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

@farmerman,

Are you bluffing? I checked all the replies to my posts here and found no real answer or "nicely refuted" answer to my post on the Carboniferous human leg bone. Where is the nicely refuted answer?

1 Reply

@bewildered,

bewildered wrote:

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.

Columbus showed up here over five hundred years ago. If this joker had his noggin opened three hundred years ago, it wasn't by pre-Columbian anybody. The bullshit you peddle is hilarious as it is, and then you make it even more laughable with stupid assertions such as that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Seeing he can't do science, I'm not surprised at his math.

0 Replies

@bewildered,

If you would review my questions, a surgically removed brain (as I pointed out was the basis of condition for this specimen) precludes any "Ancient" secret knowledge of surgery let alone petrification.( cranial trepaning was practiced by the Egyptians and Sumerians but there was no evidence that the procedure actually worked because all of the skulls that shoqwed trepaning scars were not fully healed when death occured)

You appear to be easily convinced of junk science like youve reported without doing any critical thinking of your own.I strongly urge you to adapt a more critical stance and compare the evidence against the things and principles that you know. (like, the brain, and its validity as a "fossil") The Carboniferous "leg bone" was refuted by McKay who did thin section and xray diffraction on the "leg bone" and found that the structure was mineralogical and not haversian in structure. The word concretion comes to mind. In that mass of websites you will find McKays (He was also the same McKay from Br Columbia who took apart a similar "knucklebone" from a supposed fossil human also found in the coal measures.

These few limited specimens (All collected by the same 2 guys , who are both of dubious reputation and honesty) are the only ones of its kind in the world. Even Piltdown and Kennewick were of different geological "Supposed to be" formations.

Mr Conrad is not exactly a trustworthy individual if , as he did, fail to provide any evidence of the in situ photos of the specimens within the formation. The photos he did present were definately doctored and were not in place, theys eemed to be within a dump from a mine not the Formation. Doesnt that even ring as funny in your brain?

As they say. extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. SO far these pieces of "coal men" are crap., and the leg"bones" arent even bones

Now you appear to be wanting to state emphatically

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Let me ask again, where is the refutation of the Carboniferous human leg bone?
What's the full name of the McKay you mentioned? Did you mean Andrew MacRae? If you meant the latter, you are totally mistaken, not only about the person's name but also about the non-sense "refutation".

1 Reply

@bewildered,

Sorry, I was using anothers name for Andrew Macrae (not Richard Mackay, who is not associated with the Pa specimen herein). ANdrew Macrae is from Calgary
As far as "not refuting' Macrae had done several THIN SECTIONS (do you even know what these are?) in which he defined that the material was NOT bone at all (a simple determination under polarized light and simple magnification)HE determined (read DEBUNKED) the specimens claimed to be fossil bones . He was not alone in that determination
A "Creation Scientist" named Kurt Wise also refuted the claims made by Conrad. Even Wise knew that these werent bones at all . Here is a copy of a communication he made for "Creation Ex Nihilo" (If you arent familiar with this publication you should become familar) .

Quote:

Dear Editor,
Regarding your Focus article, "Human Bones in Coal?" (CEN 14(2):8). This
Focus article is extracted uncritically from a SCIENCE FRONTIERS article
[a clearing house of weird published pieces related to science - Ed.],
which in turn is based uncriticaly upon a NEWSPAPER article.
The `human bones' to which the article refers are probably a
portion of the material collected by newspaper man Ed Conrad of
Shenandoah, Pennsylvania.
A few years ago Ed sent me about a dozen pieces that he was
convinced were `mammalian bone.' Sectioning and microscopic analysis of
the two specimens he claimed to be the best among them revealed no
evidence that either was bone - or even that they were fossil material
of any sort. Internal structures were consistent with inorganic
precipitation processes, and chemical analysis and external form were
consistent with them merely being iron siderite concretions. Such
conretions are found associationed with coals in many parts of the
world.
Judging from the specimens that I was able to examine, and pictures
of others, the external form of the specimens bear only superficial
resemblances to mammalian bone. Though I have not seen all of Conrad's
specimens, I suggest that his material be considered with the greatest
caution. It is very possible that most, if not all, his material is
inorganically precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material
at all
Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D., Prof. of Science, Bryan College, Tennessee.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

You don't know Andrew MacRae was only a student of geology when he "refuted' Mr. Conrad about a fosssilized tibia (NOT A LEG BONE). That tibia was not identified by Mr. Conrad himself, but by the President of American Association of Physical Anthropology (the late Wilton Krogman). Think about it--a student of geology refuting a president of physical anthropologists about the claim of a human body part. Most geology students CANNOT identify Haversian canals in fossil bones. Even most geology professors CANNOT identify Haversian canals in fossil-containing rocks. In fact, no geologists can identify the "minerals" mentioned in my other post in so-called able-to-know website.

Now, the fact for Haversian canals in Mr. Conrad's fossils:
"Besides my figures, there are photomicrographs taken by Mr. Andrew MacRae and Mr. PZ Myers displayed on the internet. Their figures also show Haversian canals, which are distinguishing features of fossil bones (Fig. 20-4, Fig. 20-5)." (see http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-539313).

