Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why do we only find fossils?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 6 of 136 (258282)
11-09-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Yaro
11-09-2005 7:11 PM


We find non fossilized material.
That is to say, we never find any non-fossilized dinosaur bones, trilobite shells, pakicitus skeletons.
I think you'll have to modify the "never".
I have held in my hand a tyrannosaur fang that the researcher in the preparation lab said was the original (or mostly) tooth not mineralized replacement.
I think that for things as recent as under 100 Myr ago there may be some bone that is not replaced but I don't know for sure.
I think you are right about the trilobites etc. I'd suggest finding a reference talking about shell material from the time of Egypts height.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 7:11 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 8:17 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 16 of 136 (258299)
11-09-2005 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Yaro
11-09-2005 8:24 PM


It is not "blood"
Note, Yaro, what RM says:
Randman writes:
The idea that even small amounts of blood say could survive that length of time does not appear to me to be plausible, but then again, I have never really heard or seen any peer-reviewed analysis by evos that explain the issue one way or the other.
The thing to note is that the example he is refering to is not blood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 8:24 PM Yaro has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Yaro, posted 11-09-2005 8:46 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 23 of 136 (258306)
11-09-2005 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by mick
11-09-2005 8:48 PM


extinct species
RM writes:
Wasn't there that species found a few years back that scientists had said had been extinct for 65 million years?
You might point out that this is wrong if RM is refering to the Coelocanth; the current one is not the same species as the extinct ones; it is not the same genus either. I think it is the same family.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by mick, posted 11-09-2005 8:48 PM mick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by randman, posted 11-09-2005 9:06 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 38 of 136 (258399)
11-10-2005 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Mammuthus
11-10-2005 3:46 AM


Comparison "fossils" from the last few 1,000 years?
What seems to me to be missing in the discussion to-date is the state of bones found from the last few 1,000 years. These are what, in the YEC view, I would think all bones are supposed to be like.
I've found some bones on the surface (deer, cattle, rodents, cat) that were almost certainly less the a decade old. They are the original bone (to my eye) but significantly weathered in many cases.
Obviously these aren't really good comparison since I only found them because there were on the surface. I'm interested in bones, shells etc found in middens, tombs and the like.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2005 3:46 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2005 9:14 AM NosyNed has not replied
 Message 40 by Yaro, posted 11-10-2005 9:15 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 42 of 136 (258423)
11-10-2005 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by Yaro
11-10-2005 9:15 AM


Re: Comparison "fossils" from the last few 1,000 years?
It's a start but no real detail on the nature of the fossils. Mammuthus' reference is on the right track.
It appears that for most cases the permineralization is rather slow or doesn't happen. There are special cases where it is quick.
What we seem to have is this:
1) There are many bones of various sorts that are less than a few 1,000 years old and are NOT mineralized at all.
2) There are many bones of many different animals (dinos etc.) and ALL of them are mostly or completely mineralized.
YEC'ers have not supplied an explanation for this that I am aware of.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Yaro, posted 11-10-2005 9:15 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2005 10:26 AM NosyNed has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9004
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 44 of 136 (258433)
11-10-2005 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Mammuthus
11-10-2005 10:26 AM


Fossils and not
I think that the problem is one cannot extrapolate from bones and soft tissues found today in sediments to what will become a fossil.
I don't think that is the point of this thread.
What is the point is that for a large variety of animals, all over the world we only find them as fossils, heavily permineralized (and therefore on your borderline between fossil and not) or preserved under very special circumstances (in amber for example). We find none of them as simply "old" bones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2005 10:26 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Mammuthus, posted 11-10-2005 10:50 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024