Fossil Ages?

[Guest solius symbiosus]

Anyone that thinks they know for sure what happened a billion years ago is simply fooling themselves and trying to draw everyone else into their fantasy world.

Two fallacies for the price of one. You are trying to set up a straw man. Who claims that they "know for sure" what happened during the Proterozoic?

The rest is an appeal to ignorance. Because someone lacks knowledge of, or the ability to understand a principle, doesn't imply that that principle is false.

[THobern]

Because someone lacks knowledge of, or the ability to understand a principle, doesn't imply that that principle is false.

That's not a fair representation of what he said. He wasn't attacking the principles, claiming that his lack of knowledge disproved them. We can see that he doesn't understand the relevant arguments, but he never used that ignorance as an argument, instead that ignorance has become apparent through his argument.

[tracer]

ron - what the heck happened to your topic?! it's completely encrusted in crankiness, and it happened in the blink of an eye!?

hate to go back on topic because of the long psychological walk back out of the valley of piques, but anyway.

i certainly believe that the bags of flour are as you describe them. and as i said, permineralization, encrustation, or deposition of dissolved mineral onto or into something is a highly variable process. but the fact that it can happen very rapidly under certain conditions doesn't mean it isn't one fairly useful indicator in assessing fossils found under more common conditions. of course one should take note of the presence of hot springs or other potential sources of high levels of dissolved minerals in an area where "fossils" are found. one should note all conditions. recent mineralization can look different from older mineralization. and some mineralization doesn't "fit" with the normal context. i'll give you a good example. iron carbonate encrustations can happen very rapidly due to an electrolytic/anaerobic/bacterialicious reducing situation in a marine environment. so say you're not too far from a coast, and finding some calcium- or silica-based mineralized "fossils", that are "classic" in their appearance to what you've come to expect from experience, and you suddenly come across a "fossil" that's more reddish, or platey-metallic-purplish looking, and it's from an extant species. i usually end up feeling like the thing isn't very old and was just near some iron in the strata in which it was buried and got "ironed out" (heh).

anyway, i think i may have the morning rambles, so best to shut up. plus i seem to somehow have gotten my shoes all covered in vitriol, so i need to go wash them off, in soft water.

[Ron E.]

ron - what the heck happened to your topic?! it's completely encrusted in crankiness, and it happened in the blink of an eye!?

hate to go back on topic because of the long psychological walk back out of the valley of piques, but anyway.

i certainly believe that the bags of flour are as you describe them. and as i said, permineralization, encrustation, or deposition of dissolved mineral onto or into something is a highly variable process. but the fact that it can happen very rapidly under certain conditions doesn't mean it isn't one fairly useful indicator in assessing fossils found under more common conditions. of course one should take note of the presence of hot springs or other potential sources of high levels of dissolved minerals in an area where "fossils" are found. one should note all conditions. recent mineralization can look different from older mineralization. and some mineralization doesn't "fit" with the normal context. i'll give you a good example. iron carbonate encrustations can happen very rapidly due to an electrolytic/anaerobic/bacterialicious reducing situation in a marine environment. so say you're not too far from a coast, and finding some calcium- or silica-based mineralized "fossils", that are "classic" in their appearance to what you've come to expect from experience, and you suddenly come across a "fossil" that's more reddish, or platey-metallic-purplish looking, and it's from an extant species. i usually end up feeling like the thing isn't very old and was just near some iron in the strata in which it was buried and got "ironed out" (heh).

anyway, i think i may have the morning rambles, so best to shut up. plus i seem to somehow have gotten my shoes all covered in vitriol, so i need to go wash them off, in soft water.

Thanks, T. Who would have guessed that YOU would be a voice of reason?

And for those who have sort of veered into other subjects, this helps prove my OWN pet theory: Almost EVERYONE is religious. That includes those who worship at the altar of science.

Hope nobody is offended by this. I honestly love all y'all!

Edited October 7, 2009 by Ron E.

