6 ms·

Why do you have opbjections on a matter you clearly have a lot of questions about how it actually works? Wouldnt it be more fair to openly ask the questions, wi

Why do you have opbjections on a matter you clearly have a lot of questions about how it actually works? Wouldnt it be more fair to openly ask the questions, without objecting to the matter at hand?

verisimi 5y ago
Firstly, I am asking the questions. But, to clarify, I object at the lack of detail that these stories have. Instead, we are simply presented with the result - tada - and we are meant to make 'ooh aah' sounds. A baby chick, curled up, 66 million years old! It _feels_ manipulative. But when you think about what is being suggested there is so much that is simply passed over and not explained. I genuinely am a skeptic, about everything. I want the evidence, I want to know how I can test it, etc. As far as I can tell this just seems like a highly implausible story.
- eesmith 5y ago
  "These stories" are not scientific publications! We are meant to read the primary literature if we are curious about more details, not simply go "ooh ahh" ... or complain. Here's the primary literature. https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01487-5 https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01487-5 Similarly, news articles aren't textbooks on paleontology, if only because otherwise every article on fossils will need to have pages of identical introductory material. You are the most boring kind of skeptic - the one who wants the world to spoon-feed you information until you're happy. If you're a real skeptic, then apply that skepticism to your original questions. You asked: > How would you be able to distinguish it? Why do you think they couldn't be distinguished? Haven't you ever seen a rock with multiple minerals in it, like mica in granite? Or the individual components that make up coquina? > the egg would not likely be egg shaped, imo? Why do you think that? If I read the paper correctly, the rock was mostly made of river sediment. The egg would have been buried, sat for a long time to fossilize (>10K years), and over a much longer period that sediment turned to rock. Why must the fossil, which is a rock by this point, change its shape? > preserved in something like mud I believe that means you didn't read the primary article, which describes the rock as: "red, fluvial, coarse clastic deposit (He et al., 2017), and mainly consists of a red conglomerate and glutenite, interbedded with a small amount of sandstone, siltstone, and locally interspersed tuff. The formation preserves dinosaur bones and eggs, and fossil plants (Department of Geology and Mineral Resources of Jiangxi Province, 1997)." In other words, yes, "something like mud." > it would still be so much less dense than the matter around it You do not understand what fossilization means. By this time the original materials of the egg have been replaced by minerals, preserving the form, but not the original density. > if it is a stone, how were the scientists able to cut open the stone to expose the fossilised skeleton system etc? After the fossilisation process, its all stone, right? Again, have you never seen a stone with multiple minerals in it? The minerals that become the fossil are different than the minerals of the surrounding stone. That means they can be distinguished. They can be hard to tell apart, yes, but as https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bone-vs-stone-how-to-tell-the-difference-62895060/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bone-vs-stone-... comments "fossils are often different in color and smoother than rocks from the same deposit", "A rock ... will be solid, and the inside of the rock will look like the outside. Fossil bone, on the other hand, will probably preserve the internal bone structure", and "The porous nature of some fossil bones will cause it to slightly stick to your tongue if you lick it". And those aren't the only differences. > it's not like archeology where there is material that can be brushed away. Archeology doesn't only brush things away. And in any case, shouldn't you be skeptical that your understanding of archeology is relevant?
