Shaney777 Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 Shane, do you have depressive tendencies? I am asking seriously from a clinical point of view. Everything I have read that you have posted has been with a depressed/negative tone regarding what you no longer can take joy in or don't like. Is there more too it than just the fossils? It's very kind of you to ask, but I'm not really a depressed person. The only thing I have been diagnosed with is OCD! It's just hard on me since the hobby was probably one of my favorite/obsessive attachments out of anything I like to do. I used to even dream of finding shark teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It's very kind of you to ask, but I'm not really a depressed person. The only thing I have been diagnosed with is OCD! It's just hard on me since the hobby was probably one of my favorite/obsessive attachments out of anything I like to do. I used to even dream of finding shark teeth. So the spoiler is that shark's teeth that are millions of years old have been altered by time? Heck, I'm only 61, and there is not one original cell in my body! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Time to refocus? Time to view fossils as a once living organisms and not just rocks. Time to rekindle your obsession with your favorite hobby by not worrying about they are made of. Just enjoy their beauty and how ferocious they were million of years ago. Take a positive view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Shaney's obsession is with big scary creatures. Now that the rock has replaced the actual creature, it's not so scary anymore. Not that there is anything wrong with that... people collect and study fossils for different reasons. Many people focus on other predators for the very same "thrill" reasons. You can see this when somebody posts some gastropods, and they get 80 hits. Somebody else posts the tooth of a predator, and it gets 800 hits. There is a macabre facination with scare stuff. I should talk... I'm a zombie movie addict. I just love those guys! It's exciting... I'm so disappointed they aren't real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 This is helpful. I did read most of your post, but I must have skipped over this particular part. I don't mean to be skeptical, but do you have any references for the original hydroxyapatite assertion? I honestly do believe you know what you're talking about, but I have a time with skepticism. I’m not sure that I can provide you with a specific reference that lays out the evidence for “original” hydroxyapatite in shark teeth, but it’s a universally accepted fact based on oxygen isotope analysis and as such is loosely referenced in hundreds of papers. It has been confirmed in thousands of apatites from various portions of hundreds of vertebrates. It’s sufficiently well-confirmed that it’s taken for granted without the need for further comment or justification these days and, as the paper linked below says: “The stable isotope compositions of biologically precipitated apatite in bone, teeth, and scales are widely used to obtain information on the diet, behavior, and physiology of extinct organisms and to reconstruct past climate.” http://www.pnas.org/content/107/23/10377.full.pdf+html That is, we are able to make some interesting speculations on things like diet, body temperature and (in the case of fish/sharks) water temperature based on these isotopic signatures since they can be related to the time in which the animal lived and distinguished from the signatures of apatites which were subsequently deposited by non-biological processes. The paper discusses those aspects in some detail... but its just one of many exploring these kinds of techniques. Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 So, from a laypersons perspective, it sounds like a portion of the material is chemically transformed and not just simply replaced 'molecule y molecule'. Am I understanding that right? So from a philosophical view, a bit of the original "stuff" is there it is just bonded with the minerals. Yes... but all of those things happen, and in differing degrees depending on the circumstances. The end result can be original material in its original form, plus original material which has recrystallized in another form (but is chemically the same), plus original material which has been chemically altered (to varying degrees), plus new material which has substituted for the original (which can be either from other parts of the original organism, or from an external origin). When chemical alteration takes place it can occur in stages (moving further and further away from the original composition). When substitution/replacement takes place, it can happen more than once (ie the first replacement mineral may itself be replaced by a second mineral of related or completely different composition at a later time). Roger I keep six honest serving-men (they taught me all I knew);Their names are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who [Rudyard Kipling] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 Yes... but all of those things happen, and in differing degrees depending on the circumstances. The end result can be original material in its original form, plus original material which has recrystallized in another form (but is chemically the same), plus original material which has been chemically altered (to varying degrees), plus new material which has substituted for the original (which can be either from other parts of the original organism, or from an external origin). When chemical alteration takes place it can occur in stages (moving further and further away from the original composition). When substitution/replacement takes place, it can happen more than once (ie the first replacement mineral may itself be replaced by a second mineral of related or completely different composition at a later time). Among the best posts ever. Such clarity on a complicated subject! "There has been an alarming increase in the number of things I know nothing about." - Ashleigh Ellwood Brilliant “Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.” - Thomas Henry Huxley >Paleontology is an evolving science. >May your wonders never cease! