tmaier Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I was discussing this fixation on dangerous predatory animals that people often have with a paleontologist and I was bemoaning the fact that I like invertebrates, but you never see them front-and-center in museums. You always find the big, impressive, scary predator in the main lobby when you walk in. Inverts are tucked away in a dark corner somewhere. And he suggested the T. rex in the lobby should be replaced with a bivalve posing in a scary gaping shell position, to see if that went over well and convert people to invertebratism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmaier Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 and convert people to invertebratism. Which brings up the serious topic of mixed marriages... A vertebrate paleontologist marries an orthodox follower of invertebratism... How will they bring up the children? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 Wow that's an interesting comment. So if a fossil tooth has never been in a sharks mouth who made it? Do you understand the principles of fossilization? I understand that the origin of a fossil shark tooth is from an original tooth, but if all organic aspects of the original tooth have been replaced by minerals, it can no longer be called a tooth: it's a mineral shaped like a tooth. A tooth is used to chew up food, but minerals with no organic material would have never been used to chew food, so how can a tooth replaced by minerals still be called a tooth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 I think what he is saying is that everything that made it a tooth has been replaced with minerals into something else. While I can see it from this point of view I still have my breath taken away when I pick up a tooth that hasn't been handled in millions of years and hold it in my hand. Yes, you understand what I am saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I understand that the origin of a fossil shark tooth is from an original tooth, but if all organic aspects of the original tooth have been replaced by minerals, it can no longer be called a tooth: it's a mineral shaped like a tooth. A tooth is used to chew up food, but minerals with no organic material would have never been used to chew food, so how can a tooth replaced by minerals still be called a tooth?You are describing a fossil. If you are uncomfortable with how one comes about and that the end results has no organic substance this is not your thing and that's okay. This hobby is not for everyone. I have friends that call my collection fancy rocks. I love it and that's all that matters to me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painshill Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I understand that the origin of a fossil shark tooth is from an original tooth, but if all organic aspects of the original tooth have been replaced by minerals, it can no longer be called a tooth: it's a mineral shaped like a tooth. A tooth is used to chew up food, but minerals with no organic material would have never been used to chew food, so how can a tooth replaced by minerals still be called a tooth? If you read my spiel again, you will see that at least some of the original hydroxyapatite is likely to remain in many fossilized teeth. That's a mineral rather than organic material, but it's a "biomineral"... produced by secretion in the tooth organelles of the living shark. Everything else is likely to be replaced by minerals that have come from external sources. That replacement process often retains extraordinary detail that was present in the living tooth. If that has no interest, then fossil collecting is not for you, and you'd be better off collecting teeth from extant modern sharks. 3 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...
Shaney777 Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 Shane, the shape is still the same as when it was formed in a shark's mouth. Despite not the exact same atoms being in the fossil tooth as the tooth when the shark was alive it doesn't mean that it did not originate from a shark. Hence the term fossilised shark tooth. The tooth has become fossilised. If there was no shark, there would be no tooth - the fossil did not just appear, thus it came from a shark, hence a shark tooth. A book may well be re-printed with a different cover, but it still tells the same story. I don't want to sound like I am having a go, but it is just a very strange question. I can see what you are trying to say, however it doesn't really work for me. It comes across that you don't understand the hobby. Merely rocks is a bit harsh - it seems you have no fascination in Earth's history. I want to echo what Auspex said earlier - Thomas You make good sense, but I personally was not and am not interested in finding any type of fossil other than shark teeth. A fossil cast of an animal is pretty interesting, but it's nothing like having part of the original animal. Your first words sort of say to me that shark teeth are just as casts are: they did originate from an animal, but their composition is nothing like the original animal. For me, that makes all the difference in the "cool" factor. It may not for any of you all, but I find it problematic that I am finding nothing original. I sort of thought that someone may try to actually help me find some objective references, though... :') Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megatooth Collector Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I agree with Troodon. I think the OP is really over analyzing this. Don't get me wrong, I am all about the pursuit of information, science, etc. and find it helps me enjoy my fossil collecting even more. BUT never in a "million years" have I looked at my fossilized teeth and thought of them merely a rocks because they no longer have the original material in them. They ARE fossilized remains of a creature that lived millions of years ago. And that is pretty darn cool! That in itself is enough for me to want to spend time walking on the beach looking for teeth, or planning trips to the Calvert Cliffs to look for fossils when I visit my sister-in-law in Washington DC. If you can't find that sense of fascination with the link to the past or the creature that once owned the fossil, then the hobby is probably not for you. Just my opinion. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 You are describing a fossil. If you are uncomfortable with how one comes about and that the end results has no organic substance this is not your thing and that's okay. This hobby is not for everyone. I have friends that call my collection fancy rocks. I love it and that's all that matters to me. I guess I'm just saddened because my childhood at the beach revolved around fossil shark teeth and thinking that I was holding something original (or even partly original). It was a cherished pastime that my family and I participated in. Now I feel that I can no longer really enjoy it hardly as much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megatooth Collector Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 I guess I'm just saddened because my childhood at the beach revolved around fossil shark teeth and thinking that I was holding something original (or even partly original). It was a cherished pastime that my family and I participated in. Now I feel that I can no longer really enjoy it hardly as much. Well I think you answered your own question...this hobby is not for you. But think on the bright side, you will be leaving more fossilized sharks teeth out there for others who will actually be happy with their discoveries. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobWill Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Paleontology is about applying what lived in the past to where we are and where we are headed, not our inner feelings about something. Calling it something other than a tooth would be unnecessarily confusing. What would you have us call any fossil if not by it's common name? You read a book for the story, not to wonder where the ink came from. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megatooth Collector Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 You read a book for the story, not to wonder where the ink came from. Bob, I really like this quote! Agree 100% 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Troodon Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 It's very fortunate that fossils exist in their "rocky" state. Its one of the few windows we have of our past that have been able to survive million of years because of fossilization. Sorry that the facts sadden you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 If you read my spiel again, you will see that at least some of the original hydroxyapatite is likely to remain in many fossilized teeth. That's a mineral rather than organic material, but it's a "biomineral"... produced by secretion in the tooth organelles of the living shark. Everything else is likely to be replaced by minerals that have come from external sources. That replacement process often retains extraordinary detail that was present in the living tooth. If that has no interest, then fossil collecting is not for you, and you'd be better off collecting teeth from extant modern sharks. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fossilselachian Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Certainly one of the more unusual discussions on TFF recently! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 ...I am going to look for shark teeth soon, but if there is no organic material present--if all I am finding are merely rocks--the fun will basically be taken out of the hobby... You have a bunch of confused fossil collectors here... Your inquiry is from so far out in left field (from our perspective) that many of us are pretty much left uncomprehending. We connect with fossils as they are, for what they tell us about creatures in the distant past. They are messengers from a different world, and if that doesn't kindle in you a sense of wonder, then you have my heartfelt sympathy. 1 "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...
