7
   

How many kinds of fossilized cells of animals have been found?

 
 
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 06:29 pm
@farmerman,
I will respond to some questions, as best I can.
I certainly do dot have all the answers, this is very slow research in progress.
Some information cannot be discussed due to venue constraints.
This simply means, it will come out at the right time by the right people in the proper form.
Scientists are cautious by nature, as they should be.
There are some confirmations by tests we simply have not completed yet.
(1) It was found in Manchester, Tenn., beside Wiley Creek.
(2) There are others, and being a Geologist, I know you know pretty much any and all things are possible. I could go into detail, but simply, how are any soft tissue fossils created through the diagenesis process, and through what ionized permeation of silicon dioxide through what anaerobic artificial cranium causing preservation for what amount of time?
(3) It has been assayed in Calgary, Canada... that the specific material from it that was assayed is 100% quartz.
(4) My thoughts have never wavered on this...siliceous waters propagate sieatios fossils
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 07:44 pm
@PHB,
My skepticism is based upon a possible opportunity that may have been lost in the collection of this specimen. If it was found in a creek, that means it was dislocated from its source area yes? Was there any attempt at locating the source area?

This area of coffee county is Mississipean marine deposits . Are you saying to me that this is possibly a skulless brain of someone who drowned in the flood? You understand how easy it is to be skeptical especially since there are plenty of ways to recreate a "brain fossil" by silane/siloxane and peroxide solution ? Especially since a more careful inspection of the brain (if thats what it is) contain what look like bubbles which are a dead giveaway of possible inclusions of the source areas.
THE science involved , to me, appears a bit hammy handed and many opportunities to show what this is are being ignored.
If you tell me that this will be published in "Ex Nihilo" or and ICR paper then, I will wait for it and critique it later.
However, If this brain was not deposited in the marine sediments , then it was "fossilized" and deposited in the Quaternary deposits of dry land (the erosion surface upon which we live).
If it is truly all natural silica then there should be a pegmatite or novaculite series of deposits in the area and I dont see any on my maps of Coffee county. If this was "faked" (and Im not passing any judgement, then I would have smooshed the brain more so as to make it look like the diagenetic process did come into play. The fact that this looks like a plaster cast of a brain wont be ignored by any geological scientists or paleontologists.
The document you used for the disarticulation of the T rex from Hell Creek was only possible after significant soaking and treatments with oxalic and hydroflouric acid . The remains of "plastic tissue" is proteinaceous material like a bug caught in amber. The brain is nothing like the fossil T rex knee cap that the scientists from U of NC and the Colo museum of the Rockies.
Im aware of the mistakes and the type of materials that fossil produced and it wasnt silica because the silica was all dissolved by acid treatment.

I will wait until the work is done.
PSdid anyone discuss this with the state geologist of Tennessee?
If ypou dont mind Ill send em a note and maybe theyll join A2K and look at this stuff . Maybe several more objective heads are needed .

The interesting thing about this is that lots of research has been done on the encapsulation and casting and impregnation of biological samples with silane/siloxane. Much of the initial research has been done at---guess where? OAK RIDGE. coincidence? I dont know and Im not casting any doubts.

Will the results of this go to a juried scientific publication like Nature or SCience or Academy of Forensic Sciences? I really would urge you to do so.
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Thu 3 Feb, 2011 09:47 pm
@farmerman,
You have given me much info to digest.
Sorry, but it is a bit late here, so I will respond more thoroughly later.
I do appreciate most of your objective observations.
I will state tonight however, yes you are correct about the issue of the shape.
There is a good amount of info regarding that subject.
Yes, if I were going to "make" a fossilized brain, I would have been more precise from a sagittal plane and a bit more so from the posterior coronal.
That would be a stretch though, to expect absolutely no distortion, wouldn't you think?