Concerning that Kurt Wise professor trained by Harvard something, where is his evidence of thin-sectioned "rocks"?

3 Replies

Farmer, I admire you and your patience.

0 Replies

@bewildered,

Correction:

"You don't know Andrew MacRae was only a student of geology when he "refuted' Mr. Conrad about a fosssilized tibia (NOT A LEG BONE)."
should read (NOT THE LEG BONE I MENTIONED IN THIS SITE"

0 Replies

@bewildered,

Quote:

Most geology students CANNOT identify Haversian canals in fossil bones. Even most geology professors CANNOT identify Haversian canals in fossil-containing rocks. In fact, no geologists can identify the "minerals" mentioned in my other post in so-called able-to-know website.

MAcrae was a student when he began this interesting aside. He was a PhD candidate who, in 1997 had looked at several of these "bones". As far as a geologist being unable to detect Haversian canals, your Mr Conrad and all themedical "Experts" have been hoodqwinked . The mineralogical "reaction core" of the specimen in a thin section showed conclusively that the reactio core was emplaced by geochemical deposition and the main mineral was Siderite.
What happened is that the "seminent physicians" were practicing in a geologists court, not the other way around.
Even Dr Wise, a CREATIONIST, admitted (in the letter I attached) that this was a natural specimen that only remotel;y appeared to be bone.

There were a number of these samples that Holden and Conrad were trying to foist on the public as actual specimens from the CArboniferous. On its surface it is ridiculous as a proposal since, none of the specimens seem to articulate or closely resemble anything but depositional material. AS far as "noted physicians" being supportive of this nonsesne, I am aware of several dozen "Creationist " physicians who lend their names to some of these dubious claims just to forward "the word of the Lord"

Its really kind of pitiful.

This is not the first one of the "Holden/Conrad" duo . Back in the early 1990's Holden claimed to ahve found several "knuckle bones" in the same types of rocks. along with "fossil tools". We had a little fun with that bunch when an appointed pitch man with a handle of "Medved" came aboard. Same crap as these fossils except this one has many more self promoting websites with no perr review or Quality Assurance. I knew early that these guys didnt know what they were selling when they attempted to implicate the "Pennsylvania State geoloy Unit".. There is no such agency and to misrepresent the Commonwealth of Pa's Topographic and Geologic Survey (Topogeo) . The survey was skeptical of these fossils and they were satisfied with the work that other geologists had done in debunking this whole thing.

1 Reply

@bewildered,

The "calvarium" skull (also found by Mr Conrad) was NOT evaluated in situ by any competent geologist. This would have determined whether the specimen actually cme from the rock body or in the mine dump. According to the stuff in the website you already presented in another thread, the material was in a "mine dump" area or "between the strata". Coal mining in the ANthracite belt of Pa had originally been small tunnel mines where the miners would chase the specifically named coal veins and dump the spoils along the bases of the mine in the in between active measures.
This specimen may be a skull or not (its not the same as the long bones which are NOT human and are probably Lepidonderendron sections.(it never seemed to occur to anyone who jumped on a ""human fossil" bandwagon that there were millions of plant fossils and stem and trunk sections found in the coal measures, and most of these look like bone sections and have "haversian canal" segments which are actually vascular traces of the plant fossils.
The color that is associated with the specimens is cute . I would choose red also it adds a nice credibility and its all done with a button.

If you are buying this as a series of human fossils from the Pennsylvanian Pweriod then plain common sense and evidence wont change your mind (You did come into this forum by posing what appeared to be homework questions) Now , it appears that you have an egenda thats not based upon scientific curiosity. Too bad.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Mr Conrad has never been timid in first publishing his beliefs in a young earth and that man lived in the coal swamps of Pa. Hes basically naive and hes been able to get funding from some dubious Creationist sources. Heres Conrads "unbiased scientific manifesto"

Quote:

Ed Conrad:
Scientists fear evidence man as old as coal
"Physical evidence currently exists that proves man inhabited the earth while coal was being formed, shaking the very foundations of who we really are and how we really got here. An assortment of human bones and soft organs, transformed to rock-like hardness, has been discovered between anthracite veins in Pennsylvania. Since one of the golden rules of geology is that coal was formed during the Carboniferous -- a minimum of 280 million years ago -- it means that man has existed multi-millions of years before the ... insectivore from whom the evolutionists claim we eventually evolved. However, the scientific establishment has wielded its powerful disdainful influence -- deceit, dishonesty, collusion and conspiracy -- to prevent evidence of the most important discovery of the 20th century to be documented as fact and, therefore, keep us from learning a monumental truth about ourselves."

