Re: Recent Fossil

Michael wrote:

> In article <JboJf.15037$qg.12029@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Elmer
>> Michael wrote:
>>> In article <BO8Jf.332$kg.126@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Elmer
>>> <nylicens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>> Michael wrote:
>>>> (snip attribution cascade)

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fossilization may form quickly as here demonstrated.

>>>>>>>>>>>> No. That is not fossilization but coating something. I could pour concrete over your hat and it proves nothing about fossilization. Dissolved limestone in waters easily and quickly coats stuff,but it does *not* fossilize them.

>>>>>>>>>>> The process is called "calcification, which means that solid calcium
>>>>>>>>>>> carbonate has impregnated the original felt material of th hat." The hat is not "coated" but has essentially turned into a "rock."

>>>>>>>>>> And I could do the same with concrete. That does not make a hat a
>>>>>>>>>> fossil. Please learn something about the subject.

>>>>>>>>> Actually, that would be a casting, not calcification, and has nothing to
>>>>>>>>> do with the subject. Please learn something about the subject.

>>>>>>>> Do you even read what was written?

>>>>>>> Yes, it had nothing to do with calcification.

>>>>>> Gee, try again. Try reading the above: "The process is called "calcification, which means that solid calcium carbonate has impregnated the original felt material of the hat."

>>>>> GEE, try again, or perhaps try this which provides that calcification and
>>>>> fossilization are products of the SAME MECHANISM OF FOSSILIZATION:

>>>> They are not. You are simply wrong.

>>> How so with specificiity and particularity?

>> Let's go back and actually quote the AIG web site: "Over that time the chemicals in the water precipitated within the open structure of the felt material of the soft hat, thus turning the soft hat into stone by a process called calcification, which means that solid calcium carbonate has impregnated the original felt material of the hat.

> Yeah, I saw them, what is your point?

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/dinosaurs/dinofossils/Fossilhow.html
> HOW FOSSILS FORM
>
> Fossils of hard mineral parts (like bones and teeth) were formed as follows:
>
> After a long time [in a kingdom far away], the chemicals in the
> buried animals' bodies underwent a series of changes. As the bone slowly
> decayed, water infused with minerals seeped into the bone and replaced the
> chemicals in the bone with rock-like minerals. The process of
> fossilization involves the dissolving and replacement of the original
> minerals in the object with other minerals (and/or permineralization, the
> filling up of spaces in fossils with minerals, and/or recrystallization in
> which a mineral crystal changes its form).
> Please note the AND/OR's.

I do, and what you posted supports exactly what I have been saying. That you think it demonstrates any support for your view, you are wrong.

>> Do you see these lines? E.g., "open structure" - that's the spaces between atoms of the hat. Also notice, "impregnated" which means to fill throughout or to saturate. So calcification is saturation by CaCo3.

> Noted, opinion not changed.

This has *NOTHING* to do with with opinion but has to do with chemistry that you have incorrect.

>>> Have you ever heard of "CLR"? It's a
>>>
>>>> product for removing lime deposits (calcification) in your shower. The lime does *not* replace of your tiles, but *coats* them. That's why it can be removed.

>>> What makes you come to the conclusion that the hat was coated and not
>>> atomically replaced?

>> Because that's what the original source for this hat claim, AIG says.

> No, the article does indeed not use the term coated, but impregnating. With specificity and particularity, how do you arrive at the conclusion
> that coating equals impregnation?

It has *NOT* replaced the atoms that make the hat. I can impregnate a piece of cloth with paint but that does not mean that the paint has replaced the cloth. Now if all the atoms that make up the hat still exist, then the hat still exists.

> Calcium, as you so aptly noted, can indeed coat the lavatory, but there is
> no impregnation of the sink, else, CLR wouldn't work.

Correct, but it *CAN* impregnate a felt hat. That's the point.

>>> What you say is true for shower tiles, but that has
>>> nothing to do with the hat.

>> It has everything to do with the hat. I could soak that hat in CLR and it will remove the calcification.

> You can soak any fossil in a strong acid as well, what is your point?

> http://www.colossal-fossil-site.com/257-fossil-prep-tips.htm

> Acids, adhesives, and consolidants
>
> > € Acids are best used on semi-featureless fossils like brachiopods. € It is not a good idea to use it if details are important, e.g. for
> crinoids or trilobites.
> There are reasons for the cautions.

Yes? And do you understand that this is done to remove a lime or carbonate matrix from around the fossil?

>>> Perhaps they shouldtry CLR on the hat, but
>>> if there has been a substitution of the felt atomic matter, it won't do
>>> what it does in a shower tile where there has been no substitution. We
>>> are talking about calsified replacements, not coatings.

>> Sorry the web site quotation above shows clearly that you are wrong.

> how so with specificity and particularity?

>>>>> http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Oct/qn0801000683.PDF
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> MECHANISMS OF FOSSILIZATION OF THE SOFT-BODIED AND LIGHTLY ARMORED FAUNAS OF THE BURGESS SHALE AND OF SOME OTHER CLASSICAL LOCALITIES RADOMIR PETROVICH Department of Geosciences, University of Tulsa, 600 South College Avenue, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74104-3189 ABSTRACT. The splendid preservation of the Middle Cambrian Burgess Shale fauna, a fauna of exceptional importance for our understanding of the
>>>>> evolution of life, has not been adequately explained.