I don't mind your skeptism, hey, I want more information myself.
As you know, it usually takes a number of years for these things to develop.
This is no exception.
A question...am I reading you correctly that you continue to suggest this was manufactured?
If so, are you really serious?
If so, do you really think that the scientists ( only a few do I have listed on my site) that have seen/ inspected/ studied this fossil would allow the use of their names and credentials in regards to this specimen if they didn't feel extremely comfortable in it's potential as a fossil.

Do you really think any of these people are any less intelligent than you or your colleagues?
A neuro anatomy professor and I proudly did a presentation on this fossil at the University of South Carolina about a year ago, before a room full of top scientists.
Do you think this would have passed their scrutiny if it were manufactured?
Don't you think they would know the difference?
I do not know anything whatsoever of this "method of manufacture" you apparently know.
This fossil was discovered approximately 35 years ago.
Did anyone know this method you describe 35 years ago.
You see, snap judgements and opinions are not scientific.

As far as the creationist question, everyone has a bias.
This includes historical scientists, like yourself.
For you to say I am a hoaxster because I am a creationist is equivalent to me saying you are not a true scientist because you make snap judgements without having even close to enough information.
Further, this fossil has been inspected by a variety sampling of scientists, many of whom I don't have a clue what their worldview is, nor do I care.

I have an artifact that I think may potentially benefit mankind in some small way.
I stand to gain absolutely nothing from this, nor do I want to.
I think you are extremely intelligent.
Is it possible we can dialogue without the hoaxster-creationist hype?
That ad hominem is getting really old.
Let's get down to constructive dialogue.
Who knows...maybe out of the hundreds of scientists who have seen/ studied this, you may be the one who will falsify it.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 06:38 am
@PHB,
Ill start at the end

Yes, I am highly skeptical for several basic reasons

1The announcement of the "brain fossil" has been totally through a web site that is not affiliated with any research institution.

2 No explanation has been offered about why "Only a brain cast and no other part of an organism". This is highly weird if the medium was so caustic to the rest of the internal organs and the skull, why then does this cast appear almost undamaged or un affected by solution?"

3Since NO careful information about the geologic provenance has been offered , it appears that nop geologoists or paleontologists have been invited to inspect it.(By strictly controlling a specimens inspections to only people who are "Sympathetic" is not science, its a show.

4The statement that this is crypocrystalline "Quartz" is dubious. Especially since no competent geologist has seen this. I dont know of how the quartz has developed a cleavage without significant metamorphic shock/ It is almost impossible to develop euhedral cleavage on the{0001} surface as shown. (DANA- ed).
The complex investigation of the mineral base of this specimen would clearly be able to determine its true identity. Several tests including surface etching on a small slice would show the acid etched cleavage. The "thin section analysis would certainly be able to do an optical chemical analysis by looking at the extinction response to the grains and the xl structure through polarized light).
5.I think this mineralogical analysis should have been done FIRST to determine whether this wasnt merely a nodule or concretion or that its even in the quartz (alpha/beta, cristobalite, trydimite) family and what is its pressure temperature range.Wed expect in a natural quartz that Most all fracturing and cleaving would be in a conchoidal (non euhedral) pattern. Thats why "Native Arrowheads" of quartz are so able to be pressure flaked cause they brek into little shards with "Clamshell" patterns. This one has a distinct massive crystalline pattern. That is highly suspicious since I know of very few natural deposition of quartz that has such a rhombohedral cleavage structure with the exception of the surface of a certain type of quartz CRYSTALS from the Lafayette Formation of SOuth Carolina and in supersized pegmatite quartz crystals where rhombohedral cleavage is common. To say that this "Brain" came out of a pegmmatite is something I dont think you want to claim beacsue the temperatures of such a me;t would be about 580 C for quartz to over 1700 C for high trydimite.

6.There appear to be"sand" particles in the larger scale photos, are these sand grains? Why are there no other inclusions? Quartz is notoriously impure in nature (We can make high purity silica mixes in the labs though)

7. Silane and siloxane have been known for about 70 years I believe. Its nopt new stuff. Its only been getting attention due to nuclear encapsulation.

