Petrified Fingertip

[sawlog]

Hello everyone, I found something that is a first of it's kind I've been told.  This needs a close and careful look, so please examine all the details.

And I can't wait to hear what everyone has to say on this one. 

I've been collecting rocks and fossils for 25+ years here in N.E. Minnesota.  I found this on private property a few years back, and it sat in my collection until recently  I looked at it again and seen it for what it really is finally. 

I am certain this is a petrified fingertip. And I know it's hard to believe, but take a close, and careful look at it please before any conclusion you have.  I respectfully will listen to any and all the responses of everyone's given.  It's the same size as my pointer fingertip from the tip to the first knuckle.  The nail is clearly visible, fingerprint is also visible and opposite side of the nail as it should be. And the thing that confirms it for me the most. The picture of a cross section diagram I found on Google images of a fingertip matches my specimens nearly perfect.

Compare the details from one to the other closely. Do you see it the same as I do? I researched and found this have been possible by nuclearpholic substitution. I

have had people argue that it's impossible for this to happen to soft tissue. But I've also found examples of soft tissue in the right conditions were in fact fossilized by minerals. The cross section diagram match nearly exact if you carefully compare with my specimen.  Thanks for your time and any response given everyone.  

 

[Coco]

Hi,

 

Where is your photo ? I wait to see before pronouncing myself, but I probably already know my answer...

 

If I may, we’re in an international forum with a lot of non-US members. So 55741 only serves Americans to know your geographic position under your nickname. It is better to indicate your city and state.

 

Coco

[Kane]

[Topics merged to remove duplication and ensure the one with the photos remain]

 

Despite what may be a passing resemblance, this appears to be a weathered piece of quartz. What appears somewhat akin to a fingerprint is likely an artifact of crystallization and weathering. One would actually need to see evidence of bone on the end where the joint separated from the rest of a finger, which does not seem the case here. Any soft tissue preservation, which is rare, would likely also show signs of dessication. 

[Coco]

I agree with Kane. I see no connection with this stone and the finger cuts. It’s just quartz rolled by the water. Nature is sometimes a joke.

 

Coco

[RJB]

Not sure if this is meant as a joke or not, but thought it was purty funny.

 

RB

[Rockwood]

Petrified finger has many web pages. A few of them look serious. 

[FossilNerd]

Unfortunately this is not a fossilized finger as you had hoped. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.  
 

Honestly, I don’t even see the supposed fingernail and print. 
 

Soft tissue preservation is extremely rare, and it most certainly does not fossilize in the manner you are thinking.  I also do not see any bone texture in the end of your specimen.

 

I would encourage you to read about Pareidolia (link below). It’s a common and natural phenomenon that happens to everyone at some point or another in their lives. It’s why we see bunnies in clouds, a face on the moon, or a finger in a rock.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

Edited November 30, 2022 by FossilNerd

[Fossildude19]

Sorry, but I have to agree,  ... no kind of fossil here.

Some sort of rosy quartz or other quartz/quartzite type of rock.

 

[digit]

8 hours ago, sawlog said:

I am certain this is a petrified fingertip.

I am certain that you are. I also understand that nothing we'll be able to say will dissuade you from this position.

 

I side with the others in agreeing that this is a run of the mill piece of quartzite that you have interpreted as a "petrified finger". There are two main reasons why I disagree with your assertion. First, soft tissues does not "petrify" in the way you are imagining it. Second, I am well aware of the curious phenomenon of pareidolia which is the result of our advanced pattern recognition capabilities of our brains. It is what allows us to perceive familiar shapes (like faces) in random stimuli.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=pareidolia&tbm=isch

 

Once you are convinced that you have found 'the first of its kind' you continue to search for supporting evidence (as logic would dictate) but you are starting with a logical impossibility and trying to support with wishful comparisons.

 

8 hours ago, sawlog said:

I respectfully will listen to any and all the responses of everyone's given. 

I do hope so since we have no reason to deceive you. We see a steady stream of "petrified fingertips" as well as "petrified hearts (and other internal organs)" and a large number of "petrified snake heads". Mostly, out pseudo-fossils come in the form of "dinosaur eggs (often with embryo)" which invariably turn out to be concretions.

 

8 hours ago, sawlog said:

I researched and found this have been possible by nuclearpholic substitution. I have had people argue that it's impossible for this to happen to soft tissue. But I've also found examples of soft tissue in the right conditions were in fact fossilized by minerals.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleophilic_substitution

 

Nucleophilic substitution (if that is what you are referring to above) is a real type of chemical reaction but it would be of no use in "petrifying" any soft tissue. I am not surprised that you have had arguments from folks telling you it is impossible because they are relying on facts and logic.