>>>> ?? Nice article, but it doesn't support you at all.

>>> Actually, it does.

>> As Above

> Perhaps, but it is not self evident that you know specifically nor
> particularly how.

It is clear that you do not seem to understand much about fossilization.

>>>>> Editorial Note: Not having been adequately explained is a problem with
>>>>> the all understanding of 'evolution'. Article continues as follows:

>>>> Heritable genetic change in reproducing populations over time is quite adequately understood.

>>> Then show us the common ancerstor of the tomatoe plant and the giraffe,
>>> and each genetic change over time for adequate understanding.
>>> But this has nothing to do with this discussion of chemistry.

>>> It has a great deal to do with chemistry. The chemical structure of the
>>> Creation code in DNA does not support the rather imaginative theory that
>>> tomatoe plants and giraffes could have a common ancestor.

>> Ahhh, so you feel all biologists and biotech researchers and DNA labs are all lying? Why do you think this?

> I didn't say that they were all lying, more likely just advocating a
> religious cult so that the self serving peer review groups will approve
> the next grant.

IOW, yes you think they are lying.

>>>>> Preservation of diagenetically altered...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagenesis
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrification
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lime_%28mineral%29
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_water
>>>> Note especially the last line of this one!

>>> Nice article, but it doesn't support you at all. Calcification is not
>>> limescale.

>> Look up the chemistry for deposition of each.

> > A square is a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.

>>>>> rem- nants of the original organic tissues and formation of chlorite/illite
>>>>> coatings and cuticle replacements, both documented in the Burgess Shale
>>>>> fossils though not necessarily occurring together, can be understood as
>>>>> ----->products of the same mechanism of fossilization<---- of soft
>>>>> tissues.

>>>>> Emphasis added.

>>>> Emphasis for what reason?

>>> Because that which was emphasised is at the heart of the question.

>>>> You are wrong.

>>> How so with particularity and specificity?

>> As noted above.

>>>> This doesn't support you at all.

>>> Nice try.

>> Excellent try. Just consult any chemistry text.

> IOW, you hope that something in one of them might support your position,
> but you are not sure where to find it.

I will add a chemistry group to this reply and see if anyone else can explain to you what you've got wrong.

>>>> Try to understand that this is not a preservation by coating the material but an atom for atom replacement of the organic remains that is talked about in this article. It this mentions chlorite, (ClO2) which is NOT calcium carbonate.(CaCo3)
>>>> http://www.nps.gov/brca/Geodetect/Paleontology/Permineralization.htm
>>>> Please read the above carefully.

>>> Already read some of the others, what specificically do you find that to
>>> support your opinion?

>> The difference between coating something and atom for atom replacement.

> So, it is your testimony that NO fossil was ever formed by the process of
> permineralization?


No! That is how *MOST* fossils form. Most of them have been replaced atom for atom. They have been converted to stone. Note that the original organic material *DOES NOT* exist any longer.

> Be careful in your admission:
>
> http://www.scsc.k12.ar.us/TuttS/fossil_formation.htm
>
> There are several ways in which a fossil may be formed. They are 1) permineralization, 2) molds and casts, 3) impressions, 4) whole
> organism preservation.


The latter is a very rare circumstance seen in mummies and bog people for example.

>>>>>>>> I could impregnate the felt hat with a slurry of concrete until it was sopping wet and when it dried it would be as hard as stone. It still would not be a fossil.


>>>>>>> No one ever claimed that it would be by making a caste of it. But that
>>>>>>> has nothing to do with calcification.


>>>>>> They are almost the same process. Water charged with dissolved >>>>>>Calcium Carbonate, when it evaporates, deposits CaCo around the >>>>>>atoms. Concrete would do the same. This is not fossilization.


>>>>> Perhaps, since Radomia Petrovich believes that they are both products of
>>>>> the same mechanism, you could provide with specificity how the two differ.


>>>> Look, try and read the references I've supplied for more >>>>information on this chemistry.


>>> IOW, you hope I take the time to do your research to support your
>>> opinion? Throwing out websites hoping there is something there to support
>>> your opinion does not necessarily support your opinion.


>> It's the chemistry that shows I am right. Deny this reality all you >> want but it doesn't change the fact that you are wrong.

> Then how am I wrong, with specificity and particularity?

I have shown you clearly as I can why you are wrong in thinking that a hard matrix around an object means it has been converted to stone.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Pinball Magic Restoration
    ... I haven't tried truckbed liner paint but will the next time. ... fun doing the hat, actually bought a couple of used plastic pieces I needed ... whole Capcom flippers assembly with WPC flipper assemblies and it ... Much much cheaper and I will always have replacement ...
    (rec.games.pinball)
  • Re: 2 Physical Objects co-existing in same space?
    ... >> Is it possible the true structure of reality is such ... >> same space by manipulating some properties of the atom? ... > From hat went above and the length of what lies below, ...
    (sci.physics)