8Quartz is highly predictable in its X ray diffraction patterns. ENtire computer codes of interplanar spaces and reflection angles are available even for undergraduate mineralogy students. A very small cleavage specimen should be run through an Xray diffraction scan and compared for the determined interfacial and reflection angles based on the radiation source (K alpha 1;K alpha 2;K alpha; K beta)
these would be the Cauchois-Hulubei wavelength values based on Cu, Co,Fe and Cr sources. The sourcing of the Pressure Temperature relationships of the angles would play a big deal in determining the sources of the "quartz" This is a common test .

8.No thin sectioning has been done and this is a common first step along with deternining the basic physical properties of the specimen.

9A UV scan should be done to determine the mineralagical deposition planes in the specimen (if any). The specimen wont "glow" it will show slight variations in flourescence that correspond to deposition or structural lines

10 A simple specific gravity test should be determined to establish the range of specific gravity of the specimen (we learn a lot by the second and throd values after the decimal in quartz minerals)

11 The specimen was apparently sent off to physicians who , being told to look for brain structures have complied. No one of them appears to have any competence as a mineralogist or specialist in geo sampling or structural analyses . No paleontologist has been consulted (apparently) to determine the context of the sample. This is critical if you want to be believed.

YOU have made an exceptional claim. Such as that you are required to provide exceptiomnal proof. I can see where you want to control the specimen but somewhere along the line you should have given it an initial investigation to determine what the sample even is mineralogically and geologically.

I hadnt seen any of the namkes of the scientists that you mentioned, nor the context of the presentation that was made at SOuth Carolina last year. You had shown the T Rex "soft tissue" specimen next to yours . Did you include the research team from NC State that was responsible for the T Rex specimen's papers? I think that these folks would be quite interested in the specimen.

Your photos and the write up are in need of a deteailed geo description and analysis. SOmething which has not apparently been done to this point. You said that the specimen is at Calgary, is it under the inspection of a paleontologist out there? Will geologists be included in your invited team of scientists.
I am not disparaging the credentialled medical doctors and anatomists, I just wish that someone competent in the material science and its deposition and context were involved. There is nothing better than to shake up science every twenty years or so. However such shake ups need to be based upon perfect information

There are a number of more esoteric tests that can be done but such testing has implications of where you are goind and they imply that the specimen is one thing or another.

Yes, Im quite skeptical. Ive seen brilliant scientists do a bandwagon and then be proven wrong on many areas.I cannot get my mind around an environment of deposition of HOT (I mean really hot) quartz, that would destroy a body but leave a brain behind and replace it molecule by molecule in the samne firey furnce. (We can artificially deposit silica by low temperature oxidizing solutions in an acid media). THats my biggest problem. We have better technology than nature in something like this.

I am, however, fascinated at this and I hope to hear much more and I hope to read about it in some NATURE article.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 07:50 am
Oh for crying out loud farmerman, call it for what it is.....a fake. Probably a preserved brain that is now centuries old or a fake fossil from modern material.
0 Replies
 
PHB
 
  1  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 08:32 am
@PHB,
Thank you for your honest response, Farmerman.
My responses will be slow getting installed, as I am very busy, just as I'm sure you are also.
Some of your questions will require further research and investigation from me or others.
As I have stated, we know that these things take great amounts of time. and sometimes, no provable answer is able to be attained.
I will try to go point by point as I can get to them.
So far, I don't consider any of your questions to be off bounds. I will respond further in a few hours.
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Fri 4 Feb, 2011 09:18 am
@PHB,
WQell, Ive found a piece of your other web sites that give me security that Iwas on the right track

1The geologist who was called in has an agenda

2The "fossil" is actually a brain that seemed to have been removed surgically and maybe not be a fully saturated quartzose mineral.