  - verisimi 5y ago
    > The egg would have been buried, sat for a long time to fossilize (>10K years), and over a much longer period that sediment turned to rock. Why must the fossil, which is a rock by this point, change its shape? Do you really believe that an egg can sit in mud for 10,000 years and not degrade? > The formation preserves dinosaur bones and eggs, and fossil plants It sounds like we have a genuine slice of pre-history. If they had said that they had preserved an insect being eaten by a chick being eaten by a dinosaur - ie 3-in-1 - would you believe that too? At what point do you try to establish your understanding with information that aligns to your experience? >> it would still be so much less dense than the matter around it > You do not understand what fossilization means. By this time the original materials of the egg have been replaced by minerals, preserving the form, but not the original density. An egg is mainly fluid, right? From what you say, you seem to think that the fluid would a/ stay in the egg for 10,000 years and then b/ be converted to solid stone. Is this really a plausible argument? You provide an example of how much trust there is in the purported authoritative sources, even though they are impossible to believe. If I said to you I had a 20 year old egg, that I had preserved on my bookcase, that it still had liquid in it - you would think we a fool or a liar. But a 10,000 year old egg in mud? No problem!
    - eesmith 5y ago
      No one claims there is no degradation nor any decay. Only that the fossilization is faster than total decay. And no one agrees with you that a news article is supposed to include the full paleontological details. > would you believe that too? But, they aren't, so your question seems pointless. > Is this really a plausible argument? Like I said, you clearly don't understand fossilization. It's a slow process. Precisely zero of the descriptions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization match your characterization. > even though they are impossible to believe You have yet to used your skepticism to analyze your own arguments. If your understanding is wrong, then your conclusion about what is possible to belief is likely also wrong. For example, you still haven't explained why you think any fossil rock should be uniform, with no way to distinguish between fossilized bone and its surrounding matrix. > you would think we a fool or a liar No. Again, use your skepticism on yourself. My first thought is that you sealed the egg, heated it up to kill any bacteria (but below 60C, which is when the egg white starts to congeal) and then ... let it sit for 20 years. No bacteria can come in. No fluid can go out. Why couldn't there be liquid after 20 years? My second thought is you had it in a jar of lime water, which is an old way to preserve eggs, yes, even for years. https://theoldwalshfarm.com/water-glassing-eggs/ https://theoldwalshfarm.com/water-glassing-eggs/ claims still edible after 2 years, so I can believe still with liquid after 20. So we know that eggs can last for years, with liquid inside. Why are you so trusting in the correctness of your beliefs? And the claim isn't even that the egg was hermetically sealed in order to be fossilized. Over time the content of the egg is replaced with groundwater, while in an environment that doesn't easily support organic decay. Which we know exists, as we've found 2,000 year old bodies in bogs, and the rock formation the fossil was in indicates a fluvial environment.