 

 

You came to this forum to show us your rock and explain what you believe it to be. You stated you would listen to our responses--though you never stated you would back down from your initial position (and I suspect you won't). We are a welcoming forum with a diversity of interests and knowledge levels (from beginners to professional paleontologists). We are also a science based forum and our main goal is to discuss fossils and share factual knowledge about fossils. You item is a piece of quartzite and not even the most suggestive pseudo-fossil that we've seen here. You can choose to believe what we are telling you or you can claim that we don't understand your find and how special and unique it is. We've let you know what the true nature of this rock is--now it is up to you to either believe us and learn about pareidolia and how the fossilization process actually works OR to claim that we can't see or understand how unique and game changing your find actually is.

 

We won't change our mind--the question is, will you?

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[sawlog]

Thanks Ken,  your right in I'm having a hard time with your explanation in how it's impossible?  But I'm not going to keep pressing trying to convince anyone of you your wrong  lol  thanks for your information and like I said, your opinion and input I respectfully heard and will move on to learn as much as possible here.  I have another fossils to show if you would allow me to post?  This one is not so unique. lol  Ken will you help me with one more?  Also found in the private property in NE MN.    

 

I think I know what this is, but I'm here to learn...  Not to teach. lol  I think this is a clam, but a may be wrong.  lol  Again thanks for helping identify.  

 

 

[ClearLake]

This is another rock, potentially chert. If we were to call it a clam, we would expect to see the shape and symmetry that a clam exhibits, but this does not. There is no observable shell material that I can see, and while in your area many clam fossils are often internal molds and don’t exhibit shell material, they would still have the shape, symmetry and features of a bivalve interior, which yours does not. Sorry.  

[sawlog]

8 hours ago, FossilNerd said:

Unfortunately this is not a fossilized finger as you had hoped. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.  
 

Honestly, I don’t even see the supposed fingernail and print. 
 

Soft tissue preservation is extremely rare, and it most certainly does not fossilize in the manner you are thinking.  I also do not see any bone texture in the end of your specimen.

 

I would encourage you to read about Pareidolia (link below). It’s a common and natural phenomenon that happens to everyone at some point or another in their lives. It’s why we see bunnies in clouds, a face on the moon, or a finger in a rock.
 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

 

 

[Kane]

The pitted feature with a lot of undulating bits does not resemble a nail. 

[JBkansas]

Here are some examples of real soft tissue fossils: 

 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0252355

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/nov/02/dinosaur-brains-and-other-remarkable-fossil-finds-palaeontology-soft-tissue-birds

https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03749-3

 

One thing to note is that the soft tissues are compressed and left as thin layers over/adjacent to bone.  If this was a petrified finger, that's what we would expect to see, a series of finger bones with  (if we're really really lucky) an adjacent impression of skin.

Edited November 30, 2022 by JBkansas

[digit]

31 minutes ago, sawlog said:

Ken will you help me with one more?

As mentioned above. Nothing indicating that this is a fossilized bivalve. There is no indication of shell texture nor is there the expected shape if this were to be an internal mold of a bivalve (a steinkern). Just because a rock is roughly the size of a quahog clam and approximately circular in overall shape is not nearly sufficient for this to be a fossilize clam. Sorry.

 

10 minutes ago, sawlog said:

 

Nope. Not a nailbed.

 

A common error made by those who do not understand the methods by which fossils are created is to assume that the three dimensionally inflated soft tissue can somehow be transformed into mineral form. They assume there will be some distortion when this transformation occurs and that theory is used to explain any warping or deformation to support the supposition that features like this "fingernail" is distorted from its original shape. The simpler truth is that this is a quartzite rock that is pinkish and that is enforcing the belief that this is somehow the tip of a finger. If this rock was green or black or purple the idea that this is a magnificently preserved digit would not have occurred to you and we would not be having this exchange.

 

We've had many others that are more convincing than your item but sadly none of them are what they are hoped to be:

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/124091-fossilized-fingertoe/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/124011-toe-and-an-unsure-bone-area-but-think-might-be-finger-or-toe-input/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/122369-petrified-finger/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/122008-looks-like-a-finger/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/93356-petrified-finger/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/102553-finger-or-toe-bone/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/98157-is-this-a-fossilized-finger/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/93800-fossil-that-looks-like-a-finger-found-in-puerto-rican-beach-site/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/74806-toe-or-finger/

 

http://www.thefossilforum.com/index.php?/topic/58453-is-this-a-finger/

 

You can see that your item is not the first here we've encountered. If you read the exchanges in many of these posts you'll spot similar arguments to the ones you are using. Unfortunately, your item remains a non-fossil rock and this remains a science-based forum. We've seen your images and we understand your observations but your rocks remain rocks and not fossils. We do enjoy identifying fossils displayed here on the forum but as yet your rocks have not been fossils. You are welcome to post images of other rocks you think might be fossils.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[sawlog]

24 minutes ago, Kane said:

The pitted feature with a lot of undulating bits does not resemble a nail.  

