“How could dinosaur proteins persist over 70 million years inside dinosaur bones? That’s one of the biggest questions that secular paleontologists have faced in the last two decades. Many of them reason that some unique but undiscovered set of conditions grant proteins power to defy all odds and somehow survive unimaginable time scales. They think someone, someday, will discover the protein’s secret to survival. A new model suggests those long-sought conditions have come forth. And the once-secret rescuing device has a name: Maillard reactions. Does this common chemistry really explain the issue like its champions suggest, or does it leave ancient organics just as frail as ever?”
See more here: https://www.icr.org/article/maillard-reactions-explain-dinosaur-proteins
Note: Atheists often declare that we as Creationists are foolish saying that when we come to a gap in our knowledge, we will simply stop our investigation and claim that “God did it.” This is called the “God-of-the-Gaps” argument. Let the record state, that we do not ever want to stop scientific research in any way – but we do want to allow alternatives to be considered and if the evidence points to an Intelligent Designer, then that would be a reasonable conclusion. And if our scientific investigation someday answers questions that we thought once pointed to God, we would go with the truth that there is no God, but keep in mind, too, that there are still many things that science cannot prove that more clearly point to God as well (Ex. Science can tell us how to kill Grandma, but science cannot tell us if we should kill Grandma. – Morality is an evidence of God! https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/three-ms-that-naturalism-cant-provide/)
When we refer to a “Science-of-the-Gaps” example, that is an example where often evolutionists will avoid a simpler and more reasonable conclusion (that there is an Intelligent Designer) in hopes that science will someday explain something in a naturalistic way. Atheistic Evolutionists are often doing the same thing but more foolish because they are stubbornly unwilling to consider what the evidence seems to be pointing most directly to.