Amphibian2 (?) kermit ancestor trace on pet wood

[JooJ]

There was a piece of land sticking out between valleys of about 2000+ sq meters. I found there many various fossils. On that ridge sticking out, there was a rocky bed floor split in 2 or more & were cracked as an earthquake would do. Between them, I found this piece along with another, I posted earlier not far inside the crack. the 2 pieces I posted were not close to each other but rather in another crack near. this piece was deeper in the crack and it was broken as it fell back on my first try to pull it. The matrix below is woody and lightweight and can be broken. It is the same type of the previous post. On top, the frog-like trace is different than the rest is rock and very petrified. where the frog-like trace is, there is a thin layer that covered the whole part.

[Huntonia]

Soft tissue fossils, including amphibians, rarely preserve. When they do they will often be flattened and show detailed anatomy including bones. I don't believe this is a fossil, likely geological.

[connorp]

Certainly looks like a frog, but it's just geological. A nice example of pareidolia.

[JooJ]

10 minutes ago, Huntonia said:

Soft tissue fossils, including amphibians, rarely preserve. When they do they will often be flattened and show detailed anatomy including bones. I don't believe this is a fossil, likely geological.

Hi this is not a reason to dismiss it if it is rare for a fossil NOT to be flattened. I beg to differ on that because many fossils found in mount Lebanon preserve their shape. Quick rise of the Anti mount lebanon when the arabian penensula squeezed the existing mount lebanon and pushed it up way up. In cretaceous times the water level was at 1400 meters above sea levels. Add to that the mount is known for endless count of oxygen-deprived cavities dripping water on them, and sudden earthquakes that are of phenomenal power when they happen in Lebanon (have heard of Beirut destroyed many times in history?), you have potentially something different.  I am not saying it is something for sure! but for you to dismiss on the ground that it is rare...that I find not constructive...on top you did not say anything else. but thanks for your time. I just brought them to montreal and will know fast enough to come back and tell you about it. But please if you have a specific reason why other than "it is rare" let me have it. the trace is of totally different kind of the matrix that hold it.  Also, did you look at the other piece I put up that basically have a trace stuck on the same kind of wood you see here? what do you think about that?

[JooJ]

1 minute ago, connorp said:

Certainly looks like a frog, but it's just geological. A nice example of pareidolia.

How can you tell from a picture that it looks like but certainly is NOT...but at the same time, it could be but rare? is it you gut feeling or what you see cannot be? 

[JooJ]

That frog shape (like the other post I did for the other trace) is rock solid, not so much for the wood it stands on. As I explained, these piece were inside a hige crack of a rock bed, below that rock bed there are many cavities known in the regions.

[Kane]

Fossilized frogs do not resemble melted wax. The morphology is not consistent with any kind of amphibian. Even if this were preserved skin, the texture would not blend with the host rock.

[Fossildude19]

I'm in the "not a fossil" camp. 

Amphibians would not be preserved in this manner.  

[JooJ]

That frog shape (like the other post I did for the other trace) is rock solid, not so much for the wood it stands on. As I explained, these piece were inside a hige crack of a rock bed, below that rock bed there are many cavities known in the regions.

[JooJ]

they dont blend at ALL. there is a thin layer of millimeters that covers the upper side only. the rest is totally different.

 

[Huntonia]

53 minutes ago, JooJ said:

Hi this is not a reason to dismiss it if it is rare for a fossil NOT to be flattened. I beg to differ on that because many fossils found in mount Lebanon preserve their shape. I am not saying it is something for sure! but for you to dismiss on the ground that it is rare...that I find not constructive...on top you did not say anything else. but thanks for your time. I just brought them to montreal and will know fast enough to come back and tell you about it. But please if you have a specific reason why other than "it is rare" let me have it. the trace is of totally different kind of the matrix that hold it.  Also, did you look at the other piece I put up that basically have a trace stuck on the same kind of wood you see here? what do you think about that?

Are you familiar with the principle of occam's razor? To paraphrase the simplest explanation is most often the correct. Weathering often creates somewhat animal like shapes and as humans we tend to want to see things in abstract shapes, this is known as pareidolia and is not uncommon. Let's consider if you are correct and it is a fossil. First a frog would have to preserve completely IN 3 DIMENSIONS with almost all of it's soft tissue. This is already an unbelievably enormous task. Then it would have to remain intact with no bones or other revealing anatomy visible. And then it would have to be naturally uncovered and require no preparation. The odds are so astronomical you would be much more likely to be struck by lightning. Additionally as Kane pointed out the shape is not distinct like a fossil would be, it doesn't match the morphology of any amphibian, and the texture of the 'fossil' does not match fossilized skin. You are correct that just because something is rare does not necessarily mean it is not so. However when something is EXTREMELY rare, lacks any substantial evidence to suggest it is so and all available evidence suggests that it is in fact not, I think it is more than safe to dismiss the notion.

[Thecosmilia Trichitoma]

1 hour ago, JooJ said:

How can you tell from a picture that it looks like but certainly is NOT...but at the same time, it could be but rare? is it you gut feeling or what you see cannot be? 

The fossil has none of the preserved features that frog fossil would have. I agree with non fossil rock.

[Fossildude19]

Topic is now locked, as nothing further can be gained by allowing this to go in circles. 

We must agree to disagree, here. 

 

@JooJ

 

Please take your items to McGill to be looked at by any paleontologists on staff there. 
Please come back here, and let us know what they say.

Take note of who you speak with, and what degrees they hold. 

 

If, like most others in the past, do not return and render their verdict to you, we will assume you were incorrect with your assertions.