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

I would accuse Ros of understatement.

yeah, I gues you guys are all jus way 2 smarttt fer meee.
Again, I responded with scientific analagyyy, an you went and showed again that you just can't stay on subjik.
Yeah, I'm outta here.
The topic is, you don't want games...don't start no games.
You want to grow up and really grab an opportunity for us all to learn something and not just run your mouths, then I'm all for it.
All yourrr showing this YEC is you're scaredddd of the possibility you are wrong.
I don't even want to bring YEC into it, but that is all you are about.
Wow...that really messes with your heads, doesn't it.
You could probably be great scientists if you could get over your phobia of YEC.
I don't bail on anyone, in any conversation until the other person can't stay on topic.
Say whatever you dream up.
For you to not stay on topic doesn't winn anything for anybody
Go ahead with your NO SCIENCE yakedy yak

All that blather just covers you decision to bail, while being unwilling to admit it. Had you or Bewildered been able to answer FM's objections with anything other than innuendo and stonewalling, you might have a right to talk about science. As it is, you're just whistiling past the graveyard.

Ive stayed on topic and have asked specific questions. Youve been the one diligently avoiding any answers.Id expect nothing more than the "im outta here" .
If you are so certain about the source and ages of your specimens and the "fossil" nature of the Tennessee brain, why not let more scientsist look at it? Your own geologist had concerns about the validity (fingermarks on a brain indicating that, like a footprint in wet cement, shows that someone had performed open head surgery and chemical infiltration .
I am not afraid of YECs and their arguments. Ive found that several of you have some creative ways to look at data and these are worth discussing like adults. However, I think weve gone about as far as we can here unless you bring up some thin sections at 30 micron and rotated on a polarizing scope to show the patterns of pleichroism that are unique with silica minerals (quartz included). The extinction angles are a function of the chemistry and P/T relationships of the specimen. Ill bet that youve already done this and that the polarizing extinction data shows that this stuff is low temp glass "gel"like silane or siloxane. infiltrated into the brain with pweroxide.

As far as the long bones, they too are dubious since several geologists had stated that the long bones were not bones at all.

If you want to refute this with data other than bewildereds repetitious posting of the same photos mixed in with the Hell Creek TRex, I would love to be proven wrong.
If this stuff were real, it would be earth shaking and (As a bit of an iconoclast) I would love to be part of a new and simple theory of how life developed on earth and when. It would be fascinating and worthy of many books and novels. However, only valid data can apply for recognition , so far we have nothing that even remotely indicates that humans lived in ancient time periods that were solely occupied by reptiles or fishes..
Can you imagine the new reseqrch that would open up if it could be shown that qwe actually DID live with dinosaurs and that all animals were present at the same time in prehistory. Wed have possibilitoes of ancient technology, or new theories as to how and when the earth was brought to full occupation, why did all these other species die if they =were living at the same time only to have selected species survive.
The last time anything like this happened was when we discovered the mechanisms for continental drift. As a student at the time I had several years of head swimming from al;l the opportunitis of deep sea geophysics and field trips to SCotland and ALgeria. I was like a little sponge. Id love to have todays students be able to take part in a time of discovery.
Your fear of "rampant atheism" is a bunch of crap cause most scientists (true to their calling) wouldnt even think about the religious significances of it all until their work is done.
SO you can run but you caint hide. You will be vindicated or will be outed, which way is up to science and inquiry.

Ive been shooting my mouth off about "thin sections" and polarized light microscopy. Hers a tutorial from Idaho State U which, IMHO is one of the best intro websites on optical petrology without getting deeply into the Pchem and optical chem. Ive always said to teach the kids the pretty colors and structural patterns that minerals and rocks take on and then understand why later. SO heres a pretty good site and Id pay attention to the stripey looking ones of the Plagioclease feldpsars , quartz patterns for (Low quartz in 586 C) and laos look at the vesicles in stuff like scoria and unsorted sandstones, (dont they look like the "Haversian canals"?)

http://geology.isu.edu/geostac/Field_Exercise/Cassia_mtns/thinsect.html

Im sure that bewildered will see "negri bodies" and accuse me of carrying rabbies.