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted September 11, 2014 Author Share Posted September 11, 2014 I’m not sure that I can provide you with a specific reference that lays out the evidence for “original” hydroxyapatite in shark teeth, but it’s a universally accepted fact based on oxygen isotope analysis and as such is loosely referenced in hundreds of papers. It has been confirmed in thousands of apatites from various portions of hundreds of vertebrates. It’s sufficiently well-confirmed that it’s taken for granted without the need for further comment or justification these days and, as the paper linked below says: “The stable isotope compositions of biologically precipitated apatite in bone, teeth, and scales are widely used to obtain information on the diet, behavior, and physiology of extinct organisms and to reconstruct past climate.” http://www.pnas.org/content/107/23/10377.full.pdf+html That is, we are able to make some interesting speculations on things like diet, body temperature and (in the case of fish/sharks) water temperature based on these isotopic signatures since they can be related to the time in which the animal lived and distinguished from the signatures of apatites which were subsequently deposited by non-biological processes. The paper discusses those aspects in some detail... but its just one of many exploring these kinds of techniques. This is super helpful. Thank you for taking the time to find this for me! I have some reading and studying to do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldigger Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 tmaier, you know Zombies are not real and yet I'll bet you still get an uneasy feeling walking around a blind corner at night thinking one may pop out at you. They are as real as you believe them to be. Shark teeth are the same way. I'll bet you can't just pick up a huge sharp tooth off a beach or embankment and not conjure up images of a gigantic carnivore ripping into a whale or the like (even if it is just a rock). Is a ring of gold not impressive, even though the metal is not in it's natural state? it has been smelted, had impurities removed or added , depending. I love the look of fossils and the stories they create in our minds...what did this creature do, how did it live, what trials did it face throughout it's lifetime. Just take them at face value for the history they have no matter what chemistry has done to the original structure...they are still impressive! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocksdale Posted September 11, 2014 Share Posted September 11, 2014 I hate to drag this out any further.....But I was thinking about fossils with which I'm more familiar -- coal fossils. In coal fossils the creature and plants that lived and died 300 million years ago are still an integral part of the rock. Obviously if they were not, the rock would simply have no carbon in them and would not be a burnable substance. Clearly material from those ancient plants are still there that's what makes it coal. I assume even in shark fossils something similar has occurred where something of the original chemistry of the creature is still part of that rock. It is just in a very different form. Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pterosaur Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Hi, Shaney. I've asked this same question before, and I completely understand why you would care to ask it. Totally mineralized fossils are absolutely fascinating, but there is something truly indescribable about touching original, organic material that once sliced enormous whales in half millions of years ago. I'm pretty new to fossil collecting, but I will try to give an intelligent answer based on what I've learned and personally researched. The enamel on a tooth (shark or other) is the original material. It is a very dense, tough, mineral-based substance. Hence, it survives the fossilization process more easily than other organic material such as soft tissues, proteins, and bones. Although natural enamel is whitish on the living animal, the "tooth" itself has become discoloured due to the leaching of minerals (commonly silica and calcite). Here's a quote from the Florida Museum of Natural History [2] The color of fossil shark teeth is a result of the minerals that are present in the surrounding sediments. Teeth fossilize through a process called permineralization. As water seeps through sediments over the teeth, it transports the minerals that are found in the sediment. These minerals fill in pore spaces in the tooth causing them to fossilize. Different minerals turn different colors as they form and react with trace amounts of oxygen. For example, as iron oxidizes it begins to rust and typically turns a reddish brown. The same can happen to fossils. "I am a part of all that I have met." - Lord Alfred Tennyson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkrofdrms Posted January 27, 2015 Share Posted January 27, 2015 Hi Shane, somehow I missed this post back in september, I think you are as normal as anyone as I think most guys who collect have OCD tendencies of some sort. As for losing your love for the teeth , well it happens, I used to love golf, played everyday practiced everyday, and one day, because the lack of time to practice and perhaps having hard time breaking 90's, I said golf I don't love you anymore, years later I found this mischevious love,while fishing at the chesapeake someone mentioned shark teeth, so I went one ...two three times nothing, sixth time I find my first teeth and all the sudden this pretty girl named shark teeth hunting hit