolution, as a science and as a theory does NOT depend on antediluvian DNA evidence. There are many, many other aspects of the entire complex set of studies and analysis OF those studies & evidence that supports and enhances the basis of evolutionary theory.


here... read thru this long article an see what the relevant issues are! (In my not-so-copious 'spare' time, I am re-reading it, and following some of the links to some of the technical articles. It is slow going to really understand it all.)

All I can say right now is that the possible, but unlikely, existence of very ancient DNA does nothing to disprove evolution! That is just a side discussion.