Okay Farmerman, I'm going to let my guard down.
I'm really just a simple person who loves to do research and learn.
A lot of things, I don't know, but I'm a very quick learn.
You have shown a reasonable interest in what is going on, so I will be up front with you.
Reality...I live just outside Chattanooga Tn.
I am not Ed Conrad, and I have never spoken with him, even though I think it would be interesting to do so.
I feel certain I know who "bewildered" is. I respect that he is constantly searching for answers. Although he and I may not agree on some issues, I think we probably do on others.
He and I have spoken several times by email, in the past.
I always enjoy hearing his thoughts and inputs, because he is honestly seeking answers.
I know there is no hoax in him, he just wants the truth.

The reason you are confusing us is, he has done some data research on my fossil, and therefore used it as a point of possible reference.
I came on this site when I checked my website stats and discovered this conversation.

This fossil was found 1976 beside Wiley Creek, Manchester Tn.,
It was given to my ( now deceased ) mother in law, Eddie Mae Hodge.
I cannot be responsible for an inaccuracy in a newspaper article.
This is what happened.
She had it until her death, then it became property of my wife, Debbie.
She has kept it all that time, against my wishes.
I had always thought it was " really gross and foobey looking."(spookey, obnoxious), and really, just wanted to bury the disgusting thing!
I finally decided to start researching it, I think about four years ago, because it just started bugging me.

I didn't know or care anything about Geology or Neurology.
Since then, in the course of my studies of this fossil, I have learned to greatly love them both.

I have never thin sliced this specimen.
I consider it to belong to my wife, and she has held fast that it not be thin sliced.
She is convinced there is a p0ssibility of total destruction in doing so, and is not allowing further destructive testing. She is also concerned about "using up" the fossil.
We are convinced that there are other methods of research that are as effective if not more so, as they have been done to other great fossil finds.

We have had it Cat Scanned tree times, and x-rayed three times.
( Normal x-rays, industrial iridium and industrial cobalt)
Drilled out dust from within, has been assayed in Calgary, Canada, XRD Diffraction, by Calgary Rock and Mineral.
This is a random sampling of course, from within the specimen.
This particular sampling determined to be 100% quartz.

There exists appr. 26 PAGES of measurements, comparing it to an actual human brain.

The size is 870 cc, about 2/3 size of an "average" homo sapiens sapiens.
When images are increased 1/3, to accommodate the dessication shrinkage or taphanomic diagenetic process due to the onset of preservation, and considering the degrees of stretch and degrees of compression, due to excisement, the images reveal about 40% absolute accuracy, and 20% accuracy of specific internal organs are within 15%, 20% of measurements are within 25% of being the same, and 20% are not over 35%.
in other words, if the putamen has a certain degree of slant, and is 1/2 inch from dead center of interhemispheric fissure, (left hemisphere and right hemisphere), and the real brain is also, then it is considered to be in the 40% of features that are absolutely identical.
If it is off by no more than 15%, then that feature is placed in the next category, which 20% of the features do this, etc.
Internal and external compression ratios agree with each other and are compatible.
As I stated earlier, I will soon be doing a research paper on the Hemispheric
asymmetries, reverse torque and left occipital and right frontal petalias, among other issues, in respect to this fossil in comparison with newly excised human brains.
It will cover what this reveals and possibly what we can learn from this.

Incidentally, my website is pretty old now, and desperately in need of update.
I came to a point I guess about three years ago, to use other methods of documentation.
It was never supposed to be considered anything but a rough scratchpad of smorgasbord notes.
The "index" page was just something I considered to be sort of a fun thing.
As I have previously stated, there is other ongoing work, I'm sorry but no, I can't get into everything right now, in this forum.
I do not have these people's permission to do so at this time.

Farmerman, what are your personal thoughts about the possibility of destruction by thin slicing this silica fossil?
What about gaining insight by light microscopical examination in the occipital area of the drilling?
What other testing do you suggest?

( To answer a previous question) Yes, I believe the exterior inclusions to be sand and silt and specific fibrous algae. I have reason to believe that some of the algae is actually embedded, but could be wrong.

One very small area may be a tiny bone fragment, but no one has analyzed it.

I have strong reason to believe there were other fossil artifacts found in this area, and know of the existence and whereabouts of three of them.
These artifacts are bones, if fossils, and not soft tissue.

