A recent article (25 March 2005) in Science magazine (click here), "Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex," first describes some samples that have been found and then suggests that "applying molecular and analytical methods to [such] specimens ... will contribute to our understanding of biogeochemical interactions at the microscopic and molecular levels that lead to fossilization."

The popular press and others have suggested this means red blood cells have been found in these fossil bones. Others disagree sharply. From there the pitch between these two camps has been escalating to fevered, rapidly.

Where's the truth? What's actually going on here, and what meaning should properly be attached to this and related findings?