Mr. Edonihce Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What I am disagreeing with is this statement "The common mis-use of "fossilized" is as a substitute for "mineralized" or "permineralized." Many fossils are preserved by being impregnated or replaced by minerals, SiO2 being the common mineral." It is perfectly legit to substitute the word "Fossilized" for any and all types of fossils. It is the broadest term that covers "mineralization" or "permineralization" or "dessication" or whatever. It all depends on the authors intention and audience. No where in the definition of the term does it refer only to organisms that have been "turned to stone". Therefore, the term covers those fossils that have been "turned to stone" and those that are still original material. If the author wants to convey more precision, then they can do so with the term that better describes the type of fossilization the specimen has undergone. However, this being an amateur forum (and I am nothing but an amateur), we must expect many members to use the broadest terminology. FWIW... x2 . . ____________________ scale in avatar is millimeters ____________________ Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser' ____________________ WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org) ____________________ "Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly." -- Mr. Edonihce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 ok, please hold your semantically questionable specimens up to the monitor and click here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Edonihce Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 ok, please hold your semantically questionable specimens up to the monitor and click here Hey!! That thing turned me to stone. Am I a fossil now? LOL . ____________________ scale in avatar is millimeters ____________________ Come visit Sandi, the 'Fossil Journey Cruiser' ____________________ WIPS (the Western Interior Paleontological Society - http://www.westernpaleo.org) ____________________ "Being genetically cursed with an almost inhuman sense of curiosity and wonder, I'm hard-wired to investigate even the most unlikely, uninteresting (to others anyway) and irrelevant details; often asking hypothetical questions from many angles in an attempt to understand something more thoroughly." -- Mr. Edonihce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 What I am disagreeing with is this statement "The common mis-use of "fossilized" is as a substitute for "mineralized" or "permineralized." Many fossils are preserved by being impregnated or replaced by minerals, SiO2 being the common mineral." It is perfectly legit to substitute the word "Fossilized" for any and all types of fossils. It is the broadest term that covers "mineralization" or "permineralization" or "dessication" or whatever. It all depends on the authors intention and audience. No where in the definition of the term does it refer only to organisms that have been "turned to stone". Therefore, the term covers those fossils that have been "turned to stone" and those that are still original material. If the author wants to convey more precision, then they can do so with the term that better describes the type of fossilization the specimen has undergone. However, this being an amateur forum (and I am nothing but an amateur), we must expect many members to use the broadest terminology. LOL I didn't want to put you in the position of defending lack of communication skills or inadequacy of vocabulary. This is a science-oriented forum; and, everyone, young and old, has an opportunity here to learn the vocabulary of science. I don't think it's possible to disagree with my point; so, you seem to have taken issue with the word "mis-use." No problem! See if this change suits you better: The term "fossilized" is commonly used as a poor substitute for "mineralized" or "permineralized." With that revision, the confusion of "cast" and "mold" remains a mis-use of terms; but, substituting "fossilized" for "mineralized" is just amateurish communication. The term "petrified" remains in the vernacular associated with mineralized or replaced wood, but is not used in modern scientific writing. There, I'm glad we sorted that out. http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest N.AL.hunter Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Now that is what I mean. You are correct, it was the use of mis-use that I had the problem with. Now, what was this thread about? LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefootgirl Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 geez, sorry for the misuse of the word in my original post. Don't feel bad. I got this lecture to when I first started. In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat: but in the evolution of real knowledge, it marks the first step in progress toward victory. Alfred North Whithead 'Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Pristis Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Don't feel bad. I got this lecture to when I first started. And what a quick learner you turned out to be, bfg! http://pristis.wix.com/the-demijohn-page What seest thou else In the dark backward and abysm of time? ---Shakespeare, The Tempest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
barefootgirl Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 And what a quick learner you turned out to be, bfg! Coming from you that's a great compliment, thank you. In formal logic, a contradiction is the signal of defeat: but in the evolution of real knowledge, it marks the first step in progress toward victory. Alfred North Whithead 'Don't worry about the world coming to an end today. It's already tomorrow in Australia!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now