Jump to content

Fossils Aren't Real Bones/teeth?


M.Vignesh

Recommended Posts

Hey guys

So yeah. This question popped up in my mind.

Are fossils real bones/teeth or traces? By traces, I mean simply rock. I was reading this website earlier http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/6029/p-img-src-http-2-ab731-4

Sorry if i sound totally stupid haha. I am not that much experienced with Fossils and all that. A newbie actually. Thank you in advance :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no original material preserved. Bones would more or less be casts of the original shape with different material inhabiting the same dimensions that the original bone occupied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That depends on a lot of factors, mostly on the preservation characteristics of the formation in which the fossil was found. Some formations preserve the original material of the creature. For example, a place where I collect at called the Coon Creek Formation preserves the original material of seashells - e.g. unfossilized remains. I have found crab claws with the thin shells still completely intact and unfossilized. This is because the Coon Creek formation's clay does not allow water to flow through, and water is the primary carrier of minerals and other chemicals that cause mineralization of a substance. The same goes for lots of other formations.

For teeth, enamel is a very chemically resistant ceramic, much of the time it does not fossilize, but the inner part of the tooth and the root are fossilized. For instance, many shark teeth are found hollow, with only the enamel shell preserved.

Bone on the other hand is often completely mineralized.

Some fossils have even been found with soft tissue still intact. so as I said before, this question has many answers, depending on where the fossils came from.

  • Enjoyed 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a similar discussion on TFF regarding shark teeth here.

Start the day with a smile and get it over with.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me also add that the color of the fossil is influenced by the matrix they are fossilized in. As the bone is replaced by the surrounding mineral it also takes on its color. For example Moroccan fossils out of the Kem Kem Basin are typically redish brown and so is the surrounding matrix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fossils that are natural casts are just that; fossils that are mineralized generally preserve the original structures. Some fossils are preserved in an almost completely original state.

If they are evidence of ancient life, they are all "fossils".

"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

That depends on a lot of factors, mostly on the preservation characteristics of the formation in which the fossil was found. Some formations preserve the original material of the creature. For example, a place where I collect at called the Coon Creek Formation preserves the original material of seashells - e.g. unfossilized remains. I have found crab claws with the thin shells still completely intact and unfossilized. This is because the Coon Creek formation's clay does not allow water to flow through, and water is the primary carrier of minerals and other chemicals that cause mineralization of a substance. The same goes for lots of other formations.

For teeth, enamel is a very chemically resistant ceramic, much of the time it does not fossilize, but the inner part of the tooth and the root are fossilized. For instance, many shark teeth are found hollow, with only the enamel shell preserved.

Bone on the other hand is often completely mineralized.

Some fossils have even been found with soft tissue still intact. so as I said before, this question has many answers, depending on where the fossils came from.

Ohh. Do you know anything about Kem Kem Beds formation? My spinosaurus teeth are from there. Are they fully fossilized or the original teeth still remains?

Edited by M.Vignesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your Spinosaurus teeth are fully fossilized.

Ohh. That means not even a single old enamel or calcium is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope that's what happens in the fossilization process. The bone and enamel gets replaced by minerals. Hope that does not change your mind on how cool they are. It's still an item that was in the mouth of a dinosaur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope that's what happens in the fossilization process. The bone and enamel gets replaced by minerals. Hope that does not change your mind on how cool they are. It's still an item that was in the mouth of a dinosaur.

Of course it doesn't haha!

It is still cool and awesome. Questions always pops up in my head haha.

I have another question. Dinosaur teeth can easily be identified but what about bones that doesn't show a visible bone structure. I am talking about the ones from Hell Creek.

I have a several of them and they look like rock. Is it possible to identify if it is a bone in a lab or via paleontologist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes in a lab or if someone knowledgeable is holding it. You may not be able to determine from what animal. Just depend if there is something diagnostic about the specimen you have.

Photos may be all you need. Start a new post with one of the bigger bones you have. Good clean sharp photos of all of the sides. Let's see what the forum members have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There seems to be endless misunderstanding about the term "fossilized."

"Fossilized" (along with "petrified") is a near meaningless term in this specialized forum. The term is often substituted for "mineralized" in describing a bone or tooth. But, fossilized doesn't always equate to mineralized because many fossils are not reinforced or replaced by minerals.

Bone is primarily composed of hydroxyapatite and collagen. Hydroxyapatite is an inorganic compound of calcium, phosphate, and hydroxide which is organized in a crystal latticework that gives bone (and teeth) structural rigidity. It preserves well as a fossil under some conditions.

Collagen is a fiberous protein that serves as connective tissue in bones and muscles. It does not preserve well in a fossil. As collagen decomposes, it may be replaced in the hydroxyapatite latticework by minerals from the depositional environment (e.g. silica dioxide dissolved in groundwater).

Bone reinforced with exogenous minerals is said to be "mineralized." If the bone components (including the hydroxyapatite) are entirely replaced by exogenous minerals such as silica, it is said to be "replaced by -".

In the case of leaves and wood, as with bones, permineralization depends on the circulation of mineral-saturated groundwater. If there is limited or no circulation (or no suitable minerals in solution), then there is no permineralization. BUT, the organic remains - the leaves, or wood, or bone - are still fossils ("fossilized" if you like).