About the fingerprints, if you can explain what many people inaccurately call, "instant fossilization" we may be able to hypothesize better.
I'm aware this is not "instant fossilization", but somehow, near instant preservation.
I certainly have my thoughts on this topic, but what are your thoughts?

I believe the 100% quartz signifies infiltration of "decomposed"
volcanic ash...right?

An infiltration of silica ash would indicate a "pozzolonic" reaction , which is a rection that is between some kind of siliceous material and a binder like "portland cement".
Its main indicator would be that the matrix would be mostly a linkage between siloicates and calcium based minerals (Which you dont have).
SInce youve had x-ray diffraction done, have they run the entire spectrum by letting the sample be exposed to the Ka-1 and 2 radiation for the entire 360 degrees? An old time trick is to run the sample through 180 dgerees and recording the poeks and match the peaks to all forms of quartz.(Cristobalite, trydimite, alha/beta quartz , AND silica tetrahedra). Remember, x ray diffraction is a technique that assays the CRYSTAL structure and not the chemistry. The crystals accurately represent the chemistry. SO "Quartz" has any number of crystal and amorphous styles of structure and if it were a siloca tetrahedra or an alpha quartz, my suspicion that this material is a silane or siloxane "gel" would be held out. I believe that the sample had to be cast at somewhat "room temp" conditions because someone could not handle a hydrothermal sample where it would still be malleable enough to allow fingerprints.
When the sample was harvested from a donor, it could have been handled by normal (formalin) prservation until it was suitably hardened, then it could have been pressure treated by methyl silane and peroxide to infuse the skull from the outside.
SInce noone has cut into the brain you really dont know how far in the silica has infiltrated .
Other tests include making a very small slice of the specimen (maybe at the brain stem ) and mounting it as a thin section and viewed under polarized light. Using this trick , the gradation of the organic portion would show up as a black opaque area mixed in with a siliceous crystal matrix. ALso the type of silica would be assayable.

When they are done with the very tiny slice , I would save the ablated pieces and do a digestion to determine the weight of organic v silicoeus material.
Ive never doubted that this was a brain. I am skeptical that its a natural fossil since its just a specimen by itself with no body context and it shows post mortem handling. I am leaning to a thweory that this brain was an experiment by some undertaker or some other type of taxidermist who had a brain available to him (I dont wanna even speculate how he got it cause thatd be too creepy)

Since CAlgary has the sample, they have very good min labs and I know thyeve got an Energy Dispesive X Ray gizmo up ther (EDAX). An edax assay would have a beam travel along a guide path and records the chemistry (by energy returns) along that line. It will pick up anything inorganic and reject anything organic but will assay the percentages along the guidepath.
We use EDAX to detect fake platinum,silver and gold samples where "mine salters" use processed metals to heighten an assay value,I uase it to detect very low concentrations of rare earths in rocks like microlite.

Those beginning tests would help you understand (and Dr Trexler could be of great value since he already has opined about this) He would know hopw to read the diffraction print-outs and the EDAX and the thin section. Other tests I suggested (from very simple percent organic tests) can be done non destructively (like a simple specific gravity tests and determine how close to 2.64 the spec gravity is)

If this were true, then we should see some relict ash incorporated into the brain. volcanic ashes usually have a ver precise assay which can be detected . Also, ashes are rarely just quartz, they contain all kinds of metal and alkalis. SInce youve stated that this is !00% quartz(Ive assumed an accurate assay was made), I have no idea for a manner in which this could occur naturally. ALL volcanic derived glasses contain all sorts of other elements, and the ratios of metals is unique to the glass Otherwise there are a few means by which weve seen some fossils of small specimens by silica infiltration. Such styles of fossilization include fulgurite (lightning glass) infusion of grasses next to a lightning hit.Or Grass fire ash quartz-ALL plants have silica in em. Grasses especially, weve found fossils of mice in ash fall layers where the ash fall was actually a layer of a catastrophic grass firw and the skin of the mice was destroyed but the skeletos were silicified.