[ashcraft]

Natural Law-explains what is going to happen-not why

hypothesis-possible explanation for why an event occurs(ied)

theory-well tested hypothesis, if you are to the theory stage, the underlying premise is probably correct, fine tuning is always occurring

Global Warming-irrelevant to me, the earth has been much warmer and cooler then it is now, and will be again. My biggest gripe with global warming is it is being done through bad science, it is largely model driven, and when something occurs that doesn't fit the model-of-the-moment, the model changes. Ask yourselves, is there any possible way you can disprove global warming as a theory/hypothesis? If you can't, then it is bad science. Don't misunderstand what I am saying, when you are testing a hypothesis, the results of the experiment should say either yes it is possible in that instance/circumstance, or no it is not possible, which voids the theory/hypothesis. When "climate change" advocates get a "no" answer, they modify their question by changing their model.

Climate change-inevitable, also a new term for global warming, used because how can you have cooling trends if "global warming" is taking place?

As far as the flour sacks, they are not truly "fossilized", or petrified, which would be a better term. The cells of the wheat haven't been replaced by minerals, they have been coated with mineral, giving them the appearance of stone. What you are talking about would be similar to a leaf falling onto wet cement, leaving a "permanent" impression, but not a fossil.

Brent Ashcraft

[Ron E.]

Natural Law-explains what is going to happen-not why

hypothesis-possible explanation for why an event occurs(ied)

theory-well tested hypothesis, if you are to the theory stage, the underlying premise is probably correct, fine tuning is always occurring

Global Warming-irrelevant to me, the earth has been much warmer and cooler then it is now, and will be again. My biggest gripe with global warming is it is being done through bad science, it is largely model driven, and when something occurs that doesn't fit the model-of-the-moment, the model changes. Ask yourselves, is there any possible way you can disprove global warming as a theory/hypothesis? If you can't, then it is bad science. Don't misunderstand what I am saying, when you are testing a hypothesis, the results of the experiment should say either yes it is possible in that instance/circumstance, or no it is not possible, which voids the theory/hypothesis. When "climate change" advocates get a "no" answer, they modify their question by changing their model.

Climate change-inevitable, also a new term for global warming, used because how can you have cooling trends if "global warming" is taking place?

As far as the flour sacks, they are not truly "fossilized", or petrified, which would be a better term. The cells of the wheat haven't been replaced by minerals, they have been coated with mineral, giving them the appearance of stone. What you are talking about would be similar to a leaf falling onto wet cement, leaving a "permanent" impression, but not a fossil.

Brent Ashcraft

Great stuff, Brent. Temperatures have, indeed, been going up and down for eons. Sometimes quite rapidly, witness fossilized warm-climate mammals frozen solid with food in their stomachs. And thanks for poi8nting out the questionable science. Let's face it: any subject Michael Moore is excited about is going to be more out of the realm of reason and more into the realm of emotion.

Truly frustrating that I don't have photos of the bags. This is the actual mill, and there is richly mineralized water bubbling up out of the spring that feeds the river. But picture a solid rock bag of flour. It's NOT coated. It's transformed. Honest to goodness. Seen and touched and felt by me. No encrustations. Detail down to cloth grain.

[ashcraft]

Truly frustrating that I don't have photos of the bags. This is the actual mill, and there is richly mineralized water bubbling up out of the spring that feeds the river. But picture a solid rock bag of flour. It's NOT coated. It's transformed. Honest to goodness. Seen and touched and felt by me. No encrustations. Detail down to cloth grain.

It's coated, but on an atomic/molecular level. The wheat germ is still present. Back in the day, baby shoes were preserved by dipping them in copper, or other coinage metal, in effect "fossilizing" them. The shoe is still there, just underneath the metal.

Brent Ashcraft

[tracer]

It's coated, but on an atomic/molecular level. The wheat germ is still present. Back in the day, baby shoes were preserved by dipping them in copper, or other coinage metal, in effect "fossilizing" them. The shoe is still there, just underneath the metal.

Brent Ashcraft

actually, wheat germ is removed from quite a bit of flour and isn't there at all when it's bagged. but nonetheless, wheat is going to have complex proteins and starch and is kind of unlikely to be completely replaced or recombined at the molecular level in a short period of time by the mere presence of calcium carbonate, i would think. but all i can do is think, until ron studies up on calcium carbonate solubility and then studies up on all the chemical bonds in all the proteins and starch in flour and explains to me what can break apart and reform with what, and how it's all transformed. but even if it could happen, it doesn't mean it did happen, in the absence of microscopicalitious or other analysisations establishing that "flour gone, other snarge present", which is how i would note it in my science log if i so discerned it to be.

[Ron E.]

It's coated, but on an atomic/molecular level. The wheat germ is still present. Back in the day, baby shoes were preserved by dipping them in copper, or other coinage metal, in effect "fossilizing" them. The shoe is still there, just underneath the metal.

Brent Ashcraft

Brent, have you ever seen a sack of cement that sat for years? It's basically a solid, hard mass. That's what these flour bags have turned into. There was a display placard that said something along the lines of "Did you think it always took millions of years for fossils to form? Not necessarily so. Witness these sacks of flour, found buried in the creekbed, which fossilized within days, weeks, or years."

Quoting (poorly) from ten years ago, but I was so blown away that I still remember it well.

[ashcraft]

e of microscopicalitious or other analysisations establishing

The last time I did that , my disgronificator scapatulized causing an egress of micro-contificant proportion

[ashcraft]

fossilized within days, weeks, or years."

Ahhhhh, now I understand, it was a government employee who wrote it. I wonder if they knew the difference between a true fossil and what they had. There was an article a while back about petrified wood being made in a laboratory in a matter of days, or so it was reported. The purpose of the experiment was to silicify the wood for use in computer components. The wood gave the silica a certain structure that was desired. The researcher noted that it was considerably different then petrified wood, but that is not what the article alluded to. Perception is reality.

[texaswoodie]

This is my last post in this thread.

I apologize to Ron E for ruining your thread. What can I say? The devil made me do it.

You have to admit though, it's a ton of fun to see how "intellectuals" deal with dissent. Besides I'm 60 years old and have little time to waste on "intellectuals"

Tracer

You'll have to use acid to get all that vitriol off your shoes.

Brent

Thank you for being the voice of reason

[Ron E.]

Ahhhhh, now I understand, it was a government employee who wrote it. I wonder if they knew the difference between a true fossil and what they had. There was an article a while back about petrified wood being made in a laboratory in a matter of days, or so it was reported. The purpose of the experiment was to silicify the wood for use in computer components. The wood gave the silica a certain structure that was desired. The researcher noted that it was considerably different then petrified wood, but that is not what the article alluded to. Perception is reality.

Hate to keep hammering on this, Brent, but those things are solid rock. MUCH heavier than coated flour. And if plant material has been transformed into rock, what's the difference between that and a fossil?

BTW, FWIW, the botanical garden is privately owned. The folks are keenly aware of archeology, as subtle traces of Indian activity are highlighted (well-hidden runes drawn on rock, for example). They are also botanists, each species of plant researched and identified (and thriving). Now, maybe they're not paleontologists, but if a cement-like bag of flour dug up from a creekbed walks like a duck, etc.

This thread was not to debate the possibility of this happening. It quite obviously DID. It was to question whether very anomalous fossils might, in fact, be much more recent.

And I truly do appreciate your sharing of your knowledge.

[ashcraft]

Hate to keep hammering on this, Brent, but those things are solid rock. MUCH heavier than coated flour. And if plant material has been transformed into rock, what's the difference between that and a fossil?

BTW, FWIW, the botanical garden is privately owned. The folks are keenly aware of archeology, as subtle traces of Indian activity are highlighted (well-hidden runes drawn on rock, for example). They are also botanists, each species of plant researched and identified (and thriving). Now, maybe they're not paleontologists, but if a cement-like bag of flour dug up from a creekbed walks like a duck, etc.

This thread was not to debate the possibility of this happening. It quite obviously DID. It was to question whether very anomalous fossils might, in fact, be much more recent.

And I truly do appreciate your sharing of your knowledge.

Hammer away, you can't hurt my feelings, I have 140 students take shots at me daily. Fossils are defined by age, which the flour bags don't have. Once preserved in that manner, they will eventually truly petrify. Reminds me of a joke about a turd in chocolate.......... sorry got a little tracer-esque there

[Auspex]

I think there are some differential semantics at play with the "transformed into rock" thing. Let me clarify that I don't think it is a case of petrifaction through diagenesis, rather permeation by dissolved mineral. True petrifaction within that time span would (again) be alchemy.

