Edited

 The Shroud Of Turin

"They can explain UAP/Information in the DNA molecule"

Should have read:

"They can't explain..."

And

"other lines from Europe"

Should have read:

"Other Linens from Europe".

Interesting enough the most valid criticism against it being authentic would be:

In 1543, John Calvin, in his book Treatise on Relics, explained the reason why the Shroud cannot be genuine:[51]

In all the places where they pretend to have the graveclothes, they show a large piece of linen by which the whole body, including the head, was covered, and, accordingly, the figure exhibited is that of an entire body. But the Evangelist John relates that Christ was buried, "as is the manner of the Jews to bury." What that manner was may be learned, not only from the Jews, by whom it is still observed, but also from their books, which explain what the ancient practice was. It was this: The body was wrapped up by itself as far as the shoulders, and then the head by itself was bound round with a napkin, tied by the four corners, into a knot. And this is expressed by the Evangelist, when he says that Peter saw the linen clothes in which the body had been wrapped lying in one place, and the napkin which had been wrapped about the head lying in another. The term napkin may mean either a handkerchief employed to wipe the face, or it may mean a shawl, but never means a large piece of linen in which the whole body may be wrapped. I have, however, used the term in the sense which they improperly give to it. On the whole, either the Evangelist John must have given a false account, or every one of them must be convicted of falsehood, thus making it manifest that they have too impudently imposed on the unlearned.

Yet this is hardly referenced by scientist seeking to refute claims of its authenticity.

So if its scales with two sides to put weights in?

One side would  have:

 Dating to 2000 tears ago.

Pollen from the Middle East.

No other artifact of its kind known to be in existence

and hasn't been accurately reproduced.

The other side would have the above mentioned from John Calvin 

as its best refutation.

Like I said, draw your own conclusions.

Why now with the dating to 2000 years ago 

and pollen from the Middle East would be my question for you. 

It shows the time period were about to enter into would be my answer.