Boesse Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) "I guess you are defining natural as not having to do with man? Why am I not considered as part of the environment?" I was simply arguing two different points - i.e. whether or not you consider anthropogenic activity "natural", it doesn't matter - your dog's T bone isn't fundamentally different (geologically) from a T. rex bone, aside from age. One definition of natural is non-anthropogenic, which is the easiest to use in this case. "MY definition of fossil deals with age, as I think most peoples does, under your definition, I believe it would be a fossil" Like I stated... definition of a fossil based on age alone is purely arbitrary and uninformative geologically/paleontologically. Edited October 8, 2009 by Boesse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 i'm startin' to think ron's an ebil genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fig rocks Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 i'm startin' to think ron's an ebil genius Yes, the truth is slowly emerging! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted October 9, 2009 Share Posted October 9, 2009 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. Technically, shark teeth are already well-mineralized (fluorapatite) when the animal is still using them, which is part of the reason they are common fossils, so they are poor candidates for mineral replacement, especially in the brief time you indicate. The root is more likely to undergo some percentage of mineral replacement than the crown because it is more porous and can also feature multiple foramina (depending on the genus), providing many avenues for infilling. The crown undergoes little to perhaps no replacement unless it is damaged. It depends on burial conditions which can change over time even assuming the tooth is not transported. Vertebrate bone is porous but is not always completely mineral replaced either - even ones as old as the Jurassic. Actually, I wondered about shark teeth some time ago. I had a damaged large mako from the Sharktooth Hill Bonebed (approx. 15.5 million years old) and tried to break the crown in half. It did not snap cleanly or crumble like a rock. It bent and split like a tree branch with jagged edges, part of it still connected and bendable like plastic. I took that to mean that it had not been mineral replaced. Just because a tooth has taken on some color doesn't mean it is now a rock. The coloring in the crown is superficial and can be lost if exposed to sunlight, or, in at least one case, dry air. There is a Sharktooth Hill site where the freshly-dug teeth come out watermelon-pink but fade to a dull brown within seconds. Some teeth are white/off-white, perhaps having taken on some coloring which was later bleached out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Members gimmer Posted November 2, 2009 New Members Share Posted November 2, 2009 I don't know if you have this type of thing in USA, but near where I live is this famous (here) place . The area is mainly Carboniferous limestone. If you visit this site it may be relivant to the above debate.----www.mothershiptonscave.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xiphactinus Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 I don't know if you have this type of thing in USA, but near where I live is this famous (here) place . The area is mainly Carboniferous limestone. If you visit this site it may be relivant to the above debate.----www.mothershiptonscave.com Gimmer - interesting. That's what most of the people here are talking about. The "petrification" they are talking about is a calcium coating. It's not a true petrification, but a coating of a mineral. Inside, you still have an old hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cameron DVPS Posted November 4, 2009 Share Posted November 4, 2009 (edited) Let me try to be a voice of reason. It all has a very simple explanation. The bag of flower IS an actual fossil. Someone jumped in a time machine with cookie ingredients to feed the Cookiesaurus. They dropped a bag or two of flower on the way out. Now the real question is, if this person went back and made cookies for his grandmother and they fell in love would he be his own grandfather? One way to test the flower to determine if it should be classified as a fossil is to bake a few cookies from it. If they are stale and rock hard they are either made by my wife or they are indeed from the Cookietasious period. Glad I could help you all with this issue. Edited November 4, 2009 by Cameron DVPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cris Posted November 5, 2009 Share Posted November 5, 2009 If they are stale and rock hard they are either made by my wife or they are indeed from the Cookietasious period. That one forced a chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts