Do fossils bend?

[Still_human]

By the way, if I may tangent off-topic for a moment, are anomalocaris mouth ring fossils only from very limited locations, or something? I know they've found more than just a few, but maybe nowhere near enough still, to come close to the numbers needed before becoming found for sale?

[ynot]

Well, piranha has Me convinced it is a fossil.

As for the ridge, I think it is just a feature of the way the rock fractured.

[Ludwigia]

Well, it certainly would have helped us in the first place if you'd have mentioned directly in your post that you had obtained what is claimed to be an Anomalocaris.

[Rockwood]

49 minutes ago, Ludwigia said:

Well, it certainly would have helped us in the first place if you'd have mentioned directly in your post that you had obtained what is claimed to be an Anomalocaris.

One could also argue that it introduced an unnecessary bias.

[Still_human]

1 hour ago, Rockwood said:

One could also argue that it introduced an unnecessary bias.

Exactly. I hate to, and usually don't include information that's unnecessary to the specific question to either avoid exactly that--possibly putting something in anyone's head, or just because its unnecessary information that might bog things up and change focus.

That's when I PURPOSEFULLY leave out information...Other times I just don't have it, or forgot it........hmmm......I'm starting to notice a trend here

 

In this case I just didn't think what the fossil was made any difference, and including what it was might just derail focus, which it did, changing the entire focus of the thread from what I was specifically asking about, to a completely different aspect. i was actually considering not even including "anomalocaris" as a tag word at all, and leaving off that first part in the topic, not even mentioning anything about my question actually being based on authentication of anything in particular, to avoid things getting too specific about the fossil itself, and the fossil no longer being just an example of what my question was about.

As it turned out, im actually very VERY glad, and extremely relieved it DID happen in this case, because it ended up yielding fantastic information that im almost positive I'll find very useful in the future!

 

Kinda throws a monkey wrench into that idea though...now that I see just what incredible information I would have totally missed out on if I HAD successfully avoided things going off topic some. I guess maybe it's better to just embrace things wandering off topic, some.

[ynot]

2 hours ago, Rockwood said:

One could also argue that it introduced an unnecessary bias.

 

1 hour ago, Still_human said:

Exactly. I hate to, and usually don't include information that's unnecessary to the specific question to either avoid exactly that--possibly putting something in anyone's head, or just because its unnecessary information that might bog things up and change focus.

I think that having any information available will help people to make more informed replies to any question posed.

It is easier to decipher what may have caused the rock to be in its current state if We know that it is one thing or the other.

 

[Ludwigia]

5 hours ago, ynot said:

 

I think that having any information available will help people to make more informed replies to any question posed.

It is easier to decipher what may have caused the rock to be in its current state if We know that it is one thing or the other.

 

I'll second that, especially in the case of obscure stains which could be interpreted as practically anything from just a photo.

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

I'll second that, especially in the case of obscure stains which could be interpreted as practically anything from just a photo.

I understand that this is a hobby, and extra steps through the evidence can be irritating, but I suspect that most people are less aware of there biases than they realize, or would like to be. 

For example; if you detest fakery the way I do the very suggestion that it could be human deception could potentially color one's opinion.

[Ludwigia]

8 hours ago, Rockwood said:

I understand that this is a hobby, and extra steps through the evidence can be irritating, but I suspect that most people are less aware of there biases than they realize, or would like to be. 

For example; if you detest fakery the way I do the very suggestion that it could be human deception could potentially color one's opinion.

I appreciate your point of view, but my attitude when it comes to detective work like this is to first collect as much evidence as is already available, which certainly helps to narrow down the possibilities and also to reduce possible biases when the thing is almost totally open. Then the question is, as in this case, is something what it claims to be or not.

[Kane]

I'm in Roger's camp on this one. Withholding information just leads to playing 20 questions. And with so many experts on here, their critical knowledge and specialization would be able to quickly debunk any claims that are incorrect.

 

I think as a community we have enough critical judgement to suspend the veracity of any claims until we investigate further with all the evidence in hand: photos, age, location, morphology.

[Still_human]

14 hours ago, Rockwood said:

I understand that this is a hobby, and extra steps through the evidence can be irritating, but I suspect that most people are less aware of there biases than they realize, or would like to be. 

For example; if you detest fakery the way I do the very suggestion that it could be human deception could potentially color one's opinion.

I absolutely agree with you, I think it's actually a huge issue that people don't realize, or want to believe, because it's pretty much impossible for human beings to NOT be bias, it's part of who we are, however, as Kane mentioned, there are a large number of experts on here, so I guess even if some people ARE being swayed somewhat by a personal bias, just statistically things will probably even out some. Scientists are probably better at screening biases than the average Joe, anyway.

All that aside though, as I said before, after just seeing in this case, what would have been left out had the thread NOT veered off a bit, would have been a terrible misfortune to have missed!!!

On top of that, as it turns out, im not the best one to make the decision as to what information is irrelevant or not, in the first place.

[Still_human]

1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

Then the question is, as in this case, is something what it claims to be or not.

Actually, thats just the direction things ended up heading, but the actual thread was just of the question if impression fossils, or other flattened fossils that are part of a single layer, can continue past inconsistencies and occupy multiple layers. The picture of the fossil included was just an example of what I was talking about, and not meant as a specific fossil to be discussed. Thankfully it did, though!!! 

[Fossildude19]

33 minutes ago, Still_human said:

Actually, thats just the direction things ended up heading, but the actual thread was just of the question if impression fossils, or other flattened fossils that are part of a single layer, can continue past inconsistencies and occupy multiple layers. The picture of the fossil included was just an example of what I was talking about, and not meant as a specific fossil to be discussed. Thankfully it did, though!!! 

 

I have an example here that shows faulting of the host rock, so the fossil ended up on 3 different layers. So yes, it can happen.

 

 

 

[Rockwood]

2 hours ago, Kane said:

And with so many experts on here, their critical knowledge and specialization would be able to quickly debunk any claims that are incorrect.

The whole endeavor does sort of hinge on the fact that bias toward the desire to debunk prevails. 

[Ludwigia]

5 minutes ago, Rockwood said:

The whole endeavor does sort of hinge on the fact that bias toward the desire to debunk prevails. 

I don't find this statement at all fair. I'm not desiring to debunk. All we are doing is telling what we think based often on minimal information.

[Rockwood]

1 hour ago, Ludwigia said:

I don't find this statement at all fair. I'm not desiring to debunk. All we are doing is telling what we think based often on minimal information.

My thought was focused toward the larger picture. Scientists seek fact. Too often social groups function to support the cause regardless of the facts.

[Bobby Rico]

I think sometimes there can be an element of bias on IDs but I have never seen it from anybody who offers help on a very regular basis . Sometimes mistakes are made by the best of us and that is expected. I don’t think this could be called bias. 

I do find it really unhelpful and unfair to hold back on locations or information that is reinvent to reaching a reasonable conclusion . Myself I just filter out some of the generic replies without reacting negatively. 

 

This is just my opinion and I do have faith in TFF. I am also always appreciative of the help I get.

[Still_human]

That part I can understand. If something happens to the actual layer itself after fossilization, causing the fossil also become "damaged", but staying solely on the same single layer.

In this case, it looked to me like the fossil wasn't just remaining on the same "bent" layer, but was actually crossing onto a lower layer.

 

the example being everything "inside" the blue corner was chipped away to expose the fossil continuing onto the layer below. It's been pointed out though that it doesn't appear to be prepped at all, and the layer itself become lower. How would that happen? sediment fossilizes in horizontal planes, and don't variate, do they(without tectonic forces and such)? Even if the surface started with mounds and dips, huge amounts of layering on top of it is always going to flatten it out, isn't it? I could be wrong, but the depression doesn't look like it's from any fracture or seam from any post-fossilization event, does it? 

 

(Pic following-I can't add to this post)

[Still_human]

[Still_human]

42 minutes ago, Bobby Rico said:

do find it really unhelpful and unfair to hold back on locations or information that is reinvent to reaching a reasonable conclusion .

I'm definitely guilty of not providing necessary information, but not from withholding it, just from not having found or recieved it yet. I dropped the ball on this one though, the fossils specific information WAS available afterall, I just totally overlooked it

[ynot]

23 minutes ago, Still_human said:

Even if the surface started with mounds and dips, huge amounts of layering on top of it is always going to flatten it out, isn't it? I

If this was true how do You explain ripple marks or rain drop trace fossils? Or footprint fossils?

There can also be folding caused by geologic conditions.

[Still_human]

8 minutes ago, ynot said:

If this was true how do You explain ripple marks or rain drop trace fossils? Or footprint fossils?

There can also be folding caused by geologic conditions.

I think those fossilized surface layers just weren't covered by huge amounts of sediment. A lot of those fossils are on or near the surface, I believe. I know that a lot of those are at least FOUND exposed, so it seems like they're naturally already at the surface, or just didn't have very much that needed to be eroded away to expose them.

 

You're right! Folding didn't cross my mind as a possibility does folding leave fossils intact along the folds, or does it pull them apart, even if their surface is still intact? Could the small sunken area like in question be from a folding event?

[Bobby Rico]

30 minutes ago, Still_human said:

I'm definitely guilty of not providing necessary information, but not from withholding it, just from not having found or recieved it yet. I dropped the ball on this one though, the fossils specific information WAS available afterall, I just totally overlooked it

No problem I am dyslexic so I mess up information or the time. Things happen I don’t mean you any disrespect but I really was  commenting more about members IDs been  bias or not. 

 

[Fossildude19]

Don't forget, cross-bedding happens. Sedimentary rock does not always cleave nicely in specific layers. 

 

    

 

  

[ynot]

On 10/18/2018 at 7:25 PM, Still_human said:

I think those fossilized surface layers just weren't covered by huge amounts of sediment. A lot of those fossils are on or near the surface, I believe. I know that a lot of those are at least FOUND exposed, so it seems like they're naturally already at the surface, or just didn't have very much that needed to be eroded away to expose them.

Very faulty logic. By this reasoning are not most fossils found near or on the surface? Would this mean that they were never buried very deep?

 

On 10/18/2018 at 7:25 PM, Still_human said:

does folding leave fossils intact along the folds, or does it pull them apart, even if their surface is still intact? 

Would be very dependant on what happened during the foulding. How elastic was the rock while it was being pressured? how excessive was the folding? what directions did the folding occur in?

There are some great distorted fossils in this thread....

On 10/18/2018 at 7:25 PM, Still_human said:

Could the small sunken area like in question be from a folding event?

Possible, but looks more like crack displacement.