[Ron E.]

Hammer away, you can't hurt my feelings, I have 140 students take shots at me daily. Fossils are defined by age, which the flour bags don't have. Once preserved in that manner, they will eventually truly petrify. Reminds me of a joke about a turd in chocolate.......... sorry got a little tracer-esque there

Glad to know that, B. And dancing Darwin guy has a thick skin, too. I appreciate that. Nothing worse that trying to discuss something with someone easily offended.

But suppose freshwater shark teeth are somehow quickly mineralized. Did our Malaysian friend Iskandar make an amazing new scientific discovery? Or did he encounter recently mineralized freshwater shark teeth? I can see where river-found fossils would particularly make this a dicey subject. Or fossils washed up on beaches, for that matter.

If solius uses the term "crackpot" in replying to me, that will be the ultimate compliment

[ashcraft]

Sure it can happen, displacement and life in general happens all the time. In one creek I hunt there are ordovician stromatolites mixed in with cretaceous petrified wood, which were both formed locally, and ordovician gravel type fossils which washed in from the Appalachians. Just got to watch and think.

You also mentioned that Native American carvings are present and being preserved, keep in mind that in a million years, the bag of flour and carvings would only be a few thousand years apart, and not really discernible as to a difference in age. Same with the plants. Now if somebody threw a dino bone in with the mix, that might cause some consternation. Fossils of all ages get mixed all the time where present and past come together, such as a beach or a river, which is what is happening at "your" spot, petrification is just happening at a much faster rate, which makes it noticeable in our time-frame.

Think of this scenario, a horn coral washes out of a glacial deposit in Michigan, down the Mississippi, and is deposited on a sand bar in the river here in Missouri. Next to it is a mastodon tooth that came out of the Dakotas, and a catfish carcass that has been partially eaten by a raccoon, that left tracks in the sand. The whole thing is flooded over the next night and buried in clay. It remains sealed for several million years (the river shifted its course during the flood), and then my great-great-great-great-great-great-great-etc.-grand child is walking along an outcrop, and low and behold, there is a horn coral, mastodon tooth, and a raccoon track, with a catfish skeleton. being uncovered.

What a conundrum to figure out the age if strictly relying on the fossils found.

Lucky kid though.

Edited October 7, 2009 by ashcraft

[PaleoPutz]

I was merely pointing out a tactic employed by anti-intellectuals/crackpots...

Regarding your "big word" statement: I can assure you that my vocabulary, and vitriol, is much more extensive than that which was employed, however, I choose not to offer those opinions out of respect for the board.

I find the amount of anti-intellectual nonsense that finds it way to the forum, of late, a bit disconcerting. I understand that some don't appreciate that I confront those that think that they know more than a collective body of scientists; that have formed a consensus of opinion after many years of careful observation, but I will not going to let a bunch nonsense go unchallenged.

I'll have more to "say" later, but unfortunately, now, I don't have the time.

But you were lumping texaswoodie into that description as well. Hmm, anti-intellectual crackpots.... and then you use "respect" a few sentences later. I think regardless of your intellectual background most people appreciate a certain level of tact. What I find most interesting about your comment is that there are plenty of peer-reviewed scholars that use that tactic as well to expand upon their well researched points. Dr. George Hansen wrote the book I am reading now, and he has referenced a quote book multiple times. I'm not even finished with chapter two. Carl Sagan loved a good quote or two as well.

What really gets me is everyone touting science, and its methods, in this thread are making assumptions about what Ron E. posted based on no actual observations. At least the people who thought the world was flat were basing it on a consistent observation.

I appreciate and value just about everything you post on this forum. I agree completely that people should be addressed in dialogue when they are making incorrect assumptions. However, I don't think "confrontation" and name-calling has any place in science either.

Ron E. I would love to see photos of your observations should they become available.

Edited October 7, 2009 by PaleoPutz

[Ron E.]

Ron E. I would love to see photos of your observations should they become available.

I will most certainly post them. But it will likely be spring before I can convince my beautiful bride that we should hit the garden again.