  • I found this Informative 3
  • I Agree 1

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

There's no original material preserved. Bones would more or less be casts of the original shape with different material inhabiting the same dimensions that the original bone occupied.

That's not at all true - yes, some fossils are fully re-mineralized, but many Cenozoic shallowly buried bones and teeth have been minimally altered by diagenesis.

  • I Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for the help guys! haha

It is still cool to have a dinosaur tooth but My friends are simply saying that it is a rock and not a real tooth lol. I am tired of explaining them to how precious fossils are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Spinosaurus teeth do have some original enamel. I have a collection of them myself and they show the enamel. It's that red-colored shiny stuff around the tooth. In the case of dinosaur bone, it really depends. A very few bones are just sandstone casts in the rock, but most usually have the original structure. Dinosaur bone like that in someway is real, because the particles in original bone, don't decay away, but just soak up the minerals. You can try this with a sponge at home. Put the sponge in a bowl of sand and mix some salt in water. Make sure that the sponge is buried deeply, but not too deep that theirs no sand beneath it. Then pour your salt solution into the bowl. Put your bowl somewhere sunny, maybe your garage or outside patio and let it sit for a few weeks to a couple of months. When your sponge is ready just pull it out. It should be hard and stiff. Under closer examination, you may see that the sponge pores are filled with sand and hardened salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding, though I'm often reminded of being wrong, is organic material 10,000 years or older is technically considered a fossil whether mineralized or not. By that definition a 5000 year old mineralized bone would not be a fossil. So, it has nothing to do with composition.

The term fossil is applied very liberally by collectors to just about any old organic object found in the ground or a stream which looks old to them. Ebay is an excellent example where "fossils" 150 years old are commonly sold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Spinosaurus teeth do have some original enamel. I have a collection of them myself and they show the enamel.

Yes enamel exists on all Spinosaurus teeth and other dinosaur teeth but its not original its been completely "mineralized" hope that's the correct term :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes enamel exists on all Spinosaurus teeth and other dinosaur teeth but its not original its been completely "mineralized" hope that's the correct term :)

Ohh. I have been told by some people that original enamel exists on all spinosaurus teeth. Not sure if that's true or false.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked a guy that's on fb fossils group. He said that original enamel exists on Spinosaurus tooth. Is that true?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the difference in responses is just what our definition of original means.

Natural enamel is whitish on the living animal, the "tooth" itself has become discolored due to the leaching of minerals from the surrounding sediments. So in its simplest form its changed. I'm sure others will chime in to add to this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the difference in responses is just what our definition of original means.

Natural enamel is whitish on the living animal, the "tooth" itself has become discolored due to the leaching of minerals from the surrounding sediments. So in its simplest form its changed. I'm sure others will chime in to add to this discussion.

Ohh. Thanks for your reply :P

Yeah, the enamel is discolored but it is still shiny like a tooth, So it should have the original enamel or something right?

I can't wait to say what others have to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My understanding, though I'm often reminded of being wrong, is organic material 10,000 years or older is technically considered a fossil whether mineralized or not. By that definition a 5000 year old mineralized bone would not be a fossil. So, it has nothing to do with composition.

The term fossil is applied very liberally by collectors to just about any old organic object found in the ground or a stream which looks old to them. Ebay is an excellent example where "fossils" 150 years old are commonly sold.

Unfortunately, though sounding "sciencey" this distinction is more or less completely arbitrary and meaningless from a preservational standpoint.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are lots of different forms of fossilization, all with different levels of organic material still left in the fossil. Before, I said that your spinosaurus tooth is completely fossilized, and that is true, but as people have been saying the term fossil has a different meaning to many people...

Your spinosaurus tooth does have original enamel still left in it. Most fossilized dinosaur/shark teeth from formations that formed under saltwater undergo a process called permineralization. For example. Your Spinosaurus was running around eating things when suddenly a small meteor came out of nowhere and killed him, where he then fell into the river he was next to, floated off to the bottom, broke up into pieces, lost his teeth, and was buried by sediment. One of those teeth got buried, and over time, mineral rich water started seeping underground and around the fossil. The soft inner parts of the tooth have decayed by this time, and begin to fill with sediment and minerals. The enamel however - being an extremely corrosion resistant ceramic does not decay, rather, the mineral-rich water over time begins to deposit minerals (maybe calcite) into pores and holes in the enamel, which re not visible under the naked eye, but under a microscope. There minerals begin to crystalize and eventually completely fill the holes and pores in the enamel.

So yes, your tooth is completely fossilized in the sense that it is really old, and is completely permineralized, however enamel does not undergo any chemical change throughout the process, but basically becomes impregnated by other minerals. The minerals that impregnate the enamel determine the color of the fossil. For example, I am assuming your spinosaurus tooth is impregnated with calcite and some iron-oxide laden minerals.

In conclusion: there is still enamel. Permineralization almost always leaves the holes it fills intact, with the original material. Further, leaves and other soft organics - under special conditions - undergo per mineralization wherein the cellulitic walls of the cell membranes are still intact, but the cells are filled with minerals.

Hope this helps.

For more information, you can try to get access to this paper: Loren E. Babcock, "Permineralization", AccessScience McGraw-Hill.

  • I found this Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...