You can see that the special conditions needed to fossilize something do leave a forensic track as to how it was done and the forensic"paleontologist" is the guy who should be asked to get involved first. Your friend bewildered, while I applaud his digging, appears to need some more expwerience in assaying "fossils" before jumping to conclusions
I THINK that TREXLER summed it up with a query that includes my own concerns
We admit that this is a brain (I dont believe that a cast would be made that retains these internal structures). What you need , and the information which would provide 90% of the story is to DETERMINE THE CONTEXT.
Where was its place of origin, what does that geology impart to the specimen (if it indeed was a natural product)
How was it harvested out of its host body?
HOW was it preserved how far "IN" does the silica extend?
What % is organic and what % is silica?
Whats the makeup of the silica, what are inclusions?
What are the included sediments and sand particl;es? are there any ignimbritics (vulcanism related) particles?

Everyone has seemingly gang tackled the specimen to study the brain itself but nobody except Trexler has voiced doubts while Macrae has pooh poohed it entirely . I find it facsinating that someone actually took the time to present the specimen but wasnt careful enough to prevent fingermarks on a sample that was "Setting up".
We can easily remove all the "natural possibilities" by a more careful taphonomic assay and internal crystallography, which, as Sherlock says"We remove all the possibles and that which remains is the actual" (something like that)

I think we should find someone who is missing a brain and ask them .

Earlier, you described Bewildered as a real genius, but apparently you're now revising that assessment? Bewildered has come here and posted one thread after another, all with topics gleaned from the Wretched blogs. Is that what you mean by your "web site?" Bewildered has not, to my knowledge, either linked or cited any other source than that blog. That is why there has been speculation on who Wretched might be.

When you state that Bewildered has done "some data research" on your fossil, you do so without any evidence to that effect having been presented here. Naturally enough, people here, as at any other reasonable discussion site, will be skeptical of claims made but not demonstrated. This is not in the realm of opinion, at least in so far as the current nature of your "fossil" and the process whereby it came to be in the condition it now is in. Opinions can be honestly debated, but facts are more stubborn things.

You have inferentially defended young earth creationism. You have shouted out abuse when you have not been abused, and have confidently predicted that you would be attacked when the only "attack" to which you have been subjected is a demand for substantiatio0n of any claims you might make. Your behavior here is therefore suspect.

Bewildered, when cornered on any topic, usually defaults to remarks about angels and god's plans for us. It is a response such as that which makes it difficult for us to accept a claim that he is a genius.

To his defense, PHB has included the critique by Trexler and the link to Calgary's site where the "long bones " were questioned severely. Im willing to believe that PHB is searching for information about his "fossil" and has enetered his own worldview in evidence. If we can keep the inquiry on a purely informational basis with no more slipsliding into personals, Maybe we can lern something about this puppy.

PHB,Is there any way you can summon Trexler to join in ? He is one who has been scientifically objective in this and he also is a Creationist.

The question of who Wretched is, and who maintains that blog is important, however, because on this topic and the others for which Bewildered has started threads, the "evidence" he adduces comes from that very dubious blog. As far as "personals" are concerned, PHB brought that up immediately, assuming in advance of any exchange that he would be attacked. You're responding to the content of the issues here, which is, of course, reasonalbe. I'm responding to the presentation, which is just as reasonable. So far, at least as regards Bewildered, the only "evidence" which has been offered has been that dubious blog by Wretched.

I think that is needed in most of these cases where some "evidence" promoted by some group is conjoined by what appear to be separate sites when, indeed, they are ereally all produced by one or two hucksters.
Im believeing that PHB is open enough to recognize that whatever the outcome on the brain cast, hes got an artifact that is of some interest scientifically. Even if its a very recent cats, the forensics alone can be a learning experience .
You know damn well by now that Im a hard ass when iot comes to evidence so, shining light on this thing from many directions is more than just warranted, its demanded. Im a littel nonplus why the medical doctors who examined the brain had not been wide enough in their science backgrounds to recognize that a detailed forensic exam should be a reasonable starting point.

As far as bewildered is concerned, I still believe hes just a kid who is somewhat naive and should pursue his interests in science with more rigor

Indeed . . . and the effort will likely be wasted so long as he defaults to guardian angels whenever he hits an intellectual roadblock.

well, we all hadda "unlearn" our kid stuff.