[Boesse]

What the heck does this stupid global warming denying snarge have to do with fossilization? Let me get it out of my system first: why don't we have a separate thread so we can waste our time debating people wearing tin foil hats (the global warming people killed JFK, and Elvis!) and get back to talking about something more interesting and fruitful.

Fossilization should NOT be defined based on the age of a specimen. That is a completely arbitrary designation with dubious geologic meaning. Here's my point: typical thing folks do is call fossils anything older than Holocene, or older than 10,000, and everything younger is subfossil. Well... what is the difference between a fossil radiocarbon dated at 10,001 years versus. 9,999?

Fossilization refers to the sweepingly broad category of something that's been buried and preserved for some indefinite period of time. Unfortunately, that includes cow bones buried during last winter's floods on the floodbank. I know it seems awkward, but there is no fundamental difference between that and a dinosaur bone, other than age. Many bones do not get permineralized, and we still call them fossils. Permineralization is only one route to fossilization. Many Pleistocene bones are not mineralized at all - they've just been buried, and sometimes (actually, often) leached.

I cannot stress strongly enough how worthless arbitrary cutoffs are in cases like this. I'm anal about this sorta stuff (preservation) because my master's thesis is on marine vertebrate taphonomy and preservation.

Bobby

[tracer]

i agree with bobby. <looking around to see others' reaction>

well, except for the part where he said the only difference between cows and dinosaurs is age.

and i don't see what tin foil hats have to do with global warming.

the whole concept of this thread (well, the original concept) has been very interesting to me for some time. it bugs the annoyance out of me that i have bones in my collection that are anomalous as far as mineralization goes, and yet i know that bobby is correct regarding his comment that in fact at times pleistocene bones are leached as opposed to mineralized. i'm certain of it because i've found such bones of extinct species that can't be new bones.

so...here's one of my tracer concepts (i'll never use the word "theory" again in my life. too dangerous) i think that maybe the depth to which bones are buried in strata, along with other environmental factors, helps determine mineralization or leaching. bones that are near the surface might well have water passing over and through them as it inexorably (YES!) moves downward toward the water table. over time that could be dissolving and taking away mineral from the bone. on the other hand, bones buried lower might be semi-constantly bathed in mineraliciousness brought down from strata above.

yeah, seems too simplistic to me too, because i know that mineralization also has to do with precipitation of minerals as a byproduct of reducing bacteria in an anaerobic environment. wait! anaerobic! isn't it more likely to be anaerobic at depth than at the surface?! yay! the concept survives! but it's still too simple. because the pleistocenesque formation i have the most experience in with which dealing is the Beaumont Formation, which is this really cool, gnarly-looking old clay. which, as i recall from the last time i read up on it, which was too long ago to recall, is very impervious to water compared to other strata, and also has a fair amount of iron in it and is therefore kinda acidic. (if i've got that backwards i'm going to be so humiliated the morning after this party). so anyway, i've found a bunch of things near the surface of the beaumont that are leached. but other things that came from further out or further down are fairly well mineralized, but not as well mineralized as stuff i've found from other formations. or which were preserved in an environment with more limey-goodness, like dan and john are hogging over in central semi-coastal texas.

<suddenly looking sheepish - quickly taking his "anti-talk-so-much" pill>

[Boesse]

Hey Tracer,

Not to drag it out, but to answer your question - 'people wearing tin foil hats' is an allusion to crazy people who believe in all sorts of conspiracy 'theories' (again... an unfortunate misuse of the word) and wear tin foil hats to protect their brains from being scanned by aliens and the government, or that global warming is some sort of vast left wing conspiracy to take away people's SUV's and pickups and force them to recycle and be kind to the planet and vegetables and do other anti-american -communist stuff.

Back to preservation - depth of burial *can* have a factor, but the primary factor in diagenesis is the migration of fluids through the host rock and what is dissolved in that water (i.e. CaCO3, SiO2). T. rex bones from the Hell Creek Formation are 65-70 Ma, and definitely fossilized, but they have never been buried under that much rock out in the middle of the great plains (pretty much just the Fort Union Formation, and some Pleistocene deposits). In Australia, there are cretaceous strata that haven't really been buried by anything for nearly 100 million years (or more) because Australia is more or less tectonically 'inert' (with respect to North America, etc.).

