Looking For Opinions On What I Believe Is A Petrified Finger

[Fossildude19]

Not bone. This looks like some sort of quartz or chert. 

It's not a finger.

[Troodon]

Sorry not seeing any bone, with these views it's 100% geologic and possibly quartz. 

[Kane]

Sorry, but that's not bone. The last picture is also a clear indication that this item bears little to no resemblance to the anatomy of an actual finger. 

[digit]

I wouldn't take a detective's word on fossils in the same way as I wouldn't ask a paleontologist to investigate a crime.

 

The geologic object that you showed looks to be an elongated chert nodule. Any resemblance to a finger is merely coincidence. We see "petrified fingers" here on a semi-regular basis but none of them have proven to be what they are imagined to be--this one included.

 

You can imagine Inca origin stories or Civil War injuries but they are all simply creative stories to explain what you believe you are seeing. As mentioned earlier on this (revived) topic, finger bones are preserved but the flesh (and fingernails) are protein and not bone and so do not mineralize. Any resemblance to any finger digits is the result of an interesting capability of our advanced pattern matching brains that allow us to recognize familiar objects from incomplete visual information. While this has had useful advantages to our species it can also result in novelties like this chert nodule resembling (to you) a severed finger.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=pareidolia&tbm=isch

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[jpc]

1 minute ago, digit said:

I wouldn't take a detective's word on fossils in the same way as I wouldn't ask a paleontologist to investigate a crime.

 

 

indeed

 

[Jdl]

12 minutes ago, Fossildude19 said:

Not a petrified finger. Sorry.

[Kane]

Showing us the same photos is really not going to change the opinion. 

[Jdl]

Just now, Jdl said:

Well then feel free to tell me what it is since you are the expert 

[Fossildude19]

Still not a finger fossil.

 

We just did. It's likely a piece of quartz.

[digit]

We understand what you are seeing (and misinterpreting as internal bone) but fossils just don't happen that way. We'd love nothing more than to see a well preserved fossil finger but any fossil fingers are going to be only mineralized bone--there is no geologic process for mineralizing flesh. Sorry, just doesn't work that way.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Jdl]

2 minutes ago, jpc said:

indeed

 

Hey I'm no genius but when the knuckle bone on the thumb is plainly visible and it was solid like a stone I would definitely say it's a fossil

[Fossildude19]

Doesn't have any bone texture, or shape of bone, really. It is a vaguely finger shaped rock. Nothing more.

[Kane]

Just now, Jdl said:

Hey I'm no genius but when the knuckle bone on the thumb is plainly visible and it was solid like a stone I would definitely say it's a fossil

But it is not bone. That is not what bone looks like. It is a piece of quartz/chert. 

[Fossildude19]

3 minutes ago, Jdl said:

I would definitely say it's a fossil

 

And you would be incorrect.

[digit]

2 minutes ago, Jdl said:

Well then feel free to tell me what it is since you are the expert 

Several professional paleontologists have already stated clearly that this is a piece of chert (microcrystaline quartz) that happens to be formed in layers (a common occurrence due to natural geologic processes). We understand how frustrating it is when experts tell you that you are not seeing what you believe you are seeing. We have absolutely to reason to deceive you and every reason to educate you. Most new members who come here with a misidentified geologic either accept the accumulated wisdom of those here on the forum or stubbornly refuse to accept the diagnosis and stick with their first impression. Those who are hear to lean often go on to finding real fossils in their area and enjoy the community here. Those who believe we are against them because we cannot confirm a misguided diagnosis generally get mad and leave without learning. The choice is yours but you need to realize that we have seen many of these and have 100% confidence in our diagnosis. This is a science-based forum and we work with the rules of science and logic.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Jdl]

8 minutes ago, digit said:

We understand what you are seeing (and misinterpreting as internal bone) but fossils just don't happen that way. We'd love nothing more than to see a well preserved fossil finger but any fossil fingers are going to be only mineralized bone--there is no geologic process for mineralizing flesh. Sorry, just doesn't work that way.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

 

Well I tell you what if you would like to come to north Carolina sometime look me up and you can check it out yourself and I promise you without a doubt you will change your opinion on what it is

 

[Jdl]

4 minutes ago, Kane said:

But it is not bone. That is not what bone looks like. It is a piece of quartz/chert. 