me like a ton of... yeah rocks, I understand your logic of no more biological material remaining in the tooth, but to me every tooth has a personality, even from the same place slightly different color, marks, serrations, plus the selfish feeling of being with other collectors and finding a big tooth when no one did... also aside, there is some beauty in just being in the open, forgetting about the mundane world and placing your senses in finding your next shark tooth, that;s what shark do and still do million of years ago and still do. I hope you rekindle your passion, but if not you will find something else, it's life and is so worth to enjoy, rocks or not. Peace. MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted October 19, 2016 Author Share Posted October 19, 2016 On 1/27/2015 at 2:09 AM, Charizard said: Hi, Shaney. I've asked this same question before, and I completely understand why you would care to ask it. Totally mineralized fossils are absolutely fascinating, but there is something truly indescribable about touching original, organic material that once sliced enormous whales in half millions of years ago. I'm pretty new to fossil collecting, but I will try to give an intelligent answer based on what I've learned and personally researched. The enamel on a tooth (shark or other) is the original material. It is a very dense, tough, mineral-based substance. Hence, it survives the fossilization process more easily than other organic material such as soft tissues, proteins, and bones. Although natural enamel is whitish on the living animal, the "tooth" itself has become discoloured due to the leaching of minerals (commonly silica and calcite). Here's a quote from the Florida Museum of Natural History [2] The color of fossil shark teeth is a result of the minerals that are present in the surrounding sediments. Teeth fossilize through a process called permineralization. As water seeps through sediments over the teeth, it transports the minerals that are found in the sediment. These minerals fill in pore spaces in the tooth causing them to fossilize. Different minerals turn different colors as they form and react with trace amounts of oxygen. For example, as iron oxidizes it begins to rust and typically turns a reddish brown. The same can happen to fossils. This is helpful! I appreciate your comment and kind willingness to assist me. It's nice to know that others have thought the same way as I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted October 19, 2016 Author Share Posted October 19, 2016 On 1/27/2015 at 4:53 PM, mkrofdrms said: Hi Shane, somehow I missed this post back in september, I think you are as normal as anyone as I think most guys who collect have OCD tendencies of some sort. As for losing your love for the teeth , well it happens, I used to love golf, played everyday practiced everyday, and one day, because the lack of time to practice and perhaps having hard time breaking 90's, I said golf I don't love you anymore, years later I found this mischevious love,while fishing at the chesapeake someone mentioned shark teeth, so I went one ...two three times nothing, sixth time I find my first teeth and all the sudden this pretty girl named shark teeth hunting hit me like a ton of... yeah rocks, I understand your logic of no more biological material remaining in the tooth, but to me every tooth has a personality, even from the same place slightly different color, marks, serrations, plus the selfish feeling of being with other collectors and finding a big tooth when no one did... also aside, there is some beauty in just being in the open, forgetting about the mundane world and placing your senses in finding your next shark tooth, that;s what shark do and still do million of years ago and still do. I hope you rekindle your passion, but if not you will find something else, it's life and is so worth to enjoy, rocks or not. Peace. MK Thank you for the response! "...this pretty girl named shark teeth hunting hit me like a ton of... yeah rocks..." - I LOVE that! Very funny. And I do agree that an awesome part of shark teeth is that they all are slightly unique in their own way. I greatly appreciate such a kind post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted October 19, 2016 Author Share Posted October 19, 2016 I see there are a few posts I didn't personally reply to, and to all of those folks, I just want say I am grateful for the responses and for having such wonderful understanding. A few of you have made effort to lift me up and help me to enjoy this hobby again; that's very commendable and makes me happy. To be honest, when taking to account certain members, this community is definitely in the top nicest I've ever dealt with. Each of you are awesome! As a little update regarding shark teeth and my original post, I can say that while the composition ignorance I had in childhood was superior for collecting purposes, I can now appreciate shark teeth for their partly original material, detail & shape similarity to the original tooth, history of physical changes, interesting colors, animal origin, uniqueness, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siteseer Posted October 19, 2016 Share Posted October 19, 2016 On September 10, 2014 at 11:04 AM, Kosmoceras said: No, that's not exactly what I wanted to get across. It will still have some sort of structure which applies to what it was like when the shark was alive - not just “a plaster cast” which lacks all but the external shape. It is the fossil of a tooth, and consequently is a tooth. I can’t understand how you can’t call it a tooth in any way. Not to sound offensive, but I fear it to be an extremely narrow-minded view. Thomas Right, a fossil tooth is still distinct from the surrounding rock and the crown of the tooth is still distinct from the root with the crown retaining its shiny quality while the root remains duller. Internally, a shark tooth that originally