Stocksdale Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) You read a book for the story, not to wonder where the ink came from. Speaking of ink.... I find it interesting that they can get viable ink from Jurassic period Belemnites. I would assume the ink would also be a biomineral that was originally produced by the animal 160 million years ago. As Painshill pointed out, some of the biominerals produced directly by the shark DO remain in the tooth. Edited September 10, 2014 by Stocksdale 1 Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaney777 Posted September 10, 2014 Author Share Posted September 10, 2014 You have a bunch of confused fossil collectors here... Your inquiry is from so far out in left field (from our perspective) that many of us are pretty much left uncomprehending. We connect with fossils as they are, for what they tell us about creatures in the distant past. They are messengers from a different world, and if that doesn't kindle in you a sense of wonder, then you have my heartfelt sympathy. I think I am in better shape now than I was when I started the topic. At least the quoted reply and a few others have sort of (in a way) kept the original passion alive... It's mostly gone, but I think there may be enough left to still have something to do at the beach. There's nothing else I am interested in there! Can't swim, don't like to party and drink alcohol, hate shopping for stuff I already have, ain't got no interest in torturing fish with hooks, and the ocean "sports" are dangerous. So I guess I'll peck around for fossils that could possibly have some original stuff in them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lissa318 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 Geesh. Who would have thought that posting on a "FOSSIL FORUM" that fossils aren't worthy of your time because they are just ROCKS, would get such a response... If you don't feel a sense of awe in holding something that was part of a animal long gone, in many cases extinct, then you certainly do need a new hobby. Although I've enjoyed reading some of the responses on here, convincing you to see how important and amazing fossil are is not on my to do list. I doubt anyone attempting to do so will will be successful. I do believe you were looking for a debate though and you certainly succeeded at that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auspex Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 For me, the topic has inspired a bit of philosophical introspection; I can honestly say that I had never before considered the viewpoint. It proves interesting! 1 "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...
Megatooth Collector Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 You have a bunch of confused fossil collectors here... Your inquiry is from so far out in left field (from our perspective) that many of us are pretty much left uncomprehending. We connect with fossils as they are, for what they tell us about creatures in the distant past. They are messengers from a different world, and if that doesn't kindle in you a sense of wonder, then you have my heartfelt sympathy. Agree 100%! This has been a weird, yet amusing thread. And I did learn something more about the fossilization process that I didn't know before, so glad I have followed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Megatooth Collector Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 (edited) I think I am in better shape now than I was when I started the topic. At least the quoted reply and a few others have sort of (in a way) kept the original passion alive... It's mostly gone, but I think there may be enough left to still have something to do at the beach. There's nothing else I am interested in there! Can't swim, don't like to party and drink alcohol, hate shopping for stuff I already have, ain't got no interest in torturing fish with hooks, and the ocean "sports" are dangerous. So I guess I'll peck around for fossils that could possibly have some original stuff in them... 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? Edited September 10, 2014 by Megatooth Collector 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lissa318 Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 For me, the topic has inspired a bit of philosophical introspection; I can honestly say that I had never before considered the viewpoint. It proves interesting! It sure does! The topic is certainly intriguing. But if you aren't fascinated by fossils at all I don't think anyone can convince you. Many people with no knowledge of fossils visit museums all the time because it is awe inspiring regardless of whether it's a passion or not. If someone says they have no interest in fossils at all I just can't understand?! Probably shouldn't have commented... lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stocksdale Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 One other interesting note is that hydroxyapatite in fossil teeth (and more especially in fossil bones) frequently has elevated levels of fluorine, which substitutes for the hydroxide groups to create fluoroapatite. The crystal size is usually unchanged in those circumstances. Quite why this happens is not well understood, but the levels are well above those that could have originally been present. There is evidence to suggest that this happens very early on in the fossilization process and may be an important step in stabilizing the mineral, such that it determines the subsequent degree of preservation of detail at a micro-level. The oft-quoted “molecule by molecule” replacement to describe the mineralization process for fossilization is 100-year old textbook stuff and a long way from what we know today about how most mineralized fossils are formed. It’s a useful simplification to help people get their minds round what happens, but no more than that. 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. Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.–Carl Sagan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RyanNREMTP Posted September 10, 2014 Share Posted September 10, 2014 My spousal unit didn't know if she was going to like fossil hunting or not. She went on one of the DPS trips last month and did enjoy it some but probably not enough to want to go again. She might try again in a different environment but not for certain. Her loss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts