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

As I started looking it over, then researching it, I started looking at a lot of different rocks.
Concretions, ambergris, geodes, a lot of kinds of chert nodules.
I heard a lot of things from a lot of people.
I heard all that stuff, but nobody could show me anything that was anywhere near to it.
I searched thousands of images in books, internet, even geo lab or two.
Nothing.
One Phd Geologist told me probably chert nodule.
I asked if Geode?
She said "no" because indications of (what would be, if a geode) gas expulsion through tracks that come out all the way to the surface from both ends. In other words, they enter, meander internally, then exit, and one involves a cavernous area. ( I think this is called a vug.)
She said, no way a geode, one reason because the gas would exit only one direction, and gas exits would most likely be all towards what would have been an upwardly direction.
She said, worm holes, from when chert was soft.
I showed her the xrays and cat scans on my website. She kept saying Neurolgy should see it, she didn't know anything about a brain.
I showed her where Neurology had seen it.
She saw the creationist page, and immediately dismissed any Neurologic assessment.

To sum this up, Geologist says not concretion or geode...showed why not.
Said it is a fossil, because of worm trails.
s
Said not a brain.
Said not a brain, but should be seen by Neuro Anatomy, because she didn't know the first thing about a brain.
I showed her where Neuro Anatomy had seen it, believed it to be a brain.
She shut the whole conversation off because Neuro anatomy Professor is YEC, so therefore obviously the assessment is strongly biased.
Chewed me out for fifteen minutes for being YEC.
I wasn't there to proseletize, just wanted a professional to give me info I could sink my teeth into.

Well, I have put it before another Neuro Anatomy Professor, YEC, thinks it is.
Yet another, who is head of Neurology, major hospital, says he thinks it possibly is, wants more tests... He is not NOT YEC.

It is really hard to get any Phd to look at a rock.
So what do we do, just say," forget it" and go about our merry ways?
This thing has been in public view for close to four years.
I think it is time for either closure, and forget about it, or prove what it is...a natural fossil phenomenon, worthy of a lot of study, if for no other reason than pure science.
I'm just telling some history of this fossil.
Please don't anyone ream me out about YEC.
I am not here for YEC or OEC or evolution or really, really old universe, or anything except locking down exactly how it is made.
If you guys, YEC or evolution, want to hash this out, be my guest. I am not even a small fish in anybody's pond.
I'm just curious, and if it can help someone, then great. If it can quench a curiosity...great.
Please just leave me or my convictions out of this.
This specimen is able to stand on it's own merits.

Farmerman is doing this exactly. That is professionalism.
Also...the drilling was for the purpose at first, to just look inside it to see what it looks like within.
Then, the second drilling,( in the same place, just going a little deeper,), was to obtain internal dust, that I could send to Calgary.
What wording should be on a work order request, indicating what test (tests) I need done? Is more dust okay for this testing, or do I need to go somewhere close to here for a very small dia. core drilling. Is the fossil safe to do this small core drilling, if this is what you suggest? ( Will it shatter)?
If core drilling, what size, and what test?

Suggest company to do this?

Im somehow saddened by the geologists unscientific outlook. While I can appreciate her view, she didnt arrive at it very well in this case. She seemed to have a notion in her mind that all things are evolution related and she isnt curious enough to analyze a possible outlier to see what is the modus and reason for its existence. HMMMM. very poor approach and I apologize for our craft.Were not all mules. On the other side, your own Dr Trexler , seems, to me, to be honestly motivated and is able to provide objectivity before creeds.

I also have a working hypothesis , but that merely aids me in approaching the task. I feel that the specimen is a specimen of chert. Chert is biogenically deposited and fossils of organic material have been known to be chertified in scuccessive steps(cf the US "Petrified Forest"). Chert also can be semi "hardened" when it can be removed from its limestone matrix.

Cherts take on a variety of colors and can be mimiccked by the silane process Ive stated. The best way to distinguish is by a few minor destructive tests. Your drilling for a sample must take out about a gram of the powder and this would be run by a detailed lpowder camera where you would see , by the reflection planes on specific strands of the chert, what the species of quartz it is. If it aint chert, then itd be silane/solixane, or chalcedony, opal, or flint.
ALso two other tests are called for . A piece of the material should be flaked off for a thin section analysis as I stated up front. Cherts , opals, flints chalcedonies, silane etc will all show specific patterns of extinction and fibrous or xline nature that can only be appreciated at 30 micron slices .
A final test is to take another gram, weigh it very accurately, then ASH the sample ina 500(C) muffle furnace and then reweigh (when cool)and calculate the " percent loss on ignition".

I have several candidate sites in TEnn that are cherty and the specimen, must be compared to one of those .(Of course , the assumption was that the sample IS from within a formation, if its isnt, its probably manmade)

The auto presumption that this was a concretion could actually be the case , but would pnly be definitavley stated after testing and locating its site of geologic origin.

Im willing to have my worldview tested and Im glad that youve gotten a similar idea. SO we can put aside any conclusions until after the work is done.

Thanks Farmerman, and from the other side, I hope you will begin to trust that while there is bogus work from YEC, it is not "all a bunch of con men".
I've been to a couple of their conferences, and from what I've seen, they seem sincerely devoted to seeking answers.
Hey, a YEC presented gives his/her presentation, and everyone has the chance to Q/A and in this, they can, and do, challenge and/or rebut.
I'm not a scientist by trade, and even I challenged and put my two cents worth in.
As well, when Suzanne and I presented the phb, they held our feet to the fire.
They are not a bunch of "wide eyed and bushy tailed " little "believe alls."

This is where I met the taphonomist.
He witnessed our presentation.
He was having a difficult time putting it all together, one way or the other.
( By the way, he has a tremendous respect for evolutionist scientists and their passions).

These people are very heavily steeped in their own agendas and don't jump on band wagons" easily. They don't mind being critical, no matter what you have or who you are. They are pretty reserved, until they become passionate about a topic.
I do not have YEC support in general, as this being of great YEC importance.
Evoluion looks at things a bit differently, and I'm sure that if we lock it down to be a true fossil, they will have things that will be significant to them.
I do not know how YEC or deep time might look at it at that time.

Have you gotten info for me yet about possible companies close by that could do these tests?

I just need to know, the purpose of these tests...
To determine if man made, or put that to rest
To determine if concretion
To make firm identification as being a true fossil

Is this correct, or are we just trying to eliminate certain possibilities?
Sorry, but yes, I do ask a lot of questions.
They feel, for the most part, that soft tissue fossils are already known to exist, so that part is already known to be established.

Im assuming that you are in Tennessee. Id really suggest that you take samples to a U of TEnn geology dept (I believe they are in Knoxville). They work with Oak Ridge and have severaql Xray camera and EDAX . They also have a rock prep lab that can do the thin sectioning. The "loss on ignition" is a standard sedimentological test that determines how much organic material is in your specimen.
Also the University of North Carolina (UNC state). Theres a paleontologist there that foun d the T rex with the "Soft tissues" that Creationists are having fun with.

While there are several companies that do thin sectioning (I find that private companies are rather dear in their cost bases, a Uni will usually stick a grad student on it and for minimum wage you get a good answer. Always have the samples rerun a few times so that you get stability in the math.

There is a new technique for directly dating fossils with the U-Pb method. I mentioned that quite some time ago in this website and in the following forum:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.bio.paleontology/browse_thread/thread/ff0edd6a858072b3?hl=zh-TW

I also have a working hypothesis , but that merely aids me in approaching the task. I feel that the specimen is a specimen of chert. Chert is biogenically deposited and fossils of organic material have been known to be chertified in scuccessive steps(cf the US "Petrified Forest"). Chert also can be semi "hardened" when it can be removed from its limestone matrix.

Yes, I feel sure this is what she was talking about, as she agreed there was the possibility of the fossilized fingerprint.
I think, after all this time, I am starting to get a better picture.
my time frame may be different than yours. but I feel the general picture or dynamic, is the same.
Very, very interesting indeed!
Many things I had not thought of!

I got in touch with UTK Geo today, left message simply that I would like a return call.
No call back yet, but I'll try again Monday.

The U/Pb technique youve mentioned has been used to work out relative ages for BONE. (I dont think we are dealing with bone here). The speciment must have a real basis for belief that it would contain U in its original makeup and not a later addon as Uranium salts are somewhat soluble and can leach.

Bone is made of a a mineral called APatite or Collophane which are phosphate based . These minerals can easily substitute U in theior matrix while the animal was alive (after all, we want to know the age of the fossil, not the soil surrounding it).

I dont think wed want to use any variant of Uranium isotopes that are popular for determining ages of rocks (Anyway wed need some zircon or battelyeite)

Id really reccomend optical thrmoluminescence if someone is really chomping at a bit to do some kind of absolute dating.
Youve gotta learn the benefits AND limitations of many techniques before commiting money to some dubiouis lab method just because we are able.

As far as Mr Conrads "Carboniferous bones", Id determine whether they were, indeed, even bones first. These specimens had coveniently been found in an ex-situ locale that was separated from any matrix, so one can say anything about what they are. ( I think Ill go with the Macrae articloes from the 1990's when "medved" was a similar person who was touting the "Carboniferous ages" of human bones.

What does "flaked off" mean
I know, of course what a thin section is, but what is the minimum requirement?
This sounds as if it can be an EXTREMELY small piece...a flake?

yep, A flake is anything >30 mict=rons in thickness. The flake mut be polished , mounted on a slide and then the top polished so the entire specimen is 30 microns thick. All polarizing light chemistry and metallurgy is based on this thickness. Quartz will show up as all gray, white, or black. Feldspars will show up the same color as quartz but will produce twinning and extinction patterns like chevrons or stripes.
A thin section preparator will know.

Heres a thin section of a type of feldspar that shows the black and white twinning.

Should I be looking at the monitor ?????

Hmm, I seem to have failed to post the actual slide. Here it is (I hope)

30 microns thick, what are the other two dimensions, minimum?
(Or diameter, if that is a more suitable term.)
Also, what is the difference of getting the specimen slice from the outer part, vs inside?
We just can't have this thing cut right down the middle.
Have been advised by many scientists to do it, and many advise not to do it.
It is just too destructive, and irreversible.
As you are advising me, there are too many tests that can be done that are, some destructive, but not very destructive.
We want this treated as a very fine fossil, a one of a kind, that is irreplaceable and tested in the ways that science is now testing certain fine fossils.
Destruction is always the option in the future, if it hasn't been done, but once it is done, there is no going back.
Just wanted to pass our thoughts along, and also...about those measurements and location of the flake?
Thanks

If youre willing, then make a slice that is about as big as a third of a standard microscope slide (whish is where wed mount em).

Since we dont know anything about xl orientation,you can cut it at about any direction, just save the remainder so that you could cut another slice at an orientation to the first one. All rocks and crystals are oriented in a myriad of directions and with a piece of something like chalcedony/chert in your hand, you only can tell the bedding orientation, and in igneous rocks you couldnt even tell that so , it really wont matter.
Cutting it in half is nuts, dont do that. EVen if it isnt what you say, youd want to preserve the original fabric and surface. Im only requesting a small segment 1/2" x1/2' x30 microns final thickness. Thats about as big as a nickel.

The measurements are extinction angles, microscopic view under crossed polarizers , and grain measurements and optical chem composition.
Ask for detailed pictures under cross polarizers , many orientations, and plain light.

Just bookmarking.... fascinating stuff.

I think I've seen that picture somewhere before. Isn't it evidence that Bush planned 9/11?

Great! I think I can talk the better half into this. Help me a bit more and assure her it won't just shatter the whole thing? ( the cutting)
Also, yeah, totally agreed about not cutting down the middle, but why do some people say that material is needed from deep within? Something about the permineralization being possibly more profound or pronounced from there?
If this is correct, thn is that what you wes referring to when you said something about a 1/16" drilling?
Is that for depth into the specimen or am I completely off base?
Thanks

deeper within the sample , it may be possible to still see organic material rather than just silica. As far as NOT shattering it.Id give it to a sample preparator who will look at any cleavage planes so no shattering does occur. I cant guarantee against any mishaps , I can only give an opinion about how Id do it.Id use a very small carbide or diamond blade circular rock saw. Keep he saw cutting slowly and keep it well oiled or watered (depending on the system.)

Have you, in your experience, ever known of one to shatter or destroy the specimen. If so, advice on any necessary alternative, and how necessary is this to validate the specimen?

I know that some people feel there is no further validation necessary, than what has already been accomplished.
My goal is to, as absolutely non destructively as possible, achieve Geologic and Neurologic undeniable proof, one way or the other, with no further doubt.
I think the " how did it happen, and age debates will ensue, if this is attained.
I have my opinions, you have yours. Some of those opinions are identical, others, maybe not.
Doesn't matter, what I think doesn't matter.
Nobody should be asking me how it happened, I think it is for me to just bring it to the provable, or disprovable point. That is what I ask for help with.

This, as is true with all fossils, is both biologic and equally, Geologic.

I do not run from "big minds" with this, I run to them.
I try to get help from people who are as unbiased as possible.
This is very difficult.
I have, from the beginning, worked to attempt to falsify, way more than to prove what it is.
Some of that has been to place it's existence in the public arena, and my works sub thought is, " If you can, disprove this thing, and I'll shut up and go away."
So, my question is, will the tests you suggest, confirm or deny it's position as a fossilized human brain?

Neurology seems to have a bit of a tough time with an absolute confirmation.
I have heard many times, they can't disprove it, either.
Kind of a heck of a rock, huh?

Personally, I have studied as much info as I am privvy to, about wax brains, The Hindze brains (Russia), peat bog brains and partially petrified brains
( also, the whale brain).
I can't find anything with even close to the amount of detail this thing has, both internally and externally.
And then, I think about what the Taphonomist said about concretions not having this amount of detail, and the Geologist giving strong evidence it is not a geode, but is chert that she felt was handled in soft form and has worm trails.
So again, will these tests confirm one way or the other, will they just help, or will there still be lots of wiggle room???

http://thenewunschooler.blogspot.com/2008/09/fossilized-whale-brain-photos.html

If this is a rel whale brain fossil, its context i known definatively. Its from a Miocene cliff deposit. Probably a marl wherein a specimen could get turned to chert.However, you can see the quartz crystals inside the Concretionary structure. I think an expert on whale brain anatomy had better at least contribute an opinion about the entire structure. Im not convinced until anatomy is defined without a doubt. Then we can look at its formation.
Look at the quartz crystals and decide. COuld this be a fossilized coral with quartz cryatals inside like a geode?

In any fashion. Its still a really cool
1fossil
or
2 biopseudomorph (thats a fossil that looks biological but aint)