I disagree, it has been pushed back a bit.  I believe it was water logged. Softened by prolonged period submerged in water and then pushed back and it curles upward. I wonder how many new types of fossils have been tossed aside by people? I question if the there's no room for possiblity of new and unknown fossil types and species.  Also I don't believe myself that we know all there is to know like some believe.  listen to the one asking the questions, not the one giving the answers.  Einsteins words.  I say in all respect to everyone in this group.  When your cup is full, there's no room for more is there?  

[hadrosauridae]

not fossils of any shape or form.  You are seeing what you want to see, nothing more.

[Fossildude19]

6 minutes ago, sawlog said:

I disagree, it has been pushed back a bit.  I believe it was water logged. Softened by prolonged period submerged in water and then pushed back and it curles upward. I wonder how many new types of fossils have been tossed aside by people? I question if the there's no room for possiblity of new and unknown fossil types and species.  Also I don't believe myself that we know all there is to know like some believe.  listen to the one asking the questions, not the one giving the answers.  Einsteins words.  I say in all respect to everyone in this group.  When your cup is full, there's no room for more is there?  

 

Well, this is a science based Forum.  No science has been presented in defense of so called "mud fossils", and no science can explain how a finger could have possibly turned into quartz. While it may LOOK like a finger tip, it is not. There is no way that flesh, blood, and bone can be transmogrified to quartz. Not possible. If a finger was that water logged, then bacteria and decay would have started.  Your theories are incorrect.

We would love for some amazing new fossil process/fossils to be found. Unfortunately, you are barking up the wrong tree here.

 

[Ludwigia]

I would suggest that now is the time to end this fruitless discussion and let the OP bark up some other trees.

[digit]

9 minutes ago, sawlog said:

I disagree, it has been pushed back a bit.  I believe it was water logged. Softened by prolonged period submerged in water and then pushed back and it curles upward.

Since you are imagining an entirely new method of fossilization anything is possible. You still haven't presented us with the means by which keratin fingernails, flesh, and skin have somehow managed to become mineralized in an incredible 3D form. No evidence of desiccation seems to be shown here and this "finger" is in much better shape than the dried Peruvian or Egyptian mummies. I'm still unclear by what new process this detached digit has been preserved. I'm sure we would enjoy hearing by what means this exceedingly rare (if not unique) means of preservation took place.

 

16 minutes ago, sawlog said:

I wonder how many new types of fossils have been tossed aside by people? I question if the there's no room for possiblity of new and unknown fossil types and species.  Also I don't believe myself that we know all there is to know like some believe.  listen to the one asking the questions, not the one giving the answers.  Einsteins words.  I say in all respect to everyone in this group.  When your cup is full, there's no room for more is there?  

Lots of fossil information was lost in the past due to ignorance. During the Cope-Marsh Bone Wars of the late 1800s I'm certain that lots of contextual information was lost in the rush to ship home to museums larger bones than their rival's. Recent paleontology now progresses much more methodically and we've been rewarded with "mummified" dinosaurs preserving imprints of what the texture of the hides of these great beasts must have looked like. Advanced high-energy methods have even allowed us to peek into the chemical residue and infer colors and patterns of markings on these rare dinosaur fossils. Sorting through the micro-matrix surrounding fossils has allowed us to expand or knowledge of paleo ecosystems by learning more about the smaller fauna and the fauna present.

 

Increased knowledge of fossils, ancient life, and the taphonomic processes by which fossils are preserved have allowed us to locate more fossils and detect fainter preserved material. Paleontology is a science and as such is ever growing and refining. To assume that paleontology has been unaware that animal remains can be miraculously preserved by a means until now unknown and we've somehow missed seeing all of the wonderfully preserved fossils that contain flesh and skin simply because we could not conceive that these pseudo-fossils were real assumes you understand the fossilization process (in all its forms) better than people who have dedicated their careers to studying it.

 

There is lots more to know about fossils--in fact it is such a rich subject we'll never know all that can be learned by studying these wonderful clues to past life. We learn and add to our knowledge based on fact, logic and theories that are tested and expand our knowledge regardless of whether they are proved out or found lacking.