OH yeh. Mr Conrad, by asserting that these fossils came from "in between" the copal measures is leading with his chin. The stratigraphy of laminae from in between the cpal measures is from deposits in shallow dletaic marine deposits. That would mean that , not only was his fossil man from the Carboniferous but he had to have lived like a fish in waters that were 30 to 50 feet deep, pretty cool guy. MAybe we should get someone to write a comicbook of his adventures. No matter what, Mr Carbomiferous man lived a lonely life in the shallow seas of the Pennsylvanian. (BUT-he had a hammer, a PLUMB hammer)

1 Reply

@farmerman,

In reply to your assertion that geologists can recognize Haversian canals in rocks,
tell me please whether the following three micrographs show Haversian canals as marked or inorganic material instead of Haversian canals. If inorganic in origin, please back up your claim with a suitable micrograph.

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

Edit [Moderator]: Link removed

1 Reply

@bewildered,

It so happens that mineralogical features and concretions can mimic biotic featires. To fool an anatomist with the these features like osteocytes in a meteorite is silliness.
WHy should I poswt any micrographs? I dont have any of these dubious specimens. These are wild haired claims made by several nutcases who have an ageda to push on the gullible. You seem easily swayed, Ive been a practicing geologist with micropgraphic experience for almost 40 years in chemistry and mining.
The people whove debunked many of thes especimens are only douing it as a weekend excercise not a career. Some diddyheads like this Conrad and Ted Holden have been puming out crappy photos with mislabeled mineral nclusions for about 15 years and with enough websites behind them, Im sure someone will believe them(looks like youve been swallowed up with very little detailed evidence).
I sorta doubt that youve been a student doing homework. Its more like youve been holding these websites in reserve and you want me to believe that its valid science.
Vascular bundles in cross sections of carboniferous "plant stems" look a lot like those supposed leg bones (sorry, by calling it a tibia means that you have the fibula and several other proximal and distal attaxhments ) Yet I dont see any of that, in fact, none of the bone segments have any terminations and the fact that they are segmented like bamboo or lepidodendrons or cycads doesnt seem to bother you when youve latched onto a great story.
Well, continue on . Ill be here on and off today.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

"....he had to have lived like a fish in waters that were 30 to 50 feet deep, pretty cool guy"
Did the trees also had to have "lived and grown" like fish before the trees turned into coal?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

If you ever studied anatomy or histology, you should know some things in animal bodies are unique in that their morphology (structure, shape,size, etc.) cannot be found anywhere else. Those unique some things mentioned above include: mammalian red blood cells, neurons, osteons, etc.
To repeat, the cells/tissues mentioned above are not matched by any thing in nature.
It seems you do not know what uniqueness means. It means no rock, no mineral, no crystal structures match those unique cells/tissues. This is known for generations. If you object, you must present your evidence of micrograph to counter the rule.

1 Reply

@bewildered,

bewildered wrote:

To repeat, the cells/tissues mentioned above are not matched by any thing in nature.

That's an extraordinary claim, so it's incumbent upon the person making the claim to provide extraordinary evidence to support the claim. Anything less than extraordinary evidence automatically defaults the claim to the category of bullshit. So where does that leave us at this point?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Sagan supposedly said extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That's totally illogical. You just used illogical reasoning to raise the bars against something you are biased against.

4 Replies

@bewildered,

Hi "Bewildered"
I saw where you was doing more research from my site a couple of weeks ago.
It was refreshing to see you back on it!
People, I know "bewildered", and he is far from being bewildered.
This guy is pretty much of a genius.
Hey "bewildered," send me an email sometime, I would like to hear where your current research is involved!

2 Replies

@bewildered,

Youve been pointed out as someone who is quite intelligent. Therefore, your penshant for just accepting these half baked theories and specimens seem s to be a failing in your thought process.

Youve got to apply a thinking process that is systematic and open to multiple hypotjeses from the beginning. When you fisrt posted the "Brain" and then the "coalified bones" I went to see what was avaqilable since many of the specimens have their origins in theKeystone State where I live.

1The Pa STate Geological SUrvey was familiar with the guy (Conrad) and dismissed the long bone specimens because they were fossil plant material and they were NOT in situ. They were found in a coal dump that contained rubble and totally disarticlulated rock material. Conrad had a fossil jaw that was a crinoid segment, that would make a natural association with intercoal "cyclothemic" sediment basins bevause the cyclothems vary between shallow marine, strem fluvial deposits and then swamps as the seas rose and fell.

2Macrae's own thin section ana;lyses led him to his conclusion from a mineralogical and structural position (reaction rings of waht is called pleiochroism is in ply, not any Haversian canals and osteocytes or ahem material in the brain specimen

3The "fossil" brain had fingerprints on it that indicated that someone handled the brain while the sislica material was setting up. The compelling case had been made in a debunk website that the brain had been surgically removed, dessicated and then preserved by sila deposition. This process implies human intervention and not natural fossilization.

The extraoridnary claim is that which Conrad had made by jumping over the normal way that fossil material is viewed or studied. His jumping over a detailed description and mineralogical study and landing on a claim that this material was somehow a "fossil human from the CArboniferous" was a stupid leap of faith that only shows clear Creationist bias and a lack of appreciation for the scientific method.

The owner of the fossils has joined us and is supposed to come forward with some clarifications, I await.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know