had a pulp cavity still has it and the enameloid layer is still distinct from the dentin. I have broken a Miocene shark tooth and found that it did not snap like a rock. The enameloid was bendable like plastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darktooth Posted October 21, 2016 Share Posted October 21, 2016 Shane I have asked myself this same question and was thinking about posting it in the past. But not for the same reason. I realize that people like what they like and its hard to change that. I honestly wish , that for your sake, you never asked that question because it honestly seems, that for you, you just lost something special, and that truly is a shame. They say ignorence is bliss. I like Trilo-butts and I cannot lie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted October 22, 2016 Author Share Posted October 22, 2016 On 10/20/2016 at 8:48 PM, darctooth said: Shane I have asked myself this same question and was thinking about posting it in the past. But not for the same reason. I realize that people like what they like and its hard to change that. I honestly wish , that for your sake, you never asked that question because it honestly seems, that for you, you just lost something special, and that truly is a shame. They say ignorence is bliss. Thank you for commenting and showing care for me. Sadly...there are a few top things in life thus far that I would have been far better off in ignorance about. I once believed that to know all truth - regardless of how ugly - is preferable to ignorance, but I've found that unless you're a superhuman, some still can sufficiently break you. As for shark teeth, I think they are still special enough to continue collecting, albeit they've dropped a few notches in "cool" factor for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostedoddity Posted December 15, 2016 Share Posted December 15, 2016 I like fossils because they have history to them. Each one was part of an organism that once lived a life on Earth. That's pretty amazing! I have rib fragments belonging to hundreds of individual dugongs just sitting in buckets and bags in my garage. Time to fire up the tumbler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossiling Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 On 9 September, 2014 at 11:08 AM, tmaier said: And wouldn't that be cool to clone a meg? No one would volunteer to feed it. Keep looking! They're everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossiling Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 On 9 September, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Carcharodontosaurus said: No. There was some DNA reported in 1994, but it turned out to be human contamination. A study in 2012 concluded that DNA would have completely degraded by 6.8 million years, though it is possible that this is incorrect due to the discovery of possible DNA remnants in Tyrannosaurus and Brachylophosaurus osteocytes, but sequence data is required to verify this. http://news.ncsu.edu/2012/10/tpschweitzer-bone/ Sequences of collagen and other proteins have been found in the same fossils as the osteocytes, though they have been controversial, their similarity to modern archosaurs above other animals seems to suggest authenticity. It would be possible to create a DNA sequence that codes for that protein sequence, but since proteins are regulated by DNA sequences to make appearances and functions and stuff, this would be useless for anything other than maybe adding a sense of "authenticity" to something like Jack Horner's hypothetical "chickenosaurus", which has a lot more promise. "Let's do some dinosaur cloning!" "great!" "wait...why is this a human foetus?" Keep looking! They're everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossiling Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 On 10 September, 2014 at 2:11 AM, Shaney777 said: I feel that my topic offended some of you. I wasn't try to do that! I'm just saying that if a fossil shark tooth has never been in a shark's mouth, I don't see how it could even be called a tooth. If every single part of the original tooth has been replaced by rock, it can no longer be called a tooth. And it being a real tooth that was used to kill prey was the main special thing about them for me... Well, in 50 years all the atoms in your body would have changed. So is " you" the actual "you"? If not, where is the original "you"? In much the same way, the tooth cannot be called "just a random rock". Keep looking! They're everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossiling Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 On 20 October, 2016 at 6:43 AM, siteseer said: Right, a fossil tooth is still distinct from the surrounding rock and the crown of the tooth is still distinct from the root with the crown retaining its shiny quality while the root remains duller. Internally, a shark tooth that originally had a pulp cavity still has it and the enameloid layer is still distinct from the dentin. I have broken a Miocene shark tooth and found that it did not snap like a rock. The enameloid was bendable like plastic. To add a good picture to illustrate this: So here one can see a clear distinction between the enameloid and dentin. Keep looking! They're everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frostedoddity Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 3 hours ago, fossiling said: No one would volunteer to feed it. It would probably have to be fed using a crane like they did with the mosasaur in "Jurassic World." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossiling Posted December 16, 2016 Share Posted December 16, 2016 6 hours ago, Frostedoddity said: It would probably have to be fed using a crane like they did with the mosasaur in "Jurassic World." It must have been a mistake for me to miss it Keep looking! They're everywhere! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.