 

You have proposed a theory--fingers can be preserved in 3D with flesh mineralized without any desiccation. You haven't provided any means for this to happen but we are to accept this as a possibility because it supports your theory that you've found a finger. You will state that you do not need to provide the means how this happened but that we should just accept there must be some means--otherwise how could this 'finger exist'? There is a simpler solution--your 'finger' is a piece of quartzite, pinkish but otherwise not resembling a finger. Pareidolia is the only thing backing your argument.

 

You have come to our forum and presented your item. You have told us what you believe to be and provided your 'evidence' such that it is. You have asked our opinion and it has been given. It does not match your initial hopes and so you have argued your point. You have hypothesized about means of fossil preservation beyond what is known (and likely in violation of the laws of physics) and you are basically inferring that we are close-minded. This is usually the point in other predictably similar conversations where we are told that we must 'think outside the box'. We prefer to stay within the box marked 'reality' as this is a science-based forum.

 

You are welcome to explain how your new preservation process works or accept the fact that you have a chunk of pink quartzite.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

[digit]

23 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

I would suggest that now is the time to end this fruitless discussion.

I do sense the time is drawing near. Unless the OP can provide some argument as to why we should believe his (unstated) means of preservation that would cause a finger to petrify, I think further discussion would indeed be fruitless at best.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[sawlog]

23 minutes ago, digit said:

Since you are imagining an entirely new method of fossilization anything is possible. You still haven't presented us with the means by which keratin fingernails, flesh, and skin have somehow managed to become mineralized in an incredible 3D form. No evidence of desiccation seems to be shown here and this "finger" is in much better shape than the dried Peruvian or Egyptian mummies. I'm still unclear by what new process this detached digit has been preserved. I'm sure we would enjoy hearing by what means this exceedingly rare (if not unique) means of preservation took place.

 

Lots of fossil information was lost in the past due to ignorance. During the Cope-Marsh Bone Wars of the late 1800s I'm certain that lots of contextual information was lost in the rush to ship home to museums larger bones than their rival's. Recent paleontology now progresses much more methodically and we've been rewarded with "mummified" dinosaurs preserving imprints of what the texture of the hides of these great beasts must have looked like. Advanced high-energy methods have even allowed us to peek into the chemical residue and infer colors and patterns of markings on these rare dinosaur fossils. Sorting through the micro-matrix surrounding fossils has allowed us to expand or knowledge of paleo ecosystems by learning more about the smaller fauna and the fauna present.

 

Increased knowledge of fossils, ancient life, and the taphonomic processes by which fossils are preserved have allowed us to locate more fossils and detect fainter preserved material. Paleontology is a science and as such is ever growing and refining. To assume that paleontology has been unaware that animal remains can be miraculously preserved by a means until now unknown and we've somehow missed seeing all of the wonderfully preserved fossils that contain flesh and skin simply because we could not conceive that these pseudo-fossils were real assumes you understand the fossilization process (in all its forms) better than people who have dedicated their careers to studying it.

 

There is lots more to know about fossils--in fact it is such a rich subject we'll never know all that can be learned by studying these wonderful clues to past life. We learn and add to our knowledge based on fact, logic and theories that are tested and expand our knowledge regardless of whether they are proved out or found lacking.

 

You have proposed a theory--fingers can be preserved in 3D with flesh mineralized without any desiccation. You haven't provided any means for this to happen but we are to accept this as a possibility because it supports your theory that you've found a finger. You will state that you do not need to provide the means how this happened but that we should just accept there must be some means--otherwise how could this 'finger exist'? There is a simpler solution--your 'finger' is a piece of quartzite, pinkish but otherwise not resembling a finger. Pareidolia is the only thing backing your argument.

 

You have come to our forum and presented your item. You have told us what you believe to be and provided your 'evidence' such that it is. You have asked our opinion and it has been given. It does not match your initial hopes and so you have argued your point. You have hypothesized about means of fossil preservation beyond what is known (and likely in violation of the laws of physics) and you are basically inferring that we are close-minded. This is usually the point in other predictably similar conversations where we are told that we must 'think outside the box'. We prefer to stay within the box marked 'reality' as this is a science-based forum.

 

You are welcome to explain how your new preservation process works or accept the fact that you have a chunk of pink quartzite.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

 

I can't say for sure exactly how it happened, if have to travel back in time.  I don't have my time machine right now, can I use yours? JK.. I have only a few thoughts that I will share in pics I'll drop below.  I feel if I throw my theories out, it'll be devoured by a pack of hungry wolves?  lol  

 

 

 

 

 

[Fossildude19]

"Inspirational" Einstein quotes.  Hmm.

 

So, ... no theories.  Right. Got it.  

Topic is now locked.