Fossil Long Bone? Please ID.

[AvaLily]

Hello, 

 

My daughter found this in our creek today after a bad rain storm.  We think it is a fossil of a long bone.  It seems to have a layer of perioteum on the outside with vertical striations, and horizontal striations underneath (Sharpy's fibers?).  It is heavy and dense.  

 

Can you please help me confirm that this is a bone?  And if so, can it be identified more specifically?

 

Thank you so much!!

[AvaLily]

[jpc]

hate to have to tell you and your daughter... this has no bone texture, I fear it is a rock.  broken surfaces of fossilized bone has an internal bone texture that this does not have.

[AvaLily]

I would agree with you, but not all fossil bone is porous.  You can see the darker center, and it does have texture.  I don't believe you can rule it out based on the assumption that all fossil bone is visibly porous, while ignoring all other characteristics. Pre-flood Antediluvians had bones as dense at stone.  I may have to bring this to someone for an expert opinion.

[Paleostoric]

I'm on the same page as jpc here. This could be some sort of concretion, which would help to explain the darker center. I don't see any indications or evidence of fossil bone.

[grandpa]

5 minutes ago, AvaLily said:

Pre-flood Antediluvians had bones as dense at stone.  I may have to bring this to someone for an expert opinion.

 

Hello Ava,

 

OK, I think I see the intellectual conflict here. 

 

You are working from a faith-based conceptualization (Pre-flood Antediluvians) of prehistoric life while this site works out of a scientific based conceptualization of prehistoric life.  If you seek answers from those who support your "first principles" assumptions of prehistoric life existing in a time frame between "the fall of man" and "the great flood" , you will be better served to seek the advise of those folks who also accept that position, i.e., "someone for an expert opinion" as you have described them.

 

This site in contrast, is science based in our "first principles".  We support the concept that the earth is some 4 billion yrs old and that life first appeared some 3.5 billion years ago and earlier.  Human life by comparison appeared only some 3 million years ago or so.  That is the perspective which we believe has the empirical evidence to support it and from which we can and will provide answers to your questions.

 

If you'd like to hear what this perspective has to say, please stay tuned.  We have folks like @jpc who are expert in their area.  When they proffer an opinion, we may well challenge it, but we do so based on scientific principles, not on religious perspectives outside of science.  You are most welcome to participate and to learn more about this perspective, but on this forum, please interact with arguments based on science, not on religious concepts.  There are plenty of forums to argue/affirm creationism vs. science, I'm sure.  We're not one of them.  Our feet are firmly planted on the science platform.Thus, given our perspective, we have little patience for arguments to the contrary that are not based on science.  We've already dealt with the dichotomy of the two positions in our own search for "fact/truth" and have concluded that our perspective is, for us, the most logical/evidence based conclusion for our understanding of life on earth.  That's not to say that our perspective is absolutely right, but it is our perspective and it was not arrived at lightly without a lot of analytical thought applied on our parts.

 

I don't mean to be rude;  I'm just being honest about what our perspective is so that you will understand what our forum is about.  I hope that you will continue to be a part of the forum and only ask that, if you do, you base your challenges to opinions on science not religion.

 

Thank you!

[JohnJ]

@grandpa

 

Well said, Tom.  

[Mahnmut]

That said,

I see the striations you are referring to, although they do not fit Sharpeys fibers.

The periost is a thin skin-like membrane around bones similar to the fascia you may find around muscles when preparing meat. It hardly ever fossilizes.

There are of course different bone structures also in living animals, manatees for example do have very dense bones to stay under water despite their fat.

The distinct layer visible in your find, which I think is the main reason to view this as bone-like at all, does not fit with this kind of bone.

 

Your argumentation based on similarity to known structures (like periost and sharpey fibers, and long bones for that matter) is right at the basis of the scientific method.

Assuming that in different times animals had bones like stone is -as far as I see it- an explanation from earlier men and women who where beginning to find out why there are bones in stone. In other regions of the world, there where other assumptions. The ancient Greek found bones of elephant-like creatures in volcanic ash and assumed that giants had been burned by Zeus' lightning. That also fit part of the facts, but not all.

Best regards,

J

[jpc]

12 hours ago, grandpa said:

 

well said, grandpa.  And yes, without bragging, I like to think I am an expert, having spent the past 35 years collecting and preparing fossil bones and teeth and much more.  I think, AvaLily, that any bone this big will have some pretty obvious cancellous bone on visible on the broken surfaces.  grandpa made all the comments I would make about antedeluvians....