So depth isn't that great a defining feature, because not everything we would call a fossil has necessarily been buried at great depth (and even those that have aren't necessarily permineralized or really consolidated).

Anaerobic conditions also form in the bottom of stratified lakes and in stratified portions of the earth's oceans, at or near the sediment water interface (and this often relates to pyrite formation in fossils at the sea floor).

The fact that not all fossils are necessarily permineralized, and the Pleistocene=fossil holocene=subfossil distinction is 100% arbitrary is why I maintain that natural burial is the only universal, non-arbitrary (and hence, geologically useful) definition of a fossil.

Bobby

[ashcraft]

Fossilization should NOT be defined based on the age of a specimen. That is a completely arbitrary designation with dubious geologic meaning. Here's my point: typical thing folks do is call fossils anything older than Holocene, or older than 10,000, and everything younger is subfossil. Well... what is the difference between a fossil radiocarbon dated at 10,001 years versus. 9,999?

Fossilization refers to the sweepingly broad category of something that's been buried and preserved for some indefinite period of time. Unfortunately, that includes cow bones buried during last winter's floods on the floodbank. I know it seems awkward, but there is no fundamental difference between that and a dinosaur bone, other than age. Many bones do not get permineralized, and we still call them fossils. Permineralization is only one route to fossilization. Many Pleistocene bones are not mineralized at all - they've just been buried, and sometimes (actually, often) leached.

I agree that saying something is a fossil based on age has its draw backs. But you also say that based on burial has its draw backs also. My dog went out and buried my t-bone left overs last night, and under your definition that makes it a fossil, but I would also argue much different then a dinosaur bone, simply by dollar value,the burial also has dubious geological significance.

There is no good way to define a fossil, so I now pronounce that the word fossil is banned forever, to be substituted by the term "remains".

Welcome to the "Remains Forum".

Wearing my tin-foil hat as I educate the utes of America.

Brent Ashcraft

[Boesse]

I'm not sure I'd consider that entirely geologically dubious. Now, since your dog is domesticated and living in an urban environment (likely an area not undergoing active deposition), one can debate whether or not that constitutes a natural burial or not; that would certainly be within the realm of anthropology and archaeology - so at least it is definitely of anthropologic significance.

To argue the other side of the coin - your dog is an animal, and for all intensive purposes, the soil in your backyard IS sediment. Why is it not a fossil?

Now, lets say we have a wolf bury a bone in an area undergoing active deposition - decidedly natural - that's 100% geologically (and paleontologically) informative and relevant.

The dollar value thing has no relevance to a scientific endeavor, thought I'd add.

[ashcraft]

A this point, we are arguing over semantics, which is certainly interesting to me.

I'm not sure I'd consider that entirely geologically dubious. Now, since your dog is domesticated and living in an urban environment (likely an area not undergoing active deposition), one can debate whether or not that constitutes a natural burial or not; that would certainly be within the realm of anthropology and archaeology - so at least it is definitely of anthropologic significance.

I guess you are defining natural as not having to do with man? Why am I not considered as part of the environment?

To argue the other side of the coin - your dog is an animal, and for all intensive purposes, the soil in your backyard IS sediment. Why is it not a fossil?

MY definition of fossil deals with age, as I think most peoples does, under your definition, I believe it would be a fossil

Now, lets say we have a wolf bury a bone in an area undergoing active deposition - decidedly natural - that's 100% geologically (and paleontologically) informative and relevant.

The dollar value thing has no relevance to a scientific endeavor, thought I'd add.

Science has everything to do with money, because the system we use revolves around grants. (I baited you into that response). A scientist studies global warming, and discovers it is not happening. How does he get his grant renewed? A scientist wants to study a phenomenon that may disprove global warming (I will never call it climate change because the term was changed for political reasons), but the people on the grant committee will not even listen to him because everybody who is anybody knows that global warming is happening, so why waste the money?

If you really want an education, spend a few years dealing with the government, you will never look at hazardous waste/endangered species/pollution again. Starts out as a good idea, but ends up as a bureaucratic nightmare. In my experience, centers of higher education are no different.

Geez, my soapbox is teetering, I need some more foil for my helmet.

Brent Ashcraft