Well how about this why don't you come to north Carolina and check it out yourself and then tell me it's quartz chert 

[Fossildude19]

More of the same pictures?  It is still a rock. From all angles. 

I'd bet that I wouldn't change my mind on what this is. It's a piece of quartz or chert or some other cryptocrystaline sort of rock.

This is in no way, shape, or form, an actual fossil of a finger.

[Fossildude19]

Just now, Jdl said:

Well how about this why don't you come to north Carolina and check it out yourself and then tell me it's quartz chert 

 

Why, when it is clearly visible in the pictures? 

[Bobby Rico]

 Two more geologic not fossils that also just look like a finger

this from @Doctor Mud

 

 

Edited May 3, 2023 by Bobby Rico

[Troodon]

Please understand that the folks who are responding have decades of years of experience with fossils.  Your photos are excellent to make the correct call on your specimen. 

You obviously are not interested in our answer just what your convinced it is.  Take it to you local museum and see what they say.

[Jdl]

4 minutes ago, digit said:

Several professional paleontologists have already stated clearly that this is a piece of chert (microcrystaline quartz) that happens to be formed in layers (a common occurrence due to natural geologic processes). We understand how frustrating it is when experts tell you that you are not seeing what you believe you are seeing. We have absolutely to reason to deceive you and every reason to educate you. Most new members who come here with a misidentified geologic either accept the accumulated wisdom of those here on the forum or stubbornly refuse to accept the diagnosis and stick with their first impression. Those who are hear to lean often go on to finding real fossils in their area and enjoy the community here. Those who believe we are against them because we cannot confirm a misguided diagnosis generally get mad and leave without learning. The choice is yours but you need to realize that we have seen many of these and have 100% confidence in our diagnosis. This is a science-based forum and we work with the rules of science and logic.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

Look I'm not arguing with you but hey what do I know I'm just some stupid country boy  but hey like I said check it out yourself because a picture does nothing but just what we're doing now but seeing with your own eyes well now that's a different story and opinion 

[Fossildude19]

3 minutes ago, Jdl said:

Look I'm not arguing with you but hey what do I know I'm just some stupid country boy  but hey like I said check it out yourself because a picture does nothing but just what we're doing now but seeing with your own eyes well now that's a different story and opinion 

 

Not in this case. It's a rock. I have found rocks that look like fingers, superficially.  But they are rocks. Nothing more.

 

 

 

 

[digit]

11 minutes ago, Jdl said:

Well I tell you what if you would like to come to north Carolina sometime look me up and you can check it out yourself and I promise you without a doubt you will change your opinion on what it is

Would you believe that virtually everybody we disappoint by not confirming their amazing find says this exact same thing? We are told that pictures just don't do it justice and that we've be convinced if we were to see it in person. We can clearly see what it is and we have a deep knowledge of paleontology and geology and we understand how things fossilize (and how they do not). We are basing our identification both on what we can see in your pictures (perfectly adequate no need to send more) and how we understand mineralization to take place.

 

Since you do not seem to believe what we are saying and you are clearly sticking with your original assumption, your next move here is to argue that this finger was mineralized in a brand new way to science that we've never encountered before and that if we'd just think "outside the box" (and beyond the realm of known science) we'd understand how this detached finger came to be mineralize in its present form.

 

6 minutes ago, Jdl said:

Look I'm not arguing with you but hey what do I know I'm just some stupid country boy

We are in no way denigrating or insulting you. We are simply trying to get you to understand how the fossilization (mineralization) process works and why this may look like a severed finger (to you) but cannot be due to the laws of science. If you find us rude it is only because we must continue to insist what the true nature of your find really is--regardless of what you'd like it to be.

 

 

Cheers.

 

-Ken

[Bobby Rico]

10 minutes ago, Jdl said:

Look I'm not arguing with you but hey what do I know I'm just some stupid country boy  but hey like I said check it out yourself because a picture does nothing but just what we're doing now but seeing with your own eyes well now that's a different story and opinion 

Your just getting opinions from members who collect and work with fossil  daily , now and for more may years. There would be no difference if it was seen by our own eyes or photographs it just sadly not a fossil or any type of a fingers .

Edited May 3, 2023 by Bobby Rico