Sorry, maybe I'm wrong about who "bewildered is."
According to information I am reading on here today, it doesn't sound like the person I think I know.
My assumption of the person I thought it was, was that he was probably atheist.
Sorry guys, I'm confused???
For us to help each other, if it's okay with all of you, please do not confuse me with "bewildered's" work on the bones.
Also, please disacciate my fossil from any of Ed Conrad's.
My understanding is that his work is all coal.

I have looked at some of their work, but honestly, I have not researched it at all.

As far as my petrified brain, I wish to thank you for your indulgence and help.
I also thank you for working around my worldview.
I consider that to be very professional.
I have had very little Geologic help. As soon as they find out about my worldview, I mostly get ridicule and mockery. I try to stay on subject, but I get treated like a terrorist or something.
I ask you...are you really willing to help?
I really want to soak in your assisstance.

If so, then let's start with this...
My question is, is this silane system you are referring to, so good that all thase scientists, including a Phd taphonomist, neurologists, Geologists, physicists, mineral experts,and several other Biologists and M.D.'s, etc, etc., might not be able to tell the difference while visually inspecting it and my website? ( My website that I have referred to is, Petrifiedhumanbrain.com, and no other site on this subject is my work.
Please address this topic. I find it difficult to think that a man ( he was just a general house repair man, Luther Hodge) walking a shallow stream, 35 years ago, looking for cool rocks and fossils, could just happen to stumble across the one "manmade fossil brain."
He is dead, but his daughter has taken us to where he found his rocks.

As far as Professor Trexler, I don't know how much he might or might not be wiling to become involved.

He, like yourselves, has not actually seen or held the specimen.
He is closely related to a Phd micro and cellular Biologist from a University Professor, who has seen and held it, who has told him of it.

How do we deal with this, as not man made?
Guys, I'm not looking for fame or wealth.
I don't want in any kind of lime lite.
The whole thing for me has just to be able to present something that might be of interest.
My worldview is that there is not and never will be anything that can be considered concrete evidence for either side.
This rock cannot provide that proof for either side, ever, at least in my strong opinion.
That doesn't mean that it is not interesting or hod potential to learn from.
Well, those are my thoughts, anyway.
( P.S. the rock is not in Calgary, nor has it ever traveled there. I always keep close tabs on it's whereabouts, and would not allow such an excursion without me going with it.)

i think this best sums up most of the discussion on these topics

In order for you to be taken seriously the first thing you need to do is to distance yourself from Creationism as far as possible and get away from any association with the ICR. Even a remote association with those groups immediately disqualifies you from serious scientific consideration.

Secondly, you need to retool your web site to present data rather than opinion, and get rid of all those silly pictures of people gawking at the "fossil". It's an entirely un-scientific presentation and further corrupts your position.

Im connfused. Youve said that the above scientists have only seen the pictures?
I dont have any confidence that a neurologist or a cell microbiologist or physician would be able to tell the forensics regarding the makeup of the fossil or its location. However, you say a TAPHONOMIST has looked at iot? What did he or she say. Taphonomy is the branch of paleontology that looks at what happend to a fossil from its deposition till someone finds it or digs it up. Most taphonomics guys I know are VERRY environment of deposition savvy. A taphonomist Ive worked with only deals with TEMPERATURES of deposition and diagenesis. The reason is that hes looking for oil and the diagenesis temps are critical to ccoking the organics into oil precursors.
A mineralogist should be able to tell what this is especially since youve done an Xray diffraction. The quartz minerals would have several different arrays of {001, 010, qnd 100} xl diffraction patterns based upon the type of quartz. A glass (like silane or siloxane) would be amorphous and show up a different pattern. The digested shard could be analyzed to see the pwercent oxides of Fe,Ca,Mg,AL,K that are there. (these are always defect lattice or inclusion ions in the lattice--there is NO PURE SIO2 anywhere, even window glass contains tons of K and Na).
Id be interested in seeing thweir reports if they did so. How about the cxhemist? if he was esxpwerienced in silane and siloxane hed know about silica polymers and their reactions.

As I think about it, a really tiny sample core <1/64 an expose it to a laser ablation and then plasma mass spec would tell alot about its "Tree ring" chemistry with depth.

Some destructive testing is called for unless noone can spring for it.Id let other scientists besides physicians have the say-so because, as I said, I dont think we deny its a brain. I want to know how its gotten there and how it got preserved.