3Even if it were fully a silica nodule, we have had means to create that type of artifact at least since the 1950's

4There are embedded fingerprints in the silica rind that cannot be explained naturally. Id say that someone extracted the brain from a cadaver and chemically treated it.

5The clevage faces are consistent with tetrahedral crystalline silica

6Its probably a brain, of recent derivation. AS one of the scientists said, "Because it was found ex-situ and is young has nothing to do with the earth being young.

I can see why this may not be a candidate for NAture and it only took me less than an hour on the web.

http://www.petrifiedhumanbrain.com/
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 02:31 am
Do you still believe there is no fossilized brain cell?
What other cells could not be preserved and fossilized?
Old Goat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 02:38 am
@bewildered,
"Do you still believe there is no fossilized brain cell?"

No......in actual fact I believe that YOU may be in possession of one, possibly two.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 06:11 am
@bewildered,
Quote:
What other cells could not be preserved and fossilized?
Its not that e DONT have any examples of fossilized brain cells. We do have catsts and replacements of neural cells , but in context of a more complete animal specimen, like mummification or preservation in extremely fine "lagerstattes" sedime or organic anoxic layers or amber.
WQe are a;ways skeptical of some guy showing up with a box of brain" that was obviously surgically removed from its owner by human hands and then preserved by artificial means. It can be said that the subject brain has been artificially "fossilized" but only with fossilized as more of an adjective than as a specific noun that implies something else entirely.

The guy who makes Creationist claims for this thing is either an idiot or a hoaxter. I predict that most if not all of my above questions will remain unanswered .
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 06:48 am
@farmerman,
If there were Carboniferous men and women, they could certainly learn how to preserve all kinds of animal bodies, which will become fossilized today.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 06:56 am
@bewildered,
Thats a really Big "If" .We dont find ANY fossilized humans or even mammals from the Carboniferous strata world -wide. We dont find any mammal fossils anywhere until the late Triassic layers.

The only "coal people" that existed were in Flash Gordon (it was a space soap opera way before your time)
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 06:58 am
@bewildered,
There were ! ! ! There were ! ! !

http://home.comcast.net/~cjh5801/images/ao5.gif
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 07:37 am
@bewildered,
[quote]If there were Carboniferous men and women, they could certainly learn how to preserve all kinds of animal bodies, which will become fossilized today.[/quote]
So, just to be clear, you believe that three hundred and fifty million years ago humans were advanced enough not only to find enough to eat but they also engaged in taxidermy?

Wow, we are dumber than I thought. First stone tools use found are about 3.2 million years old, now I know we must have had a huge body of knowledge of chemical reactions/flesh preservation/dehydration more than 300 million years earlier.

What slackers those Egyptians were. All that time to learn better techniques and the best they could do was gut everything and hope.
Joe(tut, tut)Nation
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 07:48 am
I dont know why everyone is ignoring the Space Aliens hypothesis. I heard that dinosaurs were genetic experiments to produce mammals that had gone wrong. The professor and his students were left behind as punishment and they founded the human race, a race might I add, that I have won.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 09:22 am
@Joe Nation,
Quote:
and the best they could do was gut everything and hope.
SOrt of cheapens the role of the eviscerati.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 09:24 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
The only "coal people" that existed were in Flash Gordon
I was corrected by a Flash Gordon scholar that these wre the "Clay people" not the coal people.
0 Replies
 
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 09:35 am
@farmerman,
Didn't you read about the Carboniferous human leg bone and skull cap?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 09:37 am
@bewildered,
yes and its been nicely refuted. Apparently YOU dont read anything that followed your post
bewildered
 
  1  
Reply Wed 9 Feb, 2011 09:46 am
@farmerman,
The mineralized brain owned by Mr. Skelf could have been surgically removed from a skull by pre-Columbian Americans over 300 years ago or even over 10,000 years ago.
The exterior surface at the top of the brain shows obvious mineralization, which takes over 300 years in natural world. Look at the said photo carefully.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/18/2021 at 03:35:03