Why do you have opbjections on a matter you clearly have a lot of questions about how it actually works? Wouldnt it be more fair to openly ask the questions, without objecting to the matter at hand?

verisimi 5y ago

Firstly, I am asking the questions. But, to clarify, I object at the lack of detail that these stories have. Instead, we are simply presented with the result - tada - and we are meant to make 'ooh aah' sounds. A baby chick, curled up, 66 million years old! It _feels_ manipulative. But when you think about what is being suggested there is so much that is simply passed over and not explained. I genuinely am a skeptic, about everything. I want the evidence, I want to know how I can test it, etc. As far as I can tell this just seems like a highly implausible story.

eesmith 5y ago
"These stories" are not scientific publications! We are meant to read the primary literature if we are curious about more details, not simply go "ooh ahh" ... or complain. Here's the primary literature. https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01487-5 https://www.cell.com/iscience/fulltext/S2589-0042(21)01487-5 Similarly, news articles aren't textbooks on paleontology, if only because otherwise every article on fossils will need to have pages of identical introductory material. You are the most boring kind of skeptic - the one who wants the world to spoon-feed you information until you're happy. If you're a real skeptic, then apply that skepticism to your original questions. You asked: > How would you be able to distinguish it? Why do you think they couldn't be distinguished? Haven't you ever seen a rock with multiple minerals in it, like mica in granite? Or the individual components that make up coquina? > the egg would not likely be egg shaped, imo? Why do you think that? If I read the paper correctly, the rock was mostly made of river sediment. The egg would have been buried, sat for a long time to fossilize (>10K years), and over a much longer period that sediment turned to rock. Why must the fossil, which is a rock by this point, change its shape? > preserved in something like mud I believe that means you didn't read the primary article, which describes the rock as: "red, fluvial, coarse clastic deposit (He et al., 2017), and mainly consists of a red conglomerate and glutenite, interbedded with a small amount of sandstone, siltstone, and locally interspersed tuff. The formation preserves dinosaur bones and eggs, and fossil plants (Department of Geology and Mineral Resources of Jiangxi Province, 1997)." In other words, yes, "something like mud." > it would still be so much less dense than the matter around it You do not understand what fossilization means. By this time the original materials of the egg have been replaced by minerals, preserving the form, but not the original density. > if it is a stone, how were the scientists able to cut open the stone to expose the fossilised skeleton system etc? After the fossilisation process, its all stone, right? Again, have you never seen a stone with multiple minerals in it? The minerals that become the fossil are different than the minerals of the surrounding stone. That means they can be distinguished. They can be hard to tell apart, yes, but as https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bone-vs-stone-how-to-tell-the-difference-62895060/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/bone-vs-stone-... comments "fossils are often different in color and smoother than rocks from the same deposit", "A rock ... will be solid, and the inside of the rock will look like the outside. Fossil bone, on the other hand, will probably preserve the internal bone structure", and "The porous nature of some fossil bones will cause it to slightly stick to your tongue if you lick it". And those aren't the only differences. > it's not like archeology where there is material that can be brushed away. Archeology doesn't only brush things away. And in any case, shouldn't you be skeptical that your understanding of archeology is relevant?
- verisimi 5y ago
  > The egg would have been buried, sat for a long time to fossilize (>10K years), and over a much longer period that sediment turned to rock. Why must the fossil, which is a rock by this point, change its shape? Do you really believe that an egg can sit in mud for 10,000 years and not degrade? > The formation preserves dinosaur bones and eggs, and fossil plants It sounds like we have a genuine slice of pre-history. If they had said that they had preserved an insect being eaten by a chick being eaten by a dinosaur - ie 3-in-1 - would you believe that too? At what point do you try to establish your understanding with information that aligns to your experience? >> it would still be so much less dense than the matter around it > You do not understand what fossilization means. By this time the original materials of the egg have been replaced by minerals, preserving the form, but not the original density. An egg is mainly fluid, right? From what you say, you seem to think that the fluid would a/ stay in the egg for 10,000 years and then b/ be converted to solid stone. Is this really a plausible argument? You provide an example of how much trust there is in the purported authoritative sources, even though they are impossible to believe. If I said to you I had a 20 year old egg, that I had preserved on my bookcase, that it still had liquid in it - you would think we a fool or a liar. But a 10,000 year old egg in mud? No problem!
  - eesmith 5y ago
    No one claims there is no degradation nor any decay. Only that the fossilization is faster than total decay. And no one agrees with you that a news article is supposed to include the full paleontological details. > would you believe that too? But, they aren't, so your question seems pointless. > Is this really a plausible argument? Like I said, you clearly don't understand fossilization. It's a slow process. Precisely zero of the descriptions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permineralization match your characterization. > even though they are impossible to believe You have yet to used your skepticism to analyze your own arguments. If your understanding is wrong, then your conclusion about what is possible to belief is likely also wrong. For example, you still haven't explained why you think any fossil rock should be uniform, with no way to distinguish between fossilized bone and its surrounding matrix. > you would think we a fool or a liar No. Again, use your skepticism on yourself. My first thought is that you sealed the egg, heated it up to kill any bacteria (but below 60C, which is when the egg white starts to congeal) and then ... let it sit for 20 years. No bacteria can come in. No fluid can go out. Why couldn't there be liquid after 20 years? My second thought is you had it in a jar of lime water, which is an old way to preserve eggs, yes, even for years. https://theoldwalshfarm.com/water-glassing-eggs/ https://theoldwalshfarm.com/water-glassing-eggs/ claims still edible after 2 years, so I can believe still with liquid after 20. So we know that eggs can last for years, with liquid inside. Why are you so trusting in the correctness of your beliefs? And the claim isn't even that the egg was hermetically sealed in order to be fossilized. Over time the content of the egg is replaced with groundwater, while in an environment that doesn't easily support organic decay. Which we know exists, as we've found 2,000 year old bodies in bogs, and the rock formation the fossil